Re: VMs: Kepler & the VMS

["Robert Teague" <rteague@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Humour aside, for your numbering scheme to work there must be logic.

John--

I spent an hour and a half writing replies to your points, but in the end
have decided to reply this way, and hope that my writing style doesn't
land me in hot water again.

I concede I started with certain assumptions, but they were not made
out of whole cloth-- the beginnings of the correspondences may be
found on f49v.

The manuscript is opaque. If I don't make some logical assumptions,
and see where they lead, I will end up looking at the pretty pictures
and I'm not willing to settle for that.

I think this work *has* gotten me somewhere. But I also concede
it's not that defensable. Yet.

I concede the point that I need to find a number sequence that can be
verified. I will continue to look.

I don't think the meanings of the diagrams are as complicated as you 
make them out to be. I think the date (or astronomical event) was 
significant to the Author, but nobody else.

The offer to send you (and anyone else) the .jpg stands.

Robert

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