Voynich Decoded

[Kris1212]

You should reproduce my totals. If you can’t, tell me exactly where the count breaks and I’ll fix it. It’s testable.
[*]

[*]You see, Kris, you theory is testable in the sense that one can test if it is internally coherent, and I have no doubts it is. But it is not testable in the really important sense: does the VMS represents cycles and rituals as your theory says, or is it something else?

[*]There’s no Rosetta Stone for this book and I’m not guessing a language. My code is built from the data—glyphs and text placement—nothing else. It’s repeatable: same rules, same counting, folio after folio. I've published the date repeatedly since I started so anyone can verify. If there’s another theory that produces folio-by-folio, reproducible day totals and placement rules from the manuscript itself, point me to it.

[*]It's the same situation, for instance, with Peltastri's Celtic theory: is it internally coherent? I gladly grant him it is. But does he demonstrates the VMS is a Celtic text, as opposed to, for instance, an instruction book of cycles and rituals? Think of this: let's say we are sure your theory or Peltastri's one is the right one. How can we tell which is which? Here is where testability fails.

[*]“Internally coherent” isn’t the bar. Has Peltastri fully translated a folio, end-to-end, with a stable reading? I haven’t seen one. His code is a language claim; mine isn’t—it’s a book of symbols: each page is a set of specific instructions.


Also: how does a language theory explain runs like eeee, iiii, or ooooooooo? Nonsense as phonetics; perfectly sensible as operators/quantities.

Different claims, different tests: he should produce readable text on unseen pages; I produce reproducible sequences and day totals from the glyphs. No Rosetta Stone—just counts and spreadsheets anyone can audit.


[*]Edit: why the editor decided to insert some '
[*]' baffles me.

[*]
These *** just appeared and I tried to delete them but they wouldn't go!!