The Voynich Manuscript is "a mysterious illustrated book with incomprehensible contents.  It is thought to have been written between approximately 1450 and 1520 by an unknown author in an unidentified script and unintelligible language" (Wikipedia).  Every few years, another scientist holds a press conference to declare the book a "hoax."

The book (see high-resolution scans on flickr) is undoubtably an historical document, an artwork, and an insight into psychology (as the creator's brainstorm).  To call it a "hoax" seems so dismissive.  Indeed, it's like missing the forest for the trees.  Whether or not the document encodes specific meaning, it exists and has significance.  One is reminded of ancient petroglyphs, which could be a form of writing, or merely whimsical doodles/graffiti, but certainly "meaningful" and worthy of study (or at least appreciation).  I'm all for computer scientists and cryptographers, but these so-called explanations of the Voynich Manuscript tell more about the tunnel vision of those fields than they do about the manuscript itself.  And I thought only statisticians still cited statistical probabilities with a straight face, everyone else in the world having realized that statistics are, unfortunately, as useless as tomorrow's weather forecast!