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

[tavie]

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.

This was a bit of a weird response to my question...it seems to me that the standard consensus would have been easily falsifiable if the testing had revealed a far later date, or too wide discrepancies between folios tested, while the forgery theory mutates and seems to keep loading on assumptions no matter how unfeasible in order to keep going.  That's why I asked if it was truly falsifiable. 

Saying "a clear reference to the manuscript from a pre-19th century source is one obvious possibility" is not at all obvious.  It's far too vague, since as Karl pointed out, the Kircher correpondence has been rejected.  What would be sufficiently "clear"?  If the reference also mentioned the naked ladies and the signature?  But wouldn't the counter-argument then be (as it is now) that Voynich must have somehow found out about it and based the manuscript off it?  Would it need to have been sealed for centuries, or would there be an argument that Voynich could have forged a seal?  This is why I don't think it's falsifiable because it doesn't seem possible to prove Voynich couldn't have, however unlikely it seems.

To answer your question, there are things that would falsify the current consensus for me.  Further testing that showed the ages of different folios were too far apart (although that wouldn't prove it was Voynich whodunnit); testing that showed the ink was from 1910; finding evidence of the forgers' first drafts or sketches for the script; a confession as Rich mentioned; and a proved "translation" that was too modern.  I also respect Lisa and Rene's expertise, so if they changed their minds and it wasn't April Fools Day and they were of sound mind, that would be fairly persuasive.  An opinion from someone experienced in forgeries, though not familiar with the Voynich, would also start getting me reconsidering.  But I don't see similar potential for falsifiability for the forgery hypothesis, at least not when half of it seems to rely on Voynich being a well informed and thoughtful forger, and the other half on him being an incompetent moron.  One of those always seems able to wave away the counterarguments.