Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

[MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz)]

Ah I'm sorry, I confess I just skimmed through them (they are pretty long, and I'm pretty busy). I'm surely not going through all of them before I find the answer (sorry again). Can you please just post it below?

No problem, Mauro. I understand. I think I started that discussion on this page You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. and some exchanges with Jorge_Stolfi also followed, where I elaborated more. 

The point I was sharing was that if we agree that the 1400s vellum was done based on a draft, we cannot assume the draft itself was partial or temporarily done, nor contemporary with it, and it may have as well been a completed handbook left from sometime in 1300s (not older, given the details found in the vellum), one that the author for reasons of her own wished to be subjected to more durable vellum posthumously (when, for instance, most of her foes had passed).

She could have planned, given her instructions, and prepaid for such a project legally in advance, given how important it was for her to leave the manuscript for her legacy. I will try to elaborate more on this topic as I discuss her life more in future posts, now that I have reported my discovery of Countess Margaret as the author of the Voynich manuscript.

My overall point was that the carbon-dating find has narrowed the "solution space" for the manuscript unnecessarily, and the unit of analysis of the manuscript must not be an incomplete 1400s vellum, but one that includes any drafts preceding it, and the complete vellum as a whole must always be kept in mind, subjecting the reasons for the missing parts themselves to questioning.