Re: VMs: could it not be a hoax (I would like it not to be it)

["Robert Teague" <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I don't think that physical examination of the VMS is likely to help much
with this
> question.If the vellum or ink were shown to date from significantly after
1586, then
> that would eliminate a lot of possible explanations, and would strongly
suggest a
> modern hoax. However, this doesn't appear likely - there's a lot of
evidence
> suggesting that the VMS dates from 1470-1586, and no solid evidence (as
far as I
> know) suggesting a later date. A date of 1470-1586 is consistent with all
the main
> theories about what the VMS might be, so it doesn't help us a lot.

For dating from the manuscript itself, I use the letter/number
correspondences
on f49v and apply them in the Astro section.

For example, the last word in the text around the Moon (lower circle) on
f68r1
is 1533.

f68r2 and r3 depict the same event, and the date of 1615 can be found
in several places on both folios.

The fact that dates found in the VMs can be confirmed by finding the
astronomical event depicted on that date using planetarium software
is a strong indicator (to me, anyway) that it's not a hoax, and that there
is real information there.

Robert

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