Dragons, Dogs & Amadillos?

[Linda]

It's 'ram-ish', 'lamb-ish' and 'fleece-ish' all at once. 

The interpretation consists of three parts. All three parts have to fit and make sense with the two other parts in the given sequence. If the interpretation does all that, then it is worth considering. If the interpretation does not do that, then one is imposing their opinion on the evidence.

Can you please lay that out for me to its conclusion? I get parts of it, but I don't see the relevance of putting the three interpretations together, what conclusion is reached, nor how that is not imposing one's opinion on it.

Edit.. I believe I understand this much: 
1. It looks like a ram, partly. 2. It looks like a lamb from Agnus Dei tradition, partly. 3. It looks like a fleece due to the arched back, partly. Have I got the sequence correct? Put them all together and you get all three in one, and this means it is worth consideration as you have not imposed your opinion on it? And by the way the Fleece is connected to Philip the Good by 1430 and the book with the Agnus Dei drawing was in his library at the time as well, so they fit together that way too. Am I missing anything?

Edit 2.. The Agnus Dei 
drawing is in context of depicting the Lamb of God within a depiction of the opening of the sixth seal of the Apocalypse

This sixth opened seal launches horrific terrestrial and celestial disturbances that cause earth's mighty men to hide among the rocks of the mountains. These men call upon rocks to fall on them, hiding from the face of God and from the wrath of the Lamb. They know the day of the wrath of God and the Lamb has arrived.