[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: VMs: Research Note: f67v2

> Well, before this is further considered 'evidence',

I did indicate it was my opinion. Unfortunately my
writing style is rather forceful, and comes across
as indicating fact, when that's not really meant.

> I would like to point out that the above is
> rather a demonstration (to me) that one can
> produce celestial phenomena at will, for any
> date. It means that earlier such proposed 
> identifications could all be coincidental.

That was never in question. Consider that the other
day I pointed out I had found three of the 'planetary
conjuctions' in both the 15th and 16th Centuries. Would
I have said that if I was firmly for the latter dating?

> Consider:
> - the suggestion that the page shows a supernova
>   is just a hypothesis, not based on any observation.
>   It is not deduced from anything. The page could
>   with equal likelihood represent a long
>   list of other things

Deduced from what it looks like to me. The other
thing it looks like is an M5V flare star. But I'd be
curious to know what you think it is...

> - the suggestion that it is the 1604 supernova
>   is equally unfounded. It is also very unlikely,
>   since this is something that could not have been
>   predicted. I won't say that the MS cannot be from
>   after 1604, but it is a possibility which has a 
>   very low probability

Experts have been known to be wrong before. I have
an example ready, if needed.

And I say the 1604 supernova since the one in 1572
was covered by another folio. In my opinion.

> - the suggestion that the green stars should 
>   represent planets is to me equally unfounded.
>   I cannot imagine why the illustrator would have
>   chosen green to indicate planets. (perhaps it
>   is even just an artefact of the image, which seems
>   quite bad quality to me).

It was just Nick's suggestion. I doubt the application
occurred to him, since he favors the earlier dating.

> The fact that there are three planets near the 1604
> supernova does not in my opinion make all above
> hypothesis the truth. It shows that you can find
> celestial phenomena to match just about anything.

Not when you can find words that seem to be dates,
and the phenomenon depicted on the folio can be found
in that year. 

> In general, though, the effort of trying to match
> the cosmo and astro illustrations to facts and
> theories of the time is one that I find both
> very interesting and hopeful.

So long as it doesn't conflict with 'expert' opinions.

Sorry, Rene, but I try to go where the data takes me. And
I'd be just as happy if it indicated a century earlier than it does.


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