Discussion of Voynich MS-related theories

[Mark Knowles]

I have never seen that discussing any of the above theories brings anything.

I struggle with this in a general sense.
On the one hand, the proliferation of nonsensical theories starves potentially fruitful theories of oxygen.  So, it makes sense to focus efforts entirely on what's fruitful.
On the other hand, when experts ignore this proliferation, the entire field suffers due to broad acceptance of nonsensical theories by the "lay public" depending on which of the theories seizes the popular imagination.

In my other research, I find myself drifting away from analyzing claims by specific people, and more towards highlighting the common mistakes shared by them.  It is challenging, though, because any question lacking a solid answer is a vacuum that attracts endless speculations that few people feel disqualified to offer. 

I think the difficulty can be as to who is to judge which is fruitful or nonsensical. Technically almost all Voynich researchers constitute the "lay public" as almost all researchers do not study the Voynich as a profession whether they be computer programmers, engineers or whatever. I think one of the biggest reasons why there are not professional experts on the Voynich is that it is unclear who should rightly be appointed to such an academic post as a critical mass of generally accepted knowledge on the subject has not yet been reached. So knowing who would be qualified to be, for example, a Professor of Voynich Studies at Harvard University is really near impossible; could it be "Gordon Rugg", "Nick Pelling", "Torsten Timm" etc.