The prior probability of VMS being 'Chinese' (or some other Far East tonal language) is very low. Yes, it's possible, but not probable at all, so a strong evidence is needed to overcome the prior probability of 'Chinese'.
But the clearest evidence we have (as pointed out by @oshfdk) are the illustrations, where nothing resembles anything oriental but fits well with European Middle Ages. This is fully expected under the hypothesis VMS in an European language, weird and improbable if the VMS is 'Chinese', which further decreases the (posterior) probability of 'Chinese'.
Yes, the two red weirdos of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could be upside-down miswritten 'Chinese' characters, but they could also be anything else. Adding them to the Chinese theory further decreases its probability, because now the odds must be multiplied by the probability the two weirdos are actually Chinese signs, which is surely less than 100% (having to compete with similarly-looking European signs and being reliant on two more hypothesis: they are upside-down, and they are miswritten).
Also I have some doubts on the details of the Chinese theory. I re-read post #15 and (if I understood correctly) it implies the VMS was dictated by a local 'Chinese' speaker (who could read aloud the source books) to an European who had travelled to 'China', mastered the spoken but not the written language and desired a copy of the original book(s). But this means the VMS was written in 'China', and for what I know (I can be wrong, of course, not my field!) in the Far East vellum was never used (no clue about gall ink and the pigments).
With all the respect due to Stolfi, I don't find the 'Chinese' hypothesis to be probable. At a minimum it needs quite a strong more evidence (having to overcome the prior and the evidence currently available).
But the clearest evidence we have (as pointed out by @oshfdk) are the illustrations, where nothing resembles anything oriental but fits well with European Middle Ages. This is fully expected under the hypothesis VMS in an European language, weird and improbable if the VMS is 'Chinese', which further decreases the (posterior) probability of 'Chinese'.
Yes, the two red weirdos of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. could be upside-down miswritten 'Chinese' characters, but they could also be anything else. Adding them to the Chinese theory further decreases its probability, because now the odds must be multiplied by the probability the two weirdos are actually Chinese signs, which is surely less than 100% (having to compete with similarly-looking European signs and being reliant on two more hypothesis: they are upside-down, and they are miswritten).
Also I have some doubts on the details of the Chinese theory. I re-read post #15 and (if I understood correctly) it implies the VMS was dictated by a local 'Chinese' speaker (who could read aloud the source books) to an European who had travelled to 'China', mastered the spoken but not the written language and desired a copy of the original book(s). But this means the VMS was written in 'China', and for what I know (I can be wrong, of course, not my field!) in the Far East vellum was never used (no clue about gall ink and the pigments).
With all the respect due to Stolfi, I don't find the 'Chinese' hypothesis to be probable. At a minimum it needs quite a strong more evidence (having to overcome the prior and the evidence currently available).