New Blog post: "Mysterious Steganography"- a Damning Observation

[pfeaster]

Also your argument is not very clear to me.

I think I follow the argument well enough to paraphrase it:

Of all the scripts that Kircher, Baresch, and their contemporaries would (1) have had access to and (2) considered unknown or unintelligible, most had become known and intelligible by Wilfrid Voynich's time.  On that basis, any script characterized in their seventeenth-century correspondence as unknown or unintelligible has a high probability of corresponding to some script that was known and intelligible in the 1910s -- and a low probability of corresponding to one that still wasn't.

Is that a fair summary?