09-06-2023, 07:33 PM
It can be shown, in a few instances, that the VMs artist is using certain techniques that make the interpretation of the illustrations more difficult. One such technique is ambiguity - the rough and unfinished appearance of the VMs. Things, like plants are difficult to identify.
Another technique is the combination of two images from separate sources to create hybrid representation found nowhere else. The VMs cosmos is one example. An odd little three-part cosmos has been drawn inside a wheel with eight curved spokes. How can it be explained without knowing the origins of both parts?
Also look at the ways in which the three structural parts of the cosmic illustrations are presented in BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 compared to the VMs. In all three, the central Earth is an inverted T-O, which is an unusual structure to find in a cosmic diagram. However, where BNF and Harley have pictorial representations of land, water, and air, the VMs has written text, vords.
There can hardly be a greater alteration in visual appearance than this change from pictorial to linguistic representation, however, structurally, it means nothing. The structure is still the same.
The investigation based on appearance, only sees the visual difference and rejects the comparison. The investigation that knows the underlying structure recognizes the similarity and accepts the comparison as valid. That is a VMs trick.
Likewise, the VMs starfield is visually quite different from the BNF and Harley examples, but it is still a starfield. And the cosmic boundaries are all constructed based on different line patterns, but all are still cosmic boundaries. The 43 undulations of BNF are ambiguously replicated in the 43 'visible' undulations of the VMs - interrupted by the curved spokes. This similarity confirms structural connections and shows more VMs trickery.
Appearance is deceptive and subjective. Structure is objective. When the interpretation of appearance is ambiguous, proper structure provides confirmation.
Another technique is the combination of two images from separate sources to create hybrid representation found nowhere else. The VMs cosmos is one example. An odd little three-part cosmos has been drawn inside a wheel with eight curved spokes. How can it be explained without knowing the origins of both parts?
Also look at the ways in which the three structural parts of the cosmic illustrations are presented in BNF Fr. 565 and Harley 334 compared to the VMs. In all three, the central Earth is an inverted T-O, which is an unusual structure to find in a cosmic diagram. However, where BNF and Harley have pictorial representations of land, water, and air, the VMs has written text, vords.
There can hardly be a greater alteration in visual appearance than this change from pictorial to linguistic representation, however, structurally, it means nothing. The structure is still the same.
The investigation based on appearance, only sees the visual difference and rejects the comparison. The investigation that knows the underlying structure recognizes the similarity and accepts the comparison as valid. That is a VMs trick.
Likewise, the VMs starfield is visually quite different from the BNF and Harley examples, but it is still a starfield. And the cosmic boundaries are all constructed based on different line patterns, but all are still cosmic boundaries. The 43 undulations of BNF are ambiguously replicated in the 43 'visible' undulations of the VMs - interrupted by the curved spokes. This similarity confirms structural connections and shows more VMs trickery.
Appearance is deceptive and subjective. Structure is objective. When the interpretation of appearance is ambiguous, proper structure provides confirmation.