116v

[N._N.]

Again, the "Northern Italy" clues only tell us that the Scribe(s) who actually wrote the text on the parchment and drew the illustrations was/were from Northern Italy.  The "Southern Germany/Augsburg/Prague" clues only tell us about where the manuscript may have been ~200 years after that.  The similarities of the Michitonese lines and month names to specific scripts and languages, like German or Latin charms, only tell us what language the person(s) who wrote those bits meant to write them in.  

Those clues do no tell us anything about the Voynichese language and encoding, about the Author who gathered the sources and composed the text of the manuscript, or about where he was when he did that. 

Those clues also do not tell us anything about the Michitoner who wrote the Michitonese lines, about the Monther who wrote the month names, or about where those persons were at the time they did those things.

All the best, --jorge

Sorry, but this is clearly a misleading oversiplification. Everything we know about the manuscript, every kind of reasonable research reveals connections or information that we may not yet be able to piece together, but which might ultimately help getting closer to a solution, whatever that might be. As with pretty much every historical 'fact', we have to accept that we don't know everything about it or might possibly be wrong about certain aspects. This does not mean that we should adopt a nihilistic view that nothing can be proven and nothing is connected. It just means we need to be honest about probabilities, limitations etc. to avoid falling into the same trap as the overly confident solvers.