(14-04-2025, 08:10 PM)oshfdk wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(14-04-2025, 06:50 PM)Kris1212 wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Have you considered the possibility that Koen might be wrong?? Of course there are loads of people who claim to have solved it but I really believe my decode works, what would you do, just go quietly into the night or bash it out to see if I'm right, I took Koens critique on board I haven't ignored it but in my opinion his critiques are answered and I'm going to show that. He started out as friendly enough but I wouldn't say that's the way it is now and why?? because I don't want to give up and listen to him when I really don't think he's correct and I don't think he gave it a very good look, he only saw half of it, the more I'm decoding the more sense it's making, not less....what do you suggest I do??

One can't have the cake and eat it too. It's up to you whether to withhold or publish your method, but the less information you share the less persuaded people get. There are many ways to indirectly prove your knowledge of the contents of the manuscript without revealing the text. It would be helpful to your case if you could explain, for example, the meaning of: the big red glyphs on the first page, the sequences of four figures on f85r2 and f86v4, the composition of the Rosettes folio, the four corners of f86v3, the meaning of charts on f67v2, f68v1, f68v2, f68v3, f69r, f69v, f70r1, f70r2. I think a good specific insight into 3-4 of these would add a lot of weight to your deciphering without giving away anything about your method.