That’s because he made the translation match what he tells you the picture represents!:smack: In most cases, there is no reason to assume the illustration is of what he says the word is. The whole thing is circular.
And actually, as I pointed out, in the case of the “children,” the words he transliterates 1) aren’t even temperaments. Since when are “buzzing,” “on the edge,” “cloudy,” “golden bird,” and “oiled” temperaments? 2) even though he chose words from three different languages spread over 2000 miles apart, the only way he can get the words to even vaguely to match temperaments is to imagine they are being used in outlandishly figurative ways.
You really don’t get this whole methodology thing, do you? :dubious:
It was common to illustrate more important people larger, as for example Edward the Confessor in the Bayeux Tapestry. In the Voynich illustration, the larger figures are wearing tiaras or some other headgear, and have much more elaborate hairdos, suggesting they may be noblewomen and the others lesser members of their court.
I’ve been unable to find out the title of his Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Bristol website or his own websites, which is distinctly odd. He only cites himself twice in his own article, both to articles listed as “preprints” and not actual publications. Many of the other references in his article also look rather dicey.
Pelling talks about his ideas in new comments today, starting here.
On a related topic, look in the comments from the blog entry I mentioned earlier for comments by Rick Sheeger: it has been noticed that “Richard Sheeger” is a perfect anagram for Gerard Cheshire, so you can add sock puppeteer to his resume.
A general rule of thumb in life for finding the right answer is to find the side that you are on and pick the opposite. I am just devastated at your disapproval.
I just debunked them.:dubious: And apparently you haven’t been following the commentary by other experts such as Fagin Davis.
As I said, you don’t have to be an expert in a field to detect bullshit argumentation. And if you’ve read all the commentary here so far, and other commentary on line besides Pelling’s, you have more than enough information to say he is wrong. And if you still can’t tell, that’s your problem, not a problem with your expertise.
She was cited in various links above, such as this one.
Lisa Fagin Davis, Executive Director of the Medieval Academy of America, actually is an expert in this field.
There’s plenty of other criticism by others, not just Pelling. Try reading some of the other links above, as well as links in the news stories about this. Reactions by experts have been uniformly negative (when they could keep from laughing), which is why the University of Bristol pulled their press release and distanced themselves from Cheshire.
You know, a good debater would have said something like this *“Sorry, in my eagerness, I pointed to a dubious cite by a man who is by no means a expert. I am sorry for that, but I still think Cheshire is wrong and my other cites say so.” *
Instead you double down on the sarcasm and refuse to admit your cite was bogus.
The man is an acknowledged authority on the Voynich manuscript who has been writing about it and other undecyphered documents for well over a decade. He makes no claim as to having decoded it, but has written a book speculating on the history of the document and possibilities as to how it is encrypted. The site is not dubious, the guy is not a crackpot, he can’t help that Fortean Times gave a positive review to his book on the subject. He has more credibility in the clippings from his pinky toe than you have in your entire body.
Here is a post from Pelling from today (that I linked earlier but didn’t quote)
That isn’t the temperament of a crackpot, unlike the bombastic clown that you have hitched your wagon to. And the fact that you didn’t know about other detractors to Cheshire shows that you haven’t even bothered even reading the multiple links posted in this thread.
