[Article] "The Strange Quest to Crack the Voynich Code"

[-JKP-]

"The analysis was made on a widely available transliteration of the Voynich manuscript text, the '101' format by Glen Claston" (Alin 2019, p. 5).

"I strongly believe that the biggest problem we face precedes cryptanalysis – in short, we can’t yet parse what we’re seeing well enough to run genuinely useful statistical tests" (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.).

That's the first time I've seen this statement by Nick and I have to say it is BANG on the money. It deserves to be a sig file.

Even now, years later, we have NOT yet parsed the glyphs in any way that is empirically substantiated and until at least SOME of that is accomplished, a large proportion of statistical tests will be glyph-assumption-based and highly questionable.

Are the sizes of the loops meaningful? Are the directions of the tails meaningful? Are the lengths of the tails meaningful? Are the spaces real in the linguistic sense? Are the gallows chars and benched gallows ligatures? Are EVA-x, EVA-g, and EVA-m ligatures? Is EVA-y an abbreviation? and so on...