Voynich Manuscript Decrypted by Bristol Academic

The correct way to produce a decryption is to produce a full plaintext document, along with steps to reproduce it.

It's also worth noting that this is the latest of a long series of claims of having deciphered it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voynich_manuscript#Deciphermen...

From the introduction:

> Past scholarly attempts at solving the writing system are far too numerous to mention individually, but none was successful in any way, because every attempt simply used the wrong approach

This is rather a strong claim (which I am not equipped to evaluate). The author goes on to argue that the manuscript can be understood as an example of a long-hypothesized language with minimal written artifacts.

- "Although the purpose and meaning of the manuscript had eluded scholars for over a century, it took Research Associate Dr. Gerard Cheshire two weeks,"

- ""I experienced a series of 'eureka' moments whilst deciphering the code"

These two alone much more to discredit the "preliminary" claims than any of the remaining arguments in favor of the "discovery".

(he kinda takes off where Stephen Bax left it)

edit: they don't agree I think

edit2: so he cherry-picks from multiple languages to make his theory work? XD