VMs: Is 1615 Too Late?

["Robert Teague" <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Gabriel Landini wrote:

> I think that 1615 is too late date.
> Rudolf died in 1612, so if we owned it, this must have been before he
died.

Yes, I...resisted...this as well. But it would have been unscientific of me
to
reject the date out of hand. So little can be read with certainty in the VMs
that *any* possibility has to be checked out.

In this case, I found the date *first*, based on the number/letter
correspondences
of f49v, in three places on f68r2, and one place on f68r3. And *then* I
found an
astronomical match for both diagrams on the same day of that year.

So the evidence seems to be pretty strong it's correct. It's bolstered by
finding an astronomical match in the date of 1533 given in f68r1.

Adding fuel to the fire, I happened to observe a triangular planetary
conjunction matching the NW corner of f67v2 at sunset on 26 March 1615.

Reading over the Voynich timeline, 1615 doesn't seem to directly contradict
anything in it. If it does, one way out would be to assume that 1615 is a
prediction, rather than an observation.

Robert

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list