VMs: Re: Voynich MS Theory

["lampis" <rilampis@xxxxxx>]

Hi,
I am just an observer here, fascinated by the erudition and doggedness
that some of you display in trying to get to the solution.
I am also intrigued by the power of observation of Martin Herron (re: the
sunflower/passion flower drawings), but personally I would classify his
theory merely as number 245A.
The theory doesn't make sense to me; if it is true that VMS is just a piece
of anti-Christian propaganda, why not write it in plain English or Latin? In
a readable manner it would have been much more effective.
Anyway, we'll all hope that, through this mega brainstorming, we will soon
get to the bottom of this cosmic plot.
Thank you Martin,
Lampis




----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Herron" <martinherron0@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <vms-list@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 4:17 PM
Subject: VMs: Voynich MS Theory


> Hello - I've become a member here purely because I would like to talk to
> someone who knows something on the subject of the Voynich MS.  I only
become
> aware of it's existence a few months ago, had forgotten about the whole
> thing until a documentary on BBC2 re-awakened an interest in the subject.
> What has happened since has made me feel the need to check something out
> with someone who knows what they're talking about.
>
> A combination of co-incidence, curiosity and an interest in evolution has
> turned an inconsequential event which occured almost immediately after
> watching the programme into a theory of the MS's origins which I haven't
> come across it in a quick trawl through pages on the Internet, although I
am
> not sure of its merit.  I hope I can state a convincing case, as I do not
> have the time to research it thoroughly myself, but feel it might be worth
> sharing.  I will try to be as concise as possible, but I must explain how
> the whole thing came about.
>
> During the documentary, I discovered that a theory of the origin of the
> manuscript was based on the fact that in the book there is a picture of a
> Sunflower, dating it to pre-1470 or something (all dates and historical
> facts I mention are based purely on my memory of the programme and may be
> way off - you will know the actual dates - they are pretty irrelevant to
the
> theory anyway).  There was a lingering shot of this picture of a
Sunflower,
> and I remember thinking that it didn't look much like a Sunflower to me.
I
> didn't think much else about it, as I have no interest in plants other
than
> finding them pleasant to look at.
>
> After the documentary, my flatmate showed me some of the things he'd been
> growing on his balcony (I live in a flat in London), including tomatoes,
> peppers and a passion fruit plant, which had flowered with the most
unique,
> unusual and beautiful flower I've ever seen.  Having never seen one
before,
> it felt strange to immediately recognise it as the flower that I had seen
> described as a Sunflower in the documentary.  He thought that it was
native
> to Asia, although information on the Internet suggest at least one species
> is from Eastern America.  However, the photographs I found of the Eastern
> American species showed a completely different flower to the one we have
> here.  I found photos of similar varieties but nothing that has the same
> flat, perfectly circular shape as this one.  Which kind of brings me
nicely
> to one of the points I wish to make.
>
> I was looking at the similarities and the differences between the picture
in
> the Voynich MS to different varieties of Sunflower, to see if I could find
> anything which would knock my idea off course.  I can't remember the web
> address offhand, but you may know of the site.  It describes the
blue/purple
> ring of petals drawn in the MS, and how this does not relate in any way to
> any variety of Sunflower today, and the tubers which do not form a part of
> the life cycle of any Sunflower today.  It describes the unusual shape of
> the petals in the picture which curl off in two directions, and states
that
> Sunflowers today have no petals displaying this characteristic.
>
> It seems to me that through evolution alone, there is little chance that
not
> one of these characteristics would have evolved in a positive direction
and
> become more obvious, rather than them all being phased out of the genetic
> makeup of the Sunflower.  Assuming that the manuscript is at least 400,
and
> at most 1000 years old, I do not believe successive generations of
Sunflower
> have had enough time to evolve in such a way as to shed so many details of
> their appearance, especially concerning the growth of tubers and the
split,
> curling petals joining back together and straightening out again.
However,
> I do believe in the potential that the petals could split further over
this
> period of time, or the plant would evolve positively more readily than it
> would evolve negatively - ie grow new bits or accentuate them, rather than
> successfully hide all traces of ever having a genetic characteristic the
> species acquired many generations ago.  I would expect at least one
species
> of Sunflower today to display at least one of the details shown in the MS.
>
> Then there is the Passion Flower.  Different varieties of Passion Flower
> look very different - red with large petals; blue with a green stem in the
> centre which looks like an alien TV aerial or something, etc.  From
looking
> at a few websites, it seems as though the Passion Flower has a far greater
> variety in its appearance inter-species, which gives far more scope for
what
> the ancestors of the Passion Flower may have looked like many generations
> ago.  There are differences between the picture in the MS and the flower I
> see before me now, but I stand by my belief that they are one and the same
> flower.  This has lead me to an interesting conclusion, which I would like
> to know your opinion on.
>
> The flower in front of me displays 2 circular, flat blue/purple ring of
very
> thin petals (actually, I think they are some sort of pollen buds, but they
> point out like spikes), which are coloured in successively smaller rings
of
> white and deep red as you move your eye towards the centre.  In the centre
> of the bud, there is a short stem which has some odd shaped sprouts
growing
> out of it, which also seem to be some kind of pollen-laden sacks.  The
> overall appearance is very dramatic - and there are some unusual shapes in
> the flower which relate to other pictures in the MS.  I will come back to
> this point later.
>
> In terms of the evolution of the Passion flower over n100 number of years,
I
> must say I know nothing.  However, having read a few books on the subject
of
> evolution and having an interest (although no formal qualifications) in
> evolutionary theory, I can easily envisage how the plant we see today
could
> display the differences it does to the picture in the manuscript, and it
is
> also far easier to explain the details which remain (the tubers, of which
> this particular plant has none, but I know what a passion fruit looks
like;
> the petal shape; and the perfectly circular bud) than explain how so many
> details have disappeared without trace.
>
> The most obvious things missing from the diagram in the MS are the ring of
> pinkish-white petals surrounding the spectacular bud, and the
weird-looking
> stem in the centre of the bud.  These two features accentuate the flower's
> dramatic and unusual appearance, and yet these features are completely
> missing from the MS, and the picture looks rather dull by comparison.  I
> have had two ideas as to why this may be.
>
> Firstly, and most simply, maybe these features had not evolved on the
> particular specimen that the artist was drawing.  Maybe the flower looked
> very much as it does in the MS, and through natural processes the Passion
> flower has just grown to become more spectacular today.  Although I have
> already tried to make a basic evolutionary argument for these physical
> changes, I think it is fairly unlikely that this makes a convincing
> arguement; then I came across another piece of information which made me
> think of something which I hadn't yet considered.
>
> Apparently, the Passion flower was a very important symbol in early
> Christianity (I think the dates I saw mentioned the 14th/15th century) -
for
> what reasons I do not know, but this occured to me:
>
> There are reasons why people and cultures place significance on particular
> objects and symbols, and I would suggest beauty is one of the most basic,
> and consistant, iconic traits throughout history, crossing all cultural
> boundaries.  Different cultures may have different ideas of what beauty
is,
> but everyone will idolise the beautiful before the plain.  Therefore, I
> believe that the Passion flower had this strange, almost alien quality
about
> it many centuries ago which attracted the people in its native land (who
> happened to be Christians), to look at it as a 'special' flower.
>
> This is where I need someone to let me know if I'm onto something or not.
> The theory I would like to put forward is that the manuscript may be a
piece
> of anti-Christian propaganda, and is possibly an attempt to belittle or
> defunk important symbols of the religion whilst simultaneously
> encouraging/advertising alternative belief systems.  I don't know anything
> of the history of the spread of Christianity around the world, but maybe
the
> Voynich MS was commisioned by someone who wanted to stop the spread of
> Christianity across a particular part of the world, and was written by
> someone sent to 'spy' on Christians in some part of the world, be it Asia
or
> America.  There are other pictures in the MS which are reminiscent of the
> wierd shape of the central stem of the Passion flower, although they are
in
> the biological section of the book and also resemble some kind of internal
> body parts.
>
> I feel that the anti-Christian thing fits in with the subjects the book
> seems to cover, but I don't know if I have made a feasable enough argument
> to make a strong point, and I also don't know if it could help to date or
> uncover where the book came from.  When I mentioned this to my brother in
a
> conversation recently, he mentioned a possible link with the Crusades,
> although this would obviously put the dates back from the 14th to the
> 11th/12th centuries.
>
> Anyway, I will leave it at that before I start to tie myself in knots, but
I
> wondered if this possibility had ever been considered. I am in no way an
> expert on any of the subjects I have talked about here, but hopefully
> someone is, and can explain why I'm wrong, or maybe why I might be right.
>
> Thanks for your time - I would love to know if you think this idea has any
> credibility.
>
> Yours,
>
> Martin Herron
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
> http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
> unsubscribe vms-list
>


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