VMs: Re: Re: New stars and what could or could not be in the VMs

["Robert Teague" <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Barbara wrote:

> But to me the most significant date dependent clue in the vms is the use
of
> T-O maps, they'd ceased to be used by the 1500s (falling out of use from
the
> late 1400s onwards); so what were they doing in a 16th/17thC document? And
> rather than an argument that just "explains away" (ie logical guess work
> without evidence) such an anomaly I think I'd need hard evidence that T-O
> maps were still in use in those later times before I'd accept that the T-O
> maps didn't put an upper limit late 1400s upon the vms: which would
exclude
> heavenly events in the 15 and 16 hundreds.

I assume you mean on f68v3, the 'galaxy' folio.

I strikes me as being evidence for Larry's idea, that the VMs Author took
ideas from other books. He might have used it just because he found
it interesting.

It certainly doesn't provide an upper limit to the creation of the VMs; I
could make a T-O map myself, here in 2004.

In any case, we won't know for sure it IS a T-O map until we can read
the captions. So the same problem that exists for my star identifications
exists for the "T-O Map" identification.  From the few I've seen, the
"T" is upside down from the usual practice.

The upper left might say "Klingons" the upper right "Romulans", and
the lower "Federation".   : )

Robert


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