Well, theoretically and based on meanings that no one believes, the writer says:
My notebooks are invisible/hidden, for ruse and confuse. And from what I see, I think it was intentionally created for confusion and bothering.
I don't think it is fake , but I think it can be much older maybe 11th century. If there was an original book which the 15th century manuscript was copied from, that could reason the timeline.
My problem in having WMV as the creator of the text is that there seems to be some sort of ideological disconnect between his interpretation of the illustrations and the more recently determined explanations of certain VMs representations.
The best example of this dichotomy is the VMs cosmos. Newbold's folly suggested that this image represented Roger Bacon's view of the Andromeda Galaxy through a telescope. WMV promoted the text as being authored by Roger Bacon.
In contrast, a well-grounded comparison was suggested in the investigations of E. Velinska citing BNF Fr. 565, primarily, and Harley 334. Both of these MSs are of Parisian manufacture in the 15th century, and compatible with the Carbon-14 dating of the VMs parchment.
Why would WMV use the inverted T-O structure in this simplified cosmos, at the risk of potential anachronism? Why not use the standard structure of concentric spheres? Or go back to the earlier illustrations in the texts of G. de Metz to better match the era of Roger Bacon, but not to something like Harley 334.
A second disconnect involves VMs White Aries. Do blue stripes and red hats indicate the presence of the Fieschi popes? If the armorial and ecclesiastical heraldic signs are recognized then there is a reference to historical events and tradition (the cardinal's red galero), somewhat ambiguous in appearance (by intention), yet with multiple structural confirmations. Furthermore, history indicates a connection between Ottobuono Fieschi and Roger Bacon.
So the problem of the ideological connection is not only the use of material that appears to be anachronistic to WMV's proposed provenance for the text, there is also the failure to use material (apparently not knowing), that would have promoted the false provenance of something that he had created. It doesn't make sense to me.