Need advice for testing of hypotheses related to the self-citation method

[Torsten]

Thorsten&Timm's theory (TTT) is "the VMS is a hoax".  Their arguments are (A) the VMS has certain repetition patterns that are not seen in a set of other texts they examined, and ( B) they devised a probabilistic generator whose output is like Voynichese according to some statistics, including similar repetition patterns.

Pointing out that A&B does not imply TTT is a perfectly valid criticism of the TTT.

Said more simply: if one does not believe a priori that the VMS is a hoax, knowing A and B will not convince them.

No, that is a misunderstanding of my position. 

In fact, we explicitly acknowledge that A and B do not imply C. As we stated: "Most likely, it is impossible to devise an exact mathematical proof that an arbitrary set of strings is truly meaningless, or not. This would involve a general method to compute upper boundaries to the Kolmogorov complexity" [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.].

My theory is that the Voynich text was generated using the Self-Citation Method (B): "In the present work we have shown that a strikingly simple process for random text generation ('self-citation' algorithm) has the potential to resolve all of these seeming contradictions. The proposed text generation method is not only supported by many details of self-similarities uncovered in the VMS text, and is fully compatible with the historical background, but also even quantitatively reproduces the key statistical properties. In particular, we were able to demonstrate that our sample 'facsimile' text fulfills both of Zipf’s laws. Following Occam’s principle, this theory provides the optimal hypothesis available to explain all facts currently known about the VMS. It, however, does not totally dismiss the steganography hypothesis ..." [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.].

I argue (A) that context-dependent self-similarity features are a defining characteristic for the Voynich text and (B) that the Self-Citation Method is sufficient to explain these properties of the Voynich text. Pointing out that A and B do not logically imply conclusion C — namely, that the Voynich Manuscript is a medieval hoax — does not constitute a valid criticism of my theory, because my argument is focused on the mechanism of text generation (B) and its ability to account for the structural properties (A).

Said more simply: conclusion C does not provide a basis for evaluating the validity of either A or B.