I've deciphered the Voynich Manuscript. Here is the alphabet of the manuscript

[Michael Obraztsov]

Maybe the crux of the matter: "Deciphering" the Voynich Manuscript is not difficult.

Many have done it. Many keep doing it. Many of them turn up here, convinced that they have finally found the true solution and managed what no one else has.

The problem is that the solutions are all different, and that there's no way to tell which one is correct. In fact, the overwhelmingly most likely case is that they're all wrong. Many of them suffer from the same well known problems. "Amount translated" is not a way to tell them apart; a 100% translation by a faulty translation method is 0% useful.

It's difficult to understand how this basic fact consistently fails to spark any semblance of healthy self-doubt in many of the would-be translators.

That's the point. All that's left is to pick the most plausible and logically sound options. Three languages in my case are historically justified. But I didn't even try to use this as the main argument. I suggested to anyone who wanted to, in order to refute the uniqueness of the record percentage of words recognized based on my alphabet, to achieve the same percentage with any three languages, but based on an alphabet different from mine.
You write "Many of them suffer from the same well-known problems." It would be much better if you indicated what exactly these problems are, and then it would be possible to check to what extent these problems are expressed in my case. Surely, they are talking primarily about recognizing words not in their entirety, but only by their roots, and also about the fact that recognition is usually done not by the alphabet but by sound, which greatly expands the interpretation options. But about 75% of my words are recognized in their entirety, and the recognition is based on direct recognition of recordings, and not through phonetic interpretation. Then there are less significant factors: how historically justified are the languages chosen, and what percentage of the recognized words were already in use at the time of the Voynich manuscript. However, the languages I chose are historically justified, and the percentage of recognized words that are not known to have been used in medieval England in the 13th-15th centuries is unlikely to be high.
I would like to have a real dialogue that does not stop mid-sentence. This also applies to criticism. And if the criticism is justified, I would like evidence to prove the correctness of the criticism

---

You know, if you want your thread locked, you can always just ask the moderator.  It's easier than doing a long post insulting everyone.

I don't want to close the topic, but to really open it up.