Hi Robert, I’m new to Voynich studies and am enjoying your infographics. This is my first posting on the subject. I’m not sure if the Apian comet is shown by this folio, but but I like the work you’ve done, and so, assuming it was, I wondered where one would have had to have been situated to view that particular parallax of Apian’s Ingolstadt view.
The Calgary, Canada moon is on the photo which is shown oriented straight, the 28 degree (opposite) offset one is Pretoria, South Africa. If you rotate so that the Pretoria photo is oriented straight in front of you, the Calgary photo represents exactly the angle of your Apian Ingolstat overlay on the Voynich page. Since Calgary and Ingolstat are at very similar longitudes, one would simply move the location of the Pretoria end over by the same distance between Calgary and Ingolstat to obtain the (assumed) position of the folio author, roughly 5000 miles. This would put the viewing point on or near the west coast of Australia. It had not yet been explored by Europeans at the time of this comet, but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t have been anyone on such a voyage at the time.
Most interesting is that Menkalinan and Algol seem to be this same moon offset distance away from their respective placeholders as the moons are offset. If Capella was actually star 10, the star above the placeholder for Menkalinan, then all three non matching stars would be the same offset from their placeholders. If you match up the stars with their placeholders, the moons will look exactly like the Calgary Pretoria photo, as they should.
Still some anomalies, since Castor and Pollux seem to fit as is, as does Mirfak, but perhaps there is a reason for this, such as, it is a drawing of something that was originally in the shape of a bowl, drawn head on. This would make the edge items offset differently than more centered items.
I’ll have to read your PDF on the subject again, I do remember reading that you had actually decoded some of the star names using another method and matched them up accordingly, but I can’t remember which of those you had already deciphered and which are based on these overlay comparisons. I was hoping to support/extend your hypothesis, not refute it.
I don’t have a starchart program set up currently but it would be interesting to compare the Voynich page with the chart for that same date and time as the Munich version above, as viewed from Perth, Australia.
To conclude, I hope these observations help you and/or others develop your ideas and I look forward to any updates in future.
My thought on why not all the stars match is that the Author drew the event from memory, not while watching it. The general placement of the stars relative to each other is correct.
Glen Claston claimed that the VMs is in English, and the book had been in Cambridge, England at some point. I had started working on the angle : ) that the 28° rotation could be a clue supporting the idea, but had to put it aside and never got back to it.
Voynichology 
Hi Robert, I’m new to Voynich studies and am enjoying your infographics. This is my first posting on the subject. I’m not sure if the Apian comet is shown by this folio, but but I like the work you’ve done, and so, assuming it was, I wondered where one would have had to have been situated to view that particular parallax of Apian’s Ingolstadt view.
Based on your statement regarding the 28 degree rotation, I found this page on moon parallax http://www.unisa.ac.za/default.asp?Cmd=ViewContent&ContentID=18741&Preview=True&P_XSLFile=unisa/accessibility.xsl and this photo in particular helped me figure it out:
http://www.unisa.ac.za/astronomy/images%5Csred25-3mcncun.jpg.
The Calgary, Canada moon is on the photo which is shown oriented straight, the 28 degree (opposite) offset one is Pretoria, South Africa. If you rotate so that the Pretoria photo is oriented straight in front of you, the Calgary photo represents exactly the angle of your Apian Ingolstat overlay on the Voynich page. Since Calgary and Ingolstat are at very similar longitudes, one would simply move the location of the Pretoria end over by the same distance between Calgary and Ingolstat to obtain the (assumed) position of the folio author, roughly 5000 miles. This would put the viewing point on or near the west coast of Australia. It had not yet been explored by Europeans at the time of this comet, but that doesn’t mean there couldn’t have been anyone on such a voyage at the time.
Most interesting is that Menkalinan and Algol seem to be this same moon offset distance away from their respective placeholders as the moons are offset. If Capella was actually star 10, the star above the placeholder for Menkalinan, then all three non matching stars would be the same offset from their placeholders. If you match up the stars with their placeholders, the moons will look exactly like the Calgary Pretoria photo, as they should.
Still some anomalies, since Castor and Pollux seem to fit as is, as does Mirfak, but perhaps there is a reason for this, such as, it is a drawing of something that was originally in the shape of a bowl, drawn head on. This would make the edge items offset differently than more centered items.
I’ll have to read your PDF on the subject again, I do remember reading that you had actually decoded some of the star names using another method and matched them up accordingly, but I can’t remember which of those you had already deciphered and which are based on these overlay comparisons. I was hoping to support/extend your hypothesis, not refute it.
I don’t have a starchart program set up currently but it would be interesting to compare the Voynich page with the chart for that same date and time as the Munich version above, as viewed from Perth, Australia.
To conclude, I hope these observations help you and/or others develop your ideas and I look forward to any updates in future.
My thought on why not all the stars match is that the Author drew the event from memory, not while watching it. The general placement of the stars relative to each other is correct.
Glen Claston claimed that the VMs is in English, and the book had been in Cambridge, England at some point. I had started working on the angle : ) that the 28° rotation could be a clue supporting the idea, but had to put it aside and never got back to it.
I very much appreciate the support.