Classifying False Voynich Decipherment "Solutions"

[ReneZ]

[...] there are plenty more or less elaborate proposed contexts.
[...]

And then there is the general, almost mainstream, idea that this is the work of one or several people in central Europe (which includes modern N.Italy), at the start of the 15th Century. It proposes that the creator(s) must have been quite familiar with medicinal, astrological and cosmological works of his time.



This means that proposing a historical context will initially be adding one more to the list.



Until it has been published, it cannot be checked how much more convincing it is than the existing ones.

All of those proposals involve a wrong historical context. The correct historical context is inherent in the work. It appears that people are more interested in looking at clouds and imagining what they see.

This is easy to say, and not unexpected. However, there should be some evidence to back it up.

Now I do agree that all of the proposals that I listed in my post cannot be supported, with the major exception of one that I left included above.

Calling this mainstream or general context wrong, is clearly based on having a different view.
This emphasizes my earlier point in this thread that people having a set hypothesis/view about the MS are not capable of judging Voynich MS solutions or theories in a proper neutral way.

The last line of my earlier message says it all. Many contexts have been proposed, with their justifications. They could be wrong. Who knows. But making a new proposal just adds one more to the list.
And most importantly: this new proposal has not really been made yet. The others have.