Elephant in the Room Solution Considerations

[MHTamdgidi_(Behrooz)]

To me the situation here is similar to what happened previously with the "botrus" claim. It is of course possible that the word in the manuscript does read "botrus", it's just the argumentation for it doesn't look strong enough to me. Same with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works, but I really see no definitive arguments for it so far. There is some similarity between certain Voynich MS images and certain images associated with Countess Margaret of Tyrol, this is an interesting observation worth investigating, however to me this doesn't look like conclusive proof of her authorship or involvement with the manuscript.

Thanks very much for your consideration of my ideas. I understand it is not yet convincing for you. It is increasingly becoming convincing for me, the more I find new things. It is actually incredible how much new findings confirm my earlier hypothesis for myself, things that I did not even see before come up that makes the manuscript more meaningful for me.

Ultimately, each of us will decide what is sufficient proof or not, and based on that will decide how to go about solving the puzzle. I sincerely wish you the best in finding alternative and more convincing answers, but I appreciate the fact that you note "I can't say it's impossible that the manuscript is a later copy of her works" and also that you noticed facial image similarities, although the facial image similarity has not been treated as evidence in my study, but yes, the similarity is interesting. The study is still continuing and hopefully at some point you will find in more convincing findings.