Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[Pepper]

1-) You say that;  "If you gave your translation system to someone knowledgeable in Old Turkish and they translated a page, they could come out with a completely different translation to you and your sons. So how can your claim ever be tested?"
In other words;
If someone who knows Old-Turkish does what you say, that will mean he/she will have already confirmed that the VMS was written in Turkish. Is not it? 
So, even if any person does not translate it as like as same our translation, he/she will have approved our claim about that VMS written in Turkish language. In this case, can I say that you have accepted the Turkish content of VMS?

Of course not. People have "translated" the VMS in the way you have into Ukrainian, Hebrew, Latin, 'Proto-Romance' and a whole bunch of other languages. All of their claims were subjected to the same scrutiny yours is getting, and none of them held up. Therefore I do not accept any claims made so far.

2-) This type of alphabet, where a single sign is mapped to multiple voices, is not a VMS-only case. There are other similar examples in Old Turkish.
As you think, a multiple-choice situation does not exist in every sentence in VMS. This is the case with some words in certain sentences. 

If you remember, I have given translation information about the single sentence in f-65r before on this page. For example, on this sentence, there is no argument that you mentioned in any word. It is clearly Turkish and there is no discussion for this sentence.

Please stop trying to manipulate people's words to suggest they agree with you. Quite frankly, you seem like an intelligent and nice man and this kind of thing - which you have done several times here and elsewhere - is beneath you. I think it's quite clear I don't believe the manuscript is in Turkish, so please don't put words into my mouth again.

I was discussed about many VMS sentences with a group of linguists. We discussed about some particular words in particular sentences, and different ideas were made about 'how to read some particular single word in our translation, and also the discussion was about their past meaning content'. However, in most that kind of particular word example, the linguists could not agree among themselves eithe.

That's very concerning, and rather undermines your claim below that your theory has been "confirmed by some linguists." Does that hold any weight when others can't repeat your method? At best, your support is cancelled out by the non-support.

As you know, some linguists still interpret differently that some sentence written by William Shakespeare too (which texts younger than VMS text in time). So, discussions on various ancient inscriptions of European languages are currently continuing, why do you expect from us to give you all an indisputable result on VMS?

If the VMS is ever decoded/translated I'm sure there will be parts that will remain obscure or at least unclear. But the real translation/decoding will be repeatable and widely accepted among experts in the applicable fields. You haven't published your full method yet but the problems I'm raising here suggest your method is not repeatable and is not widely accepted even among people who are privy to the full details. This is why we're asking you questions and then following up on your responses.

3-) You know that, studies on VMS have been continuing about for last 100 years. A single clear and indisputable sentence was not read in any language. We read this word (SAM/SAĞN) in different ways according to ATA transcription. But at the same time, we showed that all the different readings have their matching counterparts in Turkish. We show all of the multiple options that suit. That is, if a word is read differently than at once, we find all these readings in dictionaries and show them

Well, the thing is, several other people would claim that they have translated many "clear and indisputable sentences." They're all wrong, but they believe in their translations just as you do. And me and others (like Mark) are seeing similarities in their claims and yours, though I also think yours has more merit than previous claims in some areas.  

As I said, this issue does not apply to every word written in VMS. However, some words can be read in a different way and all of these pronunciation variants are also in Turkish. Do you think such a situation could be a coincidence? Of course not. For this reason, we claim that the author of VMS deliberately made this alphabet in this way. This is exactly what the author were wanted.

I don't think it's a coincidence, but I think your method includes this multi-layered alphabet because it has to; if you don't give yourself so much freedom, your translations don't work. At the same time, real language doesn't work like that - it has to be mostly unambiguous and repeatable because it's meant for two-way communication, where the reader must understand what the author intended. If there are too many degrees of freedom, a language becomes meaningless. 

5-) Although this seems to create a free space for us to create anagrams, why that all these alternative reading of same words (SAM / SAĞN) are match with Turkish. Could this be a coincidence?

It's not coincidence; it's a fundamental element of your proposed solution that you need a lot of freedom with each glyph and vord. I don't think the correct solution will feature that element to the extent you describe.

If any person from this group want to create such similar coincidence anagram works (with multiple similar matching options), please feel free to do same thing in your native language and please show us the examples in 600+ words and read many full sentences and indicate that 71+ illustration matching words. In addition 21% of them must be never change phonetically in last 600 years. Moreover, while trying that kind of anagram, please show that the words you read are found in dictionaries in your native language, just as we did.

As I've already said, I'm a professional writer and I couldn't do what you're proposing this person/s did in the 15th century, without the benefits of word processors.