Voynich Decoded

[Kris1212]

As for the probabilities you list in the follow-up, the issue is the same. You need to justify the concordance between the supposed charts in the manuscript, historical charts you say existed in practice, and the plant (or human, as the case may be) drawings you have asserted before they can be said to be the correct ones. Knowing that an LLM generated that analysis explains a good deal; for instance, why there is no "Visual-textual correspondence" in the information that follows that header. Nothing in your decryption, even in free-form translation which introduced terms not in your key, of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. shows that it is a lemon tree. (Mind you, I am open to that being the identification, I just don't see the textual correspondence.) The odds of that having been hallucinated are greater than 1/50, to say the least. But we can sidestep this statistical argument if you simply justify the claims I have been asking you to and repeated in more detail above.
[/quote]
First, who are you? You just joined here a few days ago, first comment was on my post, if you are a serious researcher and are genuinely interested in my work then pm me, I'll google meet with you show you from the very start, I have nothing to hide, my code has been on this platform since April, in fact one of the moderators here was the first to look at it. Your have to go back to the very first paper. And.......I don't have to justify anything to anybody :-) I presume you haven't been in the google drive or you'd see the paper trail, you are looking at summaries...