voynich.science

[Jorge_Stolfi]

I'm 99.9% sure it's gibberish.. the problem is it has grammar and structure and weird properties... I reckon Timm-Schinner probably came closest..

But there are many arguments against the "gibberish" theory.  Including all the statistical features that are compatible with natural languages, and unlikely to occur in text generated by any plausible gibberish generation method.  (No, Thorsten and Timm did not come close, sorry...) 

Whereas the only argument for "gibberish" seems to be "we have tried to decipher it, assuming it is an encrypted European language, and we have failed so far".  Which has a logical problem...

All the best, --stolfi