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

[proto57]

I would, personally, suggest that although your argument is logical

Although the argument may seem logical, it is entirely fallacious. It is not even a rational argument.

The flaw (false dichotomy) is to assume that only a fake would use an alphabet that never gets identified within a corpus of existing texts (whose probability of getting discovered increases with the passage of time) despite the well known fact that all writings using a made-up alphabet that is never reused in other documents (as is often the case with ciphers) also share this property.

Nablator... The thing is, I don't "... assume that only a fake would use an alphabet that never gets identified within a corpus of existing texts". I realize it is a fine point I am making, and difficult to explain properly... at least, for me. But that is not the point here.

My point is not that the difficulty in identifying the text has meant it is probably a fake. In fact I don't contend that the Voynich language/script/code/cipher is not meaningful in the first place, as it very well may be.

My point is that... real or fake... most if not all of the unidentified languages and scripts in the 17th century were, by 1912, at least identified if not read. So for any language or characters to be both unidentifiable in the 1600's, AND then still be unidentifiable in 1912, is staggeringly unlikely. It strongly implies to me that... in order for this to be the case... the 1912 script and language would have to be invented around 1912, in order to fulfill the 17th century descriptions of "unknown" and "mysterious".

I hope that makes it clearer. I fully respect yours, or anyone's opinion if they disagree, of course. But I hope I can make it understood so that the disagreement is based on my argument, and not on one I didn't make.

Rich.