14-07-2026, 12:01 PM
(14-07-2026, 11:53 AM)JoJo_Jost wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Okay, can you name one for me?This is supported by statistical analyses such as latent semantic analysis. This is if we don't stick to theories at all. The fact of reproducibility doesn't give us anything. We don't know what's behind the words, and if we can reproduce this text by simply copying parts of the words, it doesn't tell us anything.
From the point of view of my theory, this is unlikely to be a self-quotation, because a cipher based on Roman numerals produces similar text without losing its meaning.
I'm not good at arguments, but you shouldn't think that your theory is the ONLY ONE that explains the manuscript.
If you want to prove the truth of this theory, prove it by action - reproduce the text, decipher it, etc. Proving that it's not a hoax doesn't prove your theory.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
