Why and how the text could be Bavarian

[Oscroft]

I think it has to do with the fact that VMS is explores by non-professionals. They tend to find solutions that are easy to understand (for them) and that they can accept more easily than complex cryptological analyses.

I can't offer any opinions on the Bavarian hypothesis, as I haven't studied it and don't have the expertise to analyse it. So JoJo_Jost, please don't take this as criticism of your work specifically.

I just want to note that ololololo really hits the nail on the head there regarding amateur attempts to understand/research an expert subject. I've encountered it many times, in science, economics, politics... in many aspects of human understanding.

We all tend to need an explanation of how something works that falls within the bounds of our own understanding. But because of the sheer amount of knowledge that exists today, for most of us in most spheres of research, the leading edge of expertise is already way beyond our personal understanding.

As an example, I have a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics than the average layperson. But I'd have no chance of working out an explanation for the double slit experiment - because it needs someone with vastly more understanding than I have.

Evidence would be actually reproducing the statistics of the manuscript using a large source Bavarian text and a set of rules that anyone can follow and achieve the same result. This will show how good the method is

That's the crux of it. Ultimately, the only arbiter of understanding an unknown text is a rule-based system that can actually be used to create (and in reverse, understand) the text in question.

In my (past) academic field of philosophy, countless great thinkers have come up with all manner of plausible and consistent theories of existence... which have been entirely undone by the first piece of contradictory evidence. It's why one of the best approaches to developing a theory can be to look for opposing rather than supporting evidence. The VMS explanation attempts I've encountered here (though I haven't looked at all of them, admittedly), unfortunately, fall into the trap of only looking for supporting evidence, which leads to cherry picking... And I don't know about other people, but when I encounter obvious cherry picking it puts me off committing any thought to an idea - because it takes an extra step of dismantling the cherry picking in order to get at the core of the thing. Those who do their own opposition research and take objections seriously rather than handwaving them away(*) invariably get more respect from me.

Again, this is not critique of JoJo_Jost specifically, so certainly don't be put off by a newcomer like me - please keep up with what you're doing, because you might make a breakthrough. But that breakthrough will need reproducible evidence (in the scientific method sense), not mere plausibility. Even 100% plausibility is insufficient without rigorous evidence.

*PS: As for handwaving, I've even seen objections to a theory dismissed with something along the lines of "Yes, obviously the author was deliberately trying to mislead future researchers there by including something that doesn't fit my theory". All I can do is roll my eyes in response.