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

[Scarecrow]

In my opinion, the forum is poorer for this loss.

Couldn't agree more, and I do hope Torsten will reconsider he's decision to leave. It is not what Voynich community and research would need.

My first contact with the VMS was somewhere around 2014-2015 when I red about it from BBC news I think, and immediately got insipired as probably many others here. But VMS remained just a curiosity, until around 2016, when I really got interested and started to gather information, books, publications, articles and so forth, the one of the first being Mary d'Imperio's Elegant Enigma.

I didn't know nor cared about any authority, community, and while I knew about something called VMS-LIST or something, I didn't want to get involved. I just wanted to build my own idea of the thing. I did not know any currents or feuds, belieds like fake - forgery - true, nor did I want to have any bias or prejudice, so I went on reading everything without precondition.
I read Hyde & Rugg's ideas, I found Ellie Velinska's thoughts, red Philip Neal, Julian Bunn, Elmar Vogt, Stolfi, Rene, Sean Palmer, Journal of Voynich Studies, and many others. I didn't know what they believed in nor what they represented in the Voynich world. They had their ideas and I learned about them. Much later I found out about Nick, JKP, Diane.

I learned about the history, LAAFU, michitonese, core-crust-mantle, about glyph positions, a and b language and lot of other interesting stuff. Good stuff, but still vague and open ended mixed bag of unrelated things. The real first integral interpretation approach, theory I'd say, I found, was when I downloaded Torsten Timm's 2015 paper. I red it a few times to be sureI understood it, and while I did not agree with it so much, it was still a solid attempt and approach and got my attention and respect, as it was a first complete approach that I have encountered. I repeat, I do not agree with it, but still autocopy theory might be possible or at least be part of the enigma. Or could be totally wrong. Nevertheless both papers deserve respect and attention, in my opinion.

From all that reading I build my idea and I pursue it, but Timm's papers have kept me thinking many options, got new ideas from it and has helped me in understanding better how Voynichese could work. All other works have contributed to this and I do hope that more and more papers like Timms and others come in. What I see is that nothing in Voynich seems to be right, little or nothing can be fixed or agreed, most everything is ambiguous, statistics point everywhere and still nowhere. There is no foundation. We need more (wrong) theories, less big egos, to get the foundation. It needs more people, more ideas, more controversy, not less.