VMs: Re: Epithelial cells & cilia

[steve ekwall <ekwall2@xxxxxxxx>]

hi all :-)


*YES* my stupid reasoning here, but 1200's sound MUCH BETTER!

-=se=-
steve (IT'S OLDER then you Think!) ekwall

 

 Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 11:40:20 +0100
 From: Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 To: Voynich Ms. mailing list <voynich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Subject: VMs:  Re: Epithelial cells & cilia
 
 Hi Gabriel,
 
 > > Does anyone know who would be the real author of this claim? Anyone who
 > > would agree with this interpretation about epithelial cells, presumably
 > > those on f86v?
 >
 >If this claim is correct, it would means that the author of the vms was not
 >only able to make a powerful mircoscope, but also able to produce thin
 >histological sections, plus some sort of staining (assuming that the dots in
 >the roundy things are cell nuclei.
 >
 >I would say that this is *extremely* unlikely to have been achieved in the
 >1400's.
 
 Newbold's decipherment was based on the claim that Roger Bacon used a 
 microscope both for laying down the tiny strokes that formed the core of 
 the code, and for viewing epithelial cells, etc.
 
 So... rewind 200 years to the 1200's! :-)
 
 For sure, Bacon was a very smart bloke (Doctor Mirabilis!)... but no, I 
 don't believe it either. :-)
 
 Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....