An explanation of the Voynich Manuscript text

[Emma May Smith]

If it's in an unencrypted natural language, it would have been identified and translated by now.

This assertion (and any opposition to it!) is based on ignorance and untenable as a position. You can neither say "something is false because it is not known to be true", nor can I say "something is true because it is not known to be false". They are just generally bad arguments.

If there's no evidence for something, there's no reason to believe it.   Where's the evidence it's natural language?

I've provided evidence that the text of the Voynich Manuscript, ignoring the fine detail of its layout on the pages, was generated by a stochastic process.    I can reproduce text closely resembling the text of the real manuscript using the method I proposed, and have also shown that the word order, ignoring layout, of the Voynich Manuscript appears to be random (i.e. the probability of words is independent of the previous word, and is close to the value you'd expect by chance).

I suggest that the layout details are most simply explained as a postprocessing step.

You haven't provided evidence, even you don't believe that. You've simply provided a way to generate a very similar text. Just because you can make a text in that way does not mean the author did. This very same discussion was had with Rugg's theory. He beat you to the punch by over a decade, and I don't see what you've added to his theory.