How could you prove that VM is gibberish?

[Jorge_Stolfi]

People have noted within the text long distance effects, vertical pair effects, and other anomalies that cannot be explained if the text were a continuous narrative in a natural language.

"Cannot be explained", or just "no one has presented a good explanation" (while still allowing each parag to be continuous prose in natural language)?

When an anomaly is observed in the VMS text (like anomalous glyph frequencies at start-of-line), one should check whether a similar anomaly occurs also in other running texts in natural language.  This control experiment is often lacking.

I just posted a quick test with a novel that shows anomalous word frequencies at start-of-line, caused by the trivial line-breaking algorithm.  That an other natural distoritons must be happening in the VMS too

the initial and final word parts of gallows words are independent and likewise unlikely to be in a natural language

The first claim is true.  This has been noticed since the 60s.  It is the justifcation for various words structure models.

But the second claim needs to be proved.  There are many natural languages where the words have a strong prefix/core/suffix structure with a relatively small set of choices in each slot.   Natural language evolution should lead to the three parts being somewhat independent, because that increases the efficiency of the language (bits per word).   

But there will be deviations from independency.  And looking at your table I see in fact evidence that the prefix and suffix of gallows words are not really independent -- only somewhat so.

All the best, --stolfi