Why the rosettes image may not be a map at all

[-Job-]

One of the reasons that Voynich studies goes no-where, and with leaden feet is this curious phenomenon where people think you can explain a six-hundred year old artefact when its imagery is so opaque to modern European eyes, when its text is unknown and unread,  and do so without any particular study but just pulling out whatever happens to be in your head already or whatever happens to grab your fancy elsewhere - Pinterest is a particular irritant.

There is a distinction between formal research and informal discussion that i don't think you've grasped.

Yes, blog comments and forum posting are not up to the standards of research publications. No, random webpage visitors are not necessarily qualified to conduct proper peer review.

Do you also interrupt strangers at the local coffee shop that happen to be discussing the Voynich to point out how they are not advancing the field, how you posted similar ideas in some corner of the internet, how their anonymous professional backgrounds are probably lacking in any type of expertise?

It's absurd. How do you not understand that?