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

[kckluge]

Is this theory falsifiable?  Is there anything that would persuade you that it isn't a modern forgery?

That begs the questions "Is there anything that would persuade you that it IS a modern forgery?"

There are as many ways to falsify the modern forgery theory as there are to falsify the genuine medieval manuscript theory.



A clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility that would falsify it.
[...]

Sorry, nope, the modern forgery theory could explain that away by claiming either (1) the "pre-19th century source" had also been forged and planted by Voynich, and/or (2) the forgery of the manuscript was inspired by the "pre-19th century source", and/or (3) the description in the "pre-19th century source" is not, in fact, describing the Voynich manuscript. 

In fact, Rich has already essentially played all three of those cards by claiming the Marci letter is a forgery; the manuscript was inspired by Voynich (supposedly, with no evidence to support it) coming across the references in Kircher's carteggio; and that the manuscript does not match the description of the manuscript referenced in the letters to Kircher (despite supposedly inspiring the forgery in the first place).

Note that the C-14 dating could have falsified the authenticity of the manuscript had the vellum clearly post-dated the Marci letter. It didn't. There would have been no hand-waving that away.