|
I was also skeptical when Robert's numbering scheme was
proposed. But the more I investigated not only the appearance of numbers
in various places - but also how the numbers that came out made sense in the
picture shown (at least in the astro pages) I became a believer.
As in physics, the key is to be able to make predictions based on your
hypothesis. In too many cases we were able to search a page for numbers
(mostly dates), and THEN go to astronomical sources and find matches for
the diagrams. I tell you, there is something there.
Unfortunately, life has been too busy lately for me to spend much time in
the proof of this, but I think that if people stepped back for a moment and
looked at the evidence - rather than their pre-conceived opinions about this
they would realize that the numbering scheme works - and that the manuscript is
from the early 1600s (probably 1615).
It is NOT as if we are proposing that it was written by space aliens or
godly beings for goodness sake.
****************************** Larry Roux Syracuse University lroux@xxxxxxx ******************************* >>> rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 05/20/03 05:55PM >>> > I need to be careful how I respond (because I have > used similar arguments myself) but one has to be > very careful with 'evidence' based on interpretation. True enough. I've done the same in some other subjects I research. > You propose a translation of VMs characters to > numbers, but we can't know if it is correct or > not. I tried those correspondences simply because there was nothing else TO try. But right, wrong or indifferent, it's another angle of attack, and I don't understand why nobody besides myself and Larry Roux take it seriously. When we announced positive results from the Astro section, wasn't that intriguing enough for list members to at least look and see if they make sense? In the list archives I came across discussion of a folio (that I haven't been able to find again) where a particular character was repeated three times in a row. (Does anybody know where, offhand?) If the character in question is one of the numbers, then a number value would be a reasonable interpretation. If not, then the correspondences may need a harder look. > The recent mail from Jacques about Roger Bacon and > CDROMs takes 'ad absurdum' (sorry Jacques) a very > valid argument, which is that one can find > confirmation of any theory by searching for, > and spotting, examples that seem to confirm it. Very true, but that does not apply here. We are finding dates, and then astronomical configurations that match the diagram within that year. > Without implying any bad intentions from anyone, > one automatically tends to overlook the cases > that do not confirm the hypothesis and focusses > on the few cases that seem to do. I know I've > done it myself. As have I. > Still, keep up the good work - I would be suprised > if our mail archives would not contain some > correct guesses about the meaning of some features > of the VMs, without us knowing it. I agree. Robert ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying: unsubscribe vms-list |