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

[tavie]

That, by the way, is also why "Voynich must have somehow found out about it and
based the manuscript off it" would NOT be a counter-argument. The clarity of a reference is not determined by whether Voynich
could have reproduced it -- it is determined by the unlikelihood that a description in a letter could apply to a different document than the VMS.

I don't see the point here. My point was that even if a new reference was dug up that somehow we all agree is about the manuscript, falsifiability would not be secured because the challenge would be that Voynich had seen or been told of this reference. This is a real possibility because unless I've misunderstood the thread, Rich has argued that both that the correspondence is not specific enough and that Voynich could have found out about it and been inspired by it.  So the forgery theory still does not seem falsifiable unless we can agree criteria in advance for determining that Voynich could not have seen or been told of the more precise reference.  

It may be a failure of my imagination but I'm struggling to see from this thread how we could agree that. If Rene's case for the unlikihood of Voynich seeing the correspondence is not strong enough, what would be sufficient?