The links on that page seem to be shuffled around quite a bit, from time to time.
I guess you meant this one:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
which is indeed the best I have seen of all.
However, it is also not perfect. They overlook two things:
1) the statement:
2) After settling on Hebrew as the source language, they do the remaining 'decoding' based on old Hebrew (Table 4), not modern Hebrew.
There are several other problems with the paper that have not been highlighted by anyone.
The bottom line remains, of course, that the conclusion: anagrammed Hebrew, or any Hebrew (old or new) is not valid.
I guess you meant this one:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
which is indeed the best I have seen of all.
However, it is also not perfect. They overlook two things:
1) the statement:
Quote:So when the pair say that Hebrew was the highest scoring match for the manuscript without rating the likelihood, this is a bit of a meaningless boast. “Someone has to have the highest score,” says Argamon.is doing insufficient justice to the close match given in Figure 4. At first I also considered that it could just be the end of the probability curve, but it is justified to call it an outlier and it is not understood why this happens. This has to be investigated further.
2) After settling on Hebrew as the source language, they do the remaining 'decoding' based on old Hebrew (Table 4), not modern Hebrew.
There are several other problems with the paper that have not been highlighted by anyone.
The bottom line remains, of course, that the conclusion: anagrammed Hebrew, or any Hebrew (old or new) is not valid.


![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)