Thread for all discussion about "genuine/meaningless/fake" etc

[ReneZ]

But you know well what I mean here, Rene,

Perhaps. I tried to avoid having to guess.

However, it is really inconsistent to, on the one hand, quibble about terminology, and then on the other to expect people to guess what is meant with what you say.

You have used the term "genuine 15th century cipher herbal" (and similar) on your blog as the opposite of "fake by Voynich". That isn't correct. The opposite is just: "genuine 15th century". What sort of genuine 15th century book it really is, is another story.

Now, saying that "genuine 15th century" is just a theory like any other, is exactly what I called rhetoric.
It is not advancing our understanding of the manuscript in any way.
Just like all hundreds of thousands of manuscripts in the libraries of the world, this manuscript is genuine until proven otherwise.

The right people to raise a suspicion, and then to perhaps prove it, are the conservators, the historians and the forensic experts who have handled the manuscript.
This has been done, more so than the vast majority of manuscripts in the world, and it passed with flying colours.
People interested in this should read the reports of actual fakes, like the "Archaic Mark" and the more recent Galilei fake, to see how this process works.

Edit:
PS:
This of course more belongs in the "Return of the fake" thread.