Voynich through Phonetic Irish

[oshfdk]

THAT just might be the most difficult thing to comprehend since starting this haha. Perhaps a conversation of a much wider scope. While no linguist, I entered with methods/procedures/notes and edits. I made multiple iterations. My work and research I present about my archeological hypotheses (Gobekli Tepe, Stonehenge, Newgrange  etc), are logical, reasonable and based on evidence. With this, I did the same, I did not entertain spiritual/abstract theories/methods. Intuition of course plays a role in investigation but I’ve touched most pages after my most recent iteration only to have reasonable sentences reveal themselves free of superimposition. Literal. Nothing flashy. Precise identification and instruction without any prior knowledge or research on my end. Coincidences spectacularly, or alarmingly, overflowing.

From my point of view, all of the above is subjective and depends on your own estimations of what is precise and reasonable. For me there is nothing wrong with approaching a problem subjectively or intuitively, as long as you can convince other people familiar with the matter that your findings are valid. Many people on this forum have spent decades studying the manuscript (not me, I'm a relative newbie here), have witnessed hundreds of attempts of solving this mystery, so I would say they qualify as "people familiar with the matter" and are quite suitable as "peer reviewers". If they don't seem convinced this is the sign that the evidence supporting your approach is not good enough (yet?).

I appreciate those of you entertaining this. I’ll make my GitHub public and analyze pushes from February onward. There are 200ish commits and over 3500 lines. Should I also place the rest of all of the images with labels in this thread?i I’m not entirely aware of the VN etiquette.

I don't make rules here, but as far as I understand, this is your thread and you can post as often as you like. My personal opinion, it would be much better if you could provide a short but very convincing example of something that shows precise identification or a very reasonable sentence with as few intermediate steps as possible. I don't think you need 3500 lines to make your case, just one should be enough.