[Panel Session] Cryptologic History panel Oct. 19, 2017

[asmask]

Rich makes the inexplicable (because completely opposite to the truth) statement that Yale/Beinecke are reluctant to do forensic investigations of the MS.

Hi, I haven't really been following this discussion very long, but this isn't correct.

I read that line in the presentation that was linked here a few messages earlier.
The page with the "red flags" point 8:

"8. There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original"

These "red flags" refer to characteristics of works with respect to their reputation as forgeries or genuine works in general, not with specific regard to the VM. On the same slide you're talking about, Rich lists eleven points that may indicate forgery status and states that the VM is characteristic of ten of them. While "8. There is a reluctance to produce, and/or test, original" is one of the points that Rich argues as indicating the VM is a forgery, he never says, "this point is in especial regard to the VM's time at Yale/Beinecke," or anything of that sort. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the video timestamped where he discusses that particular point. Both the slide and Rich's commentary discuss the VM during the time it was in the hands of Voynich himself and how Voynich only allegedly only showed the MS in-person to those who were "favorable" to the Bacon train-of-thought. Notice, Yale/Beinecke is not mentioned during this part.

Yes, the claim itself is "inexplicable," and "completely opposite to the truth" (to use your own words), and defies what may be considered common-knowledge to those who follow the VM to any considerable degree, but Rich didn't actually make that claim. I could see how you'd suppose he was making that claim, but only if you told me that you watched exactly only the first seven minutes, and not the rest. And if that were the case, why would you post about it?