There are some people here requesting a quasi cryptographic proof of the “Arabic solution”.
1. Randomly chosen items (within the entire Manuscript) can be translated into Arabic words (most likely).
There is no stronger proof.
2. Words connected with one another resulting in an invalid item can be separated and the parts can be translated meaningfully.
As said elsewhere, there appear throughout the manuscript words connected with one another in a way which is not consistent with the Arabic language. This is due to the fact that this language has at least 3 different writing forms for its characters, depending on the position of the character in a word.
When such word combinations are translated out of Arabic the result is, at most, meaningless.
So, let us now assume that such a “strange” word is to be taken as encrypted, a cryptogram, then a successful decryption, by isolating exactly two words in logical meaningful sequence, must represent a proof, right?
Examples from f57v, innermost circle:
“omotanab” –> (no meaning), but “omotan ab” –> “stronger father”
“anthalty” –> (no meaning), but “an thalty” –> “if/that remained”
Now, one could counter that these examples are coincidences. That is however not the case. Actually, all cases of this type, that we’ve encountered, demonstrate this behaviour.
Can there possibly be other explanations?