The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[Jorge_Stolfi]

This has nothing to do with imagination, but with many years’ experience in the pharmaceutical industry. It’s exactly what’s needed.  If you understood even a little bit about it, you’d know that.  Take a close look and learn.

With all due respect for your experience: no, sorry, I cannot see a mortar or pharma symbol in the top weirdo, nor a plough in the bottom one.

If we set the similarity threshold low enough to get those interpretations, then many other interpretations are possible, and even more likely.  Your "plough" could be a flying bird (can you see the beak?), a fountain (of youth?), an open book on a table, a two scimitars raised above a parapet, an inkwell with two quills, ...

Again: The bottom shape cannot possibly be what the Scribe would produce if he intended to draw a plough. The top shape cannot possibly be what he would produce if he intended to draw a mortar and pestle, or a beaker with a caduceus.

So You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is an introduction. It’s also the first page of Quire 13. Turn the page; next comes the extension. ... Later on, the book shows the next steps in the process. Exactly what these are remains unknown.

Well, I can agree that the meaning of the drawings on f76v-f78v and several other pages of that section is still unknown...

Do you think they’re Chinese characters? Who’s letting their imagination run wild now?

Taken in isolation, that claim would indeed be laughable.  But considering that the statistics or the text and the structure of the words are consistent with an East Asian monosyllabic language, and not compatible with any European language or any simple encryption schema, ...

All the best, --stolfi