ABCDEFGHI...OPQ on the first page

[-JKP-]

I posted about this topic myself today as I hadn't realized it had been covered a while ago. The only thing that makes me hesitant to say these are failed attempts at a translation cypher is two fold: 

1) the characters and ink imo look very similar to the original handwriting of the author. I'm not a handwriting specialist so someone would have to be tasked to confirm that but they do look crazy similar in their shape, size and colour of the ink. 
2) If you would notice, this is one of many pages throughout the manuscript that has the ink from back page transfer to through during scanning, showing a bleed where heavy paint was used. Meaning to me that the parchment wasn't extremely thick, and transfer could have been possible while another sheet was placed over top while writing the cypher (it would have obviously have to been a back bleed to get the letters in the correct orientation). 

Just my two cents on the subject! I just wish some dating could be done on this specific part of the text so we could find out if the inks are the same, but I'm sure that would cause unwarranted damage to the document.

The ink is similar. Gall ink was used for centuries and was still in use in the 16th century and beyond.

The handwriting is not similar.

If you want information on dating, read through the blog links I posted. The writing is consistent with 16th-century styles. This is not radio-carbon dating, but it is considered a professional method in the absence of carbon dating.