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

[ReneZ]

The question is not whether the MS could or could not be meaningless. It could be either, no doubt. The question is whether it is meaningful or not.

Likewise, the question is not whether the MS could or could not be a modern fake, or whether Voynich would or would not have done this. The question is whether it is, and whether he did it.

If one looks at the discussions on these topics with this in mind, it is easy to see which discussions have no chance of leading anywhere...

I wrote this on 12 March, and I think that it is applicable to some of the later posts on this topic.

Fakes exist, but the fact that they exist is not sufficient to support the argument that the Voynich MS is one. For exactly the same reason one could argue that the Mona Lisa is a fake.

Just one example: worm holes could have been faked. Indeed, this is possible but that is not the question (see above).
All the details that Wladimir found in the binding could have been faked in 1912.
But was it really?
The answer from the experts is clear.

Also, such an eminent and unprecedented fake, without any codicological flaw, of a genuine 15th century manuscript would never be sold as a 17th century herbal from Jacobus de Tepenec.
Jacobus who???
And on parchment...

Now the last paragraph is, strictly speaking, also an argument of the type "would or would not have" so one may ignore it. However, this is really a massive indication against the proposed hypothesis.

I have one page dealing with the modern fake theory:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

That should be enough. Rich has complained that I took down the second one, but this theory is already getting far too much attention. There are so many other more interesting ones that barely get any attention.
And I don't want to write more than necessary about what is NOT.