The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

 The only reason people even think of cipher is because of that mistaken conclusion that the language must be "European". 

Every time you claim this, I will carry on repeating that it is for you to prove and that you have not proved it.

And every time I must apologize for the sweeping generalization.  Agreed, there must be many people who got to different conclusions by different lines of reasoning.

But somehow they all apparently came to strongly reject the possibility that it may be plaintext in an East Asian language.  Anyone who seriously admitted this possibility would have seen what I see, a hundred years ago.  How did they get there?

[it] isn't doing your theory any favours.

Well, I don't need people to believe in my theory.  I am not after YouTube subscriptions or selling books about it.  

I presented the evidence I have because I felt that I must.   Really, I think it should have been enough to convince anyone who was not already committed to some other theory.   

But if some people are not convinced, okay, it is their "right"...  I will keep hacking, and eventually post more...

By the way, the "SPS=SBJ" claim is independent of the "Chinese Origin" theory per se.  It says only that the SPS is a mostly word-for-word transcription of the Chinese SBJ, or of a mostly word-for-word translation of the same into some other East Asian language.  It does not say anything about how that came to be. 

All the best, --stolfi