New Post: "I Do Listen to the Experts. Do YOU?"

[LisaFaginDavis]

Rich, there's nothing at all suspicious about the C14 results. The imprecision of C14 dating is exactly why it doesn't represent absolute and sole proof and never claimed to. This is the case for every single C14 test ever conducted. The imprecision is expected. It's a feature, not a bug. C14 and all scientific tests, if they DON'T prove inauthenticity, are only one part of the evidence. 

If the parchment had been dated to the modern era, that would've settled the matter. But it wasn't. So the scientific evidence, while helpful, is not conclusive. That's why it has be combined with expert opinion, which is subjective. 

We cannot, currently, prove absolutely that the manuscript is authentic. I am happy to concede that there is a possibility that Rich is correct and that the manuscript is a modern creation. It's possible that every single manuscript is a fake. Anything is literally possible. But where the VMS is concerned, the two options - medieval vs. modern - are not equally possible. The possibility that someone, whether Voynich or someone else, could convincingly craft all of the features I listed above is so remote as to be negligible.