Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

Your task is to reciprocate JKP's efforts by actually reading the many posts on JKP's blog. 
Yes reading them, not just scanning through one post to copy/paste a picture.
Yes, this may take some time, but I'm sure it will lead to  a better quality discussion in the future.

Does that seem fair?

I've spent a little time over the past few days looking at diverse blogs (as I had promised to do). One of the more interesting things I found was this page from Koen's blog,

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

where I read the following about Currier's insights:

Additionally, after analysis of the handwriting, he estimated that "six to eight scribes (copyists, encipherers, call them what you will)" penned the main text. For him, there was only one possible conclusion: "It must be a copying job."

What I fail to understand (and would like to know) is why you guys are rejecting Currier's copying job theory. Do you have technical evidence that would contradict his findings? If so, I would like to know what it is.

If you are not rejecting the copying job theory outright, then surely you must realize that, if it is a copying job, the origin of VMS text and drawings effectively becomes undated because one can copy a manuscript that is five hundred years old just as easily as one that is only one year old.

Another surprising thing I discovered (on that same blog page) is that Koen has found evidence that would support my theory that Voynichese was created in Toledo during the 13th century: 

What we do know for sure is that it's got a stirrup, and crossbows with stirrups appear in manuscript art during the 13th century. Around Spain rather than Germany.

In general, I've been finding that various aspects of my theories acquire support from what other scholars have previously stated.

But one theory on which I appear to be completely original is my claim that parts of the VMS were already successfully decoded (and even published!) during the late 16th century.

I imagine you guys find it hard to believe that people in the 16th century could decode it while our magnificent contemporary cryptographers with powerful computers at their disposal are miserable failures. But consider this: they were closer in time to the original encoding and may have been in possession of critical information that was transmitted orally across generations, or they may have been in possession of helpful VMS pages that are now missing or other written information that is now lost.

My follow-up theory is that information cryptically incorporated into the VMS marginalia (written by one of the 16th-century decoders) provides the only realistic chance for undertaking another decoding of the VMS.