Distribution of Q-Q gaps in paragraphs

[Jorge_Stolfi]

the question is, convince them of what?
Many things have already been tried. Turkish, Aztec, and whatever else.

I am not even referring to the "Chinese Origin Theory".  I mean things as basic as "the Scribe was blindly copying from a draft",  "the ink is not iron-gall", or what happened on f116v, or the effect of the trivial line-breaking algorithm on all line-start and line-end statistics...

Without evidence, there's no chance.

But there is evidence.  In some cases, as hard as it could be.  That is what led me to those claims.

But it seems that some people's screen goes blank when they open those posts... 

(The only theory of mine that I invented before having evidence for it is the Book Switch Theory.  But for that one I still give only 10% probability -- being generous, because it is my child...  I think it is worth mentioning only because its mere possibility highlights how flimsy is the evidence for the Standard Provenance Theory...)

They ignore it because it could destroy their own theory.

Yep.  

And I noticed that some of those people do not really care whether their theory is right or wrong.  They see it only as a way to be known as "experts in the Voynich Manuscript".  With the perks that come with that: Tiktok views, interviews, invitation to lectures, books, ...

All the best, --stolfi