I know experts who deciphered this. But I will not tell you their names.

The book is written in Latin, not exactly a dead language.

That isn't what the claim is about. I mean I don't think the source is particularly convincing but the claim is that it figured out the significance of the text not the literal meaning of the words

The interesting claim is that this would be hard for an expert to do, which is basically unsupported outside of anonymous experts who spent an unknown amount of time on the question. It also doesn't quote any experts on whether Gemini's conclusions are reasonable.

I don't think you understand the word "knowledge". Just because an LLM spews out an answer doesn't mean it is correct. It needs to be verified by experts in the field, that's how it becomes factual knowledge. Lord help us that I need to explain this.

I don't think this particular discussion has to do with the idea of knowledge. We're discussing whether human experts had previously deciphered the sections

We are discussing whether the LLM deciphering is accurate. That hasn't been demonstrated as measured by review, provenance, cross-referencing among historical record, etc.