Calgary engineer believes he's cracked the mysterious Voynich Manuscript

[ReneZ]

The main point of my three brief arguments is that one needs to keep in mind what is part of the hypothesis.

Elements of the hypothesis cannot be used as arguments let alone evidence.

Part of the hypothesis discussed here are:
- the list of symbols in the Voynich MS represent some specific sounds
- the language underlying the text is old (now lost or not?) Turkish or some cognate

Evidence should consist of consistent and convincing translation of a significant part of the text.

Arguments about the language being agglutinative, or words starting or not with certain characters are part of the hypothesis, and are not evidence.
On the other hand, counter arguments showing that these points are used inconsistently is valid counter-evidence.

So in the present situation it mainly comes down to whether the partial translations (individual rare words) are convincing or not.