29-01-2026, 09:36 PM
(29-01-2026, 09:07 PM)Jorge_Stolfi wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(29-01-2026, 07:57 PM)DG97EEB wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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
Yes, and I agree absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. It's a personal belief, and like all of us, we can be persuaded by evidence, I hope. But from the statistical analysis I've run, it's at least a 4 layer system, which cannot be explained by any cipher and doesn't as you say conform to any European languages, Hebrew or Arabic in any of its forms. The challenge is that at a certain point you're in to special pleading. It looks like a zibaldone/hausbuch from medieval Europe or Southern Germany and seems to contain influences from there in terms of iconography and text (per my post on LJS51 symbols appearing in Italy in the same time period).. so for me the logical conclusion is the pictures have value but the text doesn't. The only remaining question is then the scale of the thing. If it's pedagogical z why bother making 240 folios of the thing, unless that was the point... But like all of us, I seek the truth and will be persuaded as we get more evidence
..