11-05-2022, 10:43 AM
(10-05-2022, 07:36 PM)Juan_Sali wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.@Ahmet
I will keep trying to explain to you what is EVA and what is not, though I havent any hope that after so many years you will be able to understand it, or you dont want to understand it because it is better to support your theory.
When you say: ATA transcription contains more Latin characters that compared to EVA. What does it mean?
EVA doesnt serve to read. ATA reads all with same rules, but the most of it is unintelligible.
EVA is not a key. EVA is a group of row materials to make keys.
When I started my research on the cipher system I didnt even know of EVA, I followed my own path.
You have buillt a big boat, your own Titanic, sooner or later the iceberg will find you. Are you ready for it?
Dear Sali,
What does it matter what you attribute to EVA or how you use it if the sound equivalents of the signs are chosen there mostly incorrectly? After all, EVA is used as an alphabet transcription by those trying to read texts. It has no other value. Even its name expresses an expectation as a shortened form of the European Voynich Alphabet. Without knowing whether the author is European or not and without understanding what language the content is in, it's just a preconditioning statement that hasn't worked so far for reading.
I respect the efforts made over the years with EVA. But at some point someone had to tell for all that this didn't work to solve this riddle, and it was me.
ATA is alphabet transcription. It is very difficult to call ATA transcription wrong because more than 80% of the signs are nothing but Latin alphabet signs. As I said, let's put the EVA and ATA tables side by side and see which one contains more Latin alphabet signs. If this table doesn't explain anything to you, there's no point in discussing it with you. Likewise, there is no need for you to waste your energy and time and inform me about EVA.
Thanks