Fakery?

[oshfdk]

Thank you for your interest in my post. I am a non specialist, but have participated in the Dyatlov Pass Incident forum for quite some time. From that experience, I have developed an idea that when one can not answer the "why" of a question, then it may be more fruitful to address the "how" of it.

I think this is a very useful perspective, shared by many, e.g., quoting from ReneZ' You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. :

Anybody who wants to present a Voynich MS solution should present the method how the text that we see in the MS was generated. The main advantages of this approach are:

- this method certainly exists and was really used by someone in the fifteenth century;
- this approach works both in the case that the text is meaningful, and in case it is meaningless.

This text generation method should then explain the properties of the Voynich MS text that have been reported extensively in the past

In the case of the VM, how could the document be written without any corrections? How could otherwise unknown plants be illustrated?   The answer is that the text was slowly and tediously constructed using a template and nonsensical characters. The botanical artwork reduces to variations of the basic plant. For example, I can make the stem on this drawing longer and I'll make the flowers rounder etc. On my next drawing, I'll just so something I have not done before. Nobody can find these plants because they do not exist. As an added benefit, nobody can even figure out the name of the plant because of the way I constructed the words.

All this can be true, but it's too generic to be a satisfying answer, at least for me. I think the text of the manuscript shows enough regularity and patterns to allow for a much more precise description of how it was created.