M. Yokubinas translation

[Monica Yokubinas]

Monica, the fundamental problem with substitution-cipher translations (which is what yours appears to be) is that the position of the glyphs in the VMS, in its raw form, does not match natural language patterns. Plus, as soon as you say a glyph does double-duty, then there are even fewer instances of what SHOULD be a common letter in the manuscript.


You have picked a word here and there and applied a substitution code (including one for a very questionable plant ID) and have not explained why a normal letter that is used in pretty much every western language does not show up in the VMS as it should in natural language using your system.

.
As for me explaining my theory, I was NOT the one who published the paper. You were. It is your responsibility to explain the parts that don't add up. If you don't want to do that, then don't post your articles for public critique until you are ready to defend your ideas.

Throwing it back at me is not a defense of your ideas, it's simply avoidance.


If you can explain YOUR theory in a way that WORKS with the peculiarities of VMS text, that takes them into account, then you really HAVE something—something worthwhile. Explain the missing instances of the letter "g" and you will have accomplished something that hasn't been done yet.

You actually have just made my point for me... look at YOUR OWN 5 sentences above and only twice is 'g' in the middle of a word above for the word language.