The 'Chinese' Theory: For and Against

[ololololo]

First, note that the generic Chinese Origin theory has now been superseded by the specific SPS=SBJ claim

Yes, I know. I try to criticize these theories (Chinese and SPS = SBJ) separately

That is a poor precedent for the VMS.  As expected from a book with secret "heretic" information, it has no illustrations.  The alphabet was derived from the Greek and Roman alphabets.  It is in German encoded with a rather simple substitution polyalphabetic cipher with nulls, a method that resulted in a large alphabet (~90 symbols) and was hard to crack but easy to decode once the key was known.  The nulls and the disguised word spaces resulted in an encrypted text that truly did not look like any natural language (not just European ones).

For example, Wikipedia mentions the speculation that it might have been steganography or even an artificial language. In other words, its perception was somewhat similar to VMS. But I don’t know how true it is…

Secondly, the cipher can be made very complex or literally unbreakable without any difficulty. There’s the Naibbe cipher, there’s the VBM cipher, and there are Roman numerals. I’m not a cryptographer, but it seems to me that without a clue, they would take a very long time to crack... 

Again: because it does not provide any plausible explanation for why the Author would have encrypted a book of that kind and size, with those illustrations, and that quite unusual alphabet.

If the book is encrypted, there was a purpose for encrypting it. There is no evidence that the addressee (the one to whom it was intended and who had the code) ever decrypted it even once. Overall, it’s quite simple and is essentially just a clever homophonic cipher.

And by the way, the great cryptologist William Friedman, for some reason, never came up with the Naibbe cipher. So, is he not a great cryptologist?

You shoud know why.  Because the coincidence that you showed, unlike those I have been showing, was very likely (indeed certainly) to occur by chance.

The example was illustrative. It shouldn’t be taken seriously.
It also contains implicit coincidences with errors and a lack of reference points (i.e., I can’t say how the author turned the word “triumpe” into qokeedy).

P.S. I wanted to write something longer, but I clicked the wrong thing and closed the answer tab  Here’s what I wanted to say in a nutshell.

---

Sorry, what do you mean?

Are such arguments applicable to the Chinese language?