Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[cvetkakocj@rogers.com]

What does it have to do with the Voynich manuscript?

Ahmet, the VM have nothing to do with the Etruscan language or writing. The experts did not say the last word bout the Etruscans and ancient Venetic languages (which used similar runic letters).  Nor did they sufficiently explain why did they call themselves RASENI (which in Slavic means 'of one race'). I suppose the people of the time were so intermixed that the only way to recognize the race was by a skin colour.
I am quite sure that the authors of the VM had no way of telling how those ancient inscriptions , which were still burned underground up to the recent times, looked like. They probably didn't know about Tamga symbols, either.
Instead of wasting time explaining and defending Turkish origin of Etruscans, stick to the time the VM was written. If you want us to take your theory seriously, you  would do much better explaining inconsistencies in your theory. 
Here are some of my questions, which you should be prepared to answer to defend your theory.
1. What do tamga symbols have to do with the VM, which is written in Latin letters, in the humanistic style of writting? According to the information available to me, the tamga symbols were used to mark the ownership, authorship, territorial presence, talismans, amulet, but not for letters. I noticed that you used them to expand your alphabet at will, so that in this way, your ATA alphabet will always be 100% correct. Even Etruscan alphabet did not require over 100 letters.
2. You said EVA alphabet is useless to you, yet you use some of its letters, and reject others, even if they were widely and indisputably used in the 15th century manuscripts. Why did you change EVA d (the 8-shaped letter) to S, when Latin d was accepted even in Turkish alphabet for the letter and sound d? Was it before or after you found out that Old Turkic words did not start with D? Or because you had no other explanation for the high frequency of the VM words that start with 'd' and end with 'dy'? Do you have any other reason for the transliteration of this particular letter?
3. How do you explain the prefixes in the VM. We were told that you initially recognized the Turkic language by the way of prefixes and suffixes?
4. I wonder how much research into the VM the Turkish linguists made before they so generously supported your theory. Did any one of them try to replicate your theory by searching for Turkic words in the VM with the help of your ATA alphabet, without resorting to your transcription and transliteration? The fact that you found those Turkic words in their work on Etruscans, and offered them as the VM-words, is not a reliable proof. I bet they didn't even look carefully at your translation, because I cannot imagine that they could miss so many inconsistencies and irrationalities in your translation. To mention only the 7 different Turkish words for abortion (on page 66r) and your translated sentence about the artificial insemination. There is nothing on that page to suggest the text about abortion or artificial insemination. There is no doctor with his tool. 

I am not saying that the variations of spelling were uncommon, and that some adjustments are not normal, however I am curious to know how you manage to find and translate the most obscure words, and miss to translate the ones that occur over 100 times, some even 500 times.

Your translation of the 'sunflower' might fool somebody who does not now that there were no sunflowers in Europe before the discovery of America, and even if they were, they were not 'most profitable' agricultural product, since the sunflower oil was not produced until 18th century. 
5. When did you discover that the VM was written by five authors, since you originally claimed it was written by a traveler? Was it before or after L.F.Davis claim that the VM was written by five different hands?

I suppose there would be a lot more questions before your theory is accepted, however, until then I would suggest you do not call the Voynich Manuscript 'ATA manuscript', as you are doing on your web page. You are not the owner of it and you are not yet the one who solved its mystery. If you don't like its name, you can refer to it by its number.

Sincerely,
Cvetka