Discussion of "A possible generating algorithm of the Voynich manuscript"

[Torsten]

In the conclusion : "Why are we then convinced that the hoax hypothesis can be the only correct interpretation of the VMS?" A cipher, significantly more complex than mono-alphabetic substitution is ruled out only because of "the historical context" (1). Steganography is "not totally dismissed" but "compelling arguments against it do exist". The arguments being a rhetorical question "Why, e.g., would someone hide a genuine secret within an obviously “suspicious” book?" (2) and "high regularities of the VMS text significantly limit the maximal amount of information possibly hidden within the “container”, virtually rendering it useless." (3)

You write it yourself. We say that steganography is "not totally dismissed" and we conclude from the facts we know that the hoax hypothesis can be the only correct interpretation of the VMS. This is something else then your statement that "only meaningless 'self-citation' is possible". 

Our main point is that the VMS text contains too many regularities. The text responds to the page of the manuscript. There is also the line as a functional unit. The shape of each glyph corresponds to the previous glyph. Last but not least the tokens respond to previously written tokens on the same page. For instance on page page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. you can find numerous instances of tokens containing <oke> or <ote> like <qokeedy>, <qokedy>, <okedy>, <otedy>, <qokeey>, <okeey>, <qokey>, <qotedy>, <okeedy> ... (see You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). What can a string like <oke> or <ote> mean if he is repeated so often? Or with other words, where is the information hidden?

1) Fair enough but the ink is not dated and  it is not unconceivable that a more complex cipher was invented or derived from an existing cipher, known since antiquity, just once. A cipher/steganography/abbreviation hybrid could be designed to cover a wide range of ciphertext:plaintext ratios for variety and increased security. (I have a possible system in mind, yet unpublished). 

Indeed, if somebody presents new information it might be necessary to find a new explanation. But until now this information is not available.

2) They certainly tried hard to make it look mostly like a normal European 15th century manuscript (illustrations, glyphs imitating common Latin abbreviations) so it does not looks suspicious at first glance, not any more than any manuscript written in an unknown foreign language and script. Only those who studied all existing languages and scripts would find it suspicious, and not many people had such an encyclopedic knowledge.

You interpret this word differently than we do. With suspicious book we mean a book that nobody is able to read. 

3) Useless is a (too) strong word.

We chose the word because in our eyes the text contains too many regularities.