> 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.
"Published online: 29 Apr 2019", says that page, and the article itself says "May 15, 2019", but it looks like Gerard Cheshire published his theory in 2017, because here's a plausible-sounding rebuttal from November 2017:
The following excerpts score quite high on my BS meter:
- "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".
It amuses me that this passed the editor and the peer review process:
"So, from De Rosa’s manuscript we understand just why manuscript MS408 is so dominated by female issues, activities and adventures and why so few images of men appear. The only males in the citadel were the abbot, celibate monks and young boys, leaving the women and girls sexually and emotionally frustrated, so they amused and distracted themselves whilst they waited and yearned for male attention to return. They must have jumped at the chance of an adventure when the volcano erupted in 1444, as the citadel would have felt like a gilded cage by then."
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...