06-02-2026, 07:19 PM
(06-02-2026, 01:49 PM)Rafal wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.the definitive proof
The text of the manuscript is so odd that it is clear that there will never be proof. There are just too many oddities, irregularities, anomalies.
We need instead to look at what is logical, possible, probable, plausible.
It is my belief that people today are thinking too hard about the manuscript. The solution is probably simple.
It is easier for those who think that it is meaningless. The meaningful hypothesist however has to take the anomalies and try to find meaning for them. Every oddity will have to have some explanation. Perhaps the transliteration was wrong? Perhaps the writer made a mistake? Is it in some known language? In shorthand, or coded? What is the grammar, syntax? Is it continuous narrative, prose, an inventory, incantations? Where did it come from?
But the meaningless hypothesist is not troubled by such questions. The writers did not need to be too precise with their 'method'. Knowing that no-one would ever understand the text, and so long as it did not deviate from the goal of making the text appear genuine, they could fill the text with peculiarities, misspellings, misformed letters and their personal foibles. Their method didn't have to be perfect, correct, the best. It just had to be good enough. The 'mistakes' seemed not to have troubled them or been obvious to their patrons.