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

[ReneZ]

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;

Well, yes, he can indeed try to claim any or all of those things, but that does not mean that he is right.

In fact, he does not have a good story, and his bits and pieces are full of contraductions (one of which is already pointed out by Karl). No consistent timeline is possible.

Rich's theory can only appeal to people who do not know the full details.