Meanwhile on yet another "Eagles Disobey" forum, "Caspa" wondered whether there might be a link between Dan Burisch and George Baresch (yes: neither of them can read the VMs). And there was me thinking that it was only Jacques Derrida and his ilk who did that kind of punning stuff. *sigh*
But wait - Caspa has also posted up some explanatory Voynich pictures in the middle of a list of "Document Links". These are from "Dr Marcia McDowell" (another recurring player in the whole Dan Burisch saga) and dated 2006. As always, make of them what you will...
First up: the EVA fragment "oteos" by the curious box at the top of f102v2 (above, with and without blue paint) is claimed to represent "The Orion Cube (Yellow Book)", though I have to say it looks a bit like a pop-up toaster to me. The claim is that, if you look really carefully (the hypnotic trick phrase used by all secret visual histories), the two tiny dots above the "c"-shaped letter ~kind of~ turn the gallows character into a "R", which ~if you squint a bit~ makes the word look like "Orion". (And, of course, there is that whole modern Hancock / Bauval mythology about Orion and the pyramids to tap into). Probably nonsense, but all the same, hurray! Someone is bothering to look really closely at the VMs! :-)
Next: a picture that supposedly details "Lotus Research" in the Voynich Manuscript. According to Caspa here, "the inset is a photograph taken through Dan's microscope of a DNA swirl from Lotus. The background is from the Voynich manuscript." (Actually, it's f16v with red muted). Errrm... is this saying that Roger Bacon had a microscope? Wasn't that refuted 75 years ago?
Finally: another picture picking out the EVA word "taror" from f107r, which apparently encodes (reading right-to-left) to the word-pattern "[s/z].[o].[q/r].[a].[p/t/h]", i.e. perm any 1 of 2x2x3=12 to find the word you want (sorap? zoqah? etc). Well... Dan Burisch posted just now that the right answer is neither Sorat (as per this page, scroll-down to "Sorat" and "Sorat-Science"), nor Sorah, nor Zorah: but instead "none of them". Apparently, this is because "this book should never have been written, as its writer supposed the future was to be 'as such' before it happened. " And that, Burisch says, is "a no, no!" Of course it is - bless his tangled little tenses.
If you still want to read more (which is possible, but perhaps a little unlikely), there's an additional post here which may or may not answer all your Voynich-related questions about Burisch, J-Rods etc etc.
UPDATE: More Dan Burisch Voynichification...