Thanks to the correspondent who tells me the contact form has some sort of glitch.
You can contact me, if you like, through voynichimagery at gmail com.
To save still more readers writing to ask what I think about the ‘hoax’ theory… First, it’s a theory which has been around for a very long time – sixty years or so, I’d guess.
Second, I’m not qualified to offer any opinion about the written part of the text. I have no linguistic or cryptological theory except that, when considering the whole range of indications offered by the iconological evidence, I’d now suggest looking at 13thC Amaligh and the various administrative languages used then, and there. It’s just a suggestion.
Third, I must reject the ‘fake’ theory when it comes to the images, because to imagine any one person could have access to enough information, even as late as 1912, to have faked these images is to defy the historical record. I mean not only the information embedded in the images I researched and then explained in detail over almost a decade, but information about how persons thought and drew at different times and places, and other matters which even in the twenty-first century take some work to learn.
And no, I don’t recognise an “armadillo” in the manuscript. It’s another case where literalism has been assumed and only part of an image considered – and that divorced from its context.