21-04-2026, 05:36 AM
Yes, this specific data does seem to support the theory that it’s a hoax, at first glance. But if you look at the underlying data, you realize that it’s too structured to be a hoax. From a purely historical perspective, it wouldn’t make sense to develop such a complex system for a hoax—one that adheres almost slavishly to very specific rules over 200 pages. The consistency in word usage, the syllabic structure within the words and at the glyph level—even with a cipher known at the time, one couldn’t achieve that level of perfection. The structure corresponds to an underlying language.
And the “S” fits perfectly with the placement of “and”—that can't be a coincidence either.
For a long time, I also thought the "P" at the beginning of a page was a zero glyph, but given the results above, it’s clearly a marker that makes sense.
And the “S” fits perfectly with the placement of “and”—that can't be a coincidence either.
For a long time, I also thought the "P" at the beginning of a page was a zero glyph, but given the results above, it’s clearly a marker that makes sense.

