21-04-2024, 12:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 21-04-2024, 12:56 PM by Mark Knowles.)
If the ink or other materials can be dated (such as if organic components can be carbon dated) to the early 15th century then Rich can argue that Voynich used old ink in his manuscript.
In fact if the text is deciphered and is shown to be consistent with the early 15th century as are the drawings it still allows room for Rich to claim it is a modern forgery.
There could be a thousand references to the Voynich in a thousand other sources, but Rich could just claim that they were also faked by Voynich.
So essentially the claim that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is virtually unfalsifiable. However that hardly makes it likely that it is a modern forgery and liklihood is key here.
On the basis of the evidence the liklihood that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is very small and Rich's arguments otherwise are very weak. So whilst the possibility will always remain that it is a modern forgery it is hardly worth considering seriously.
In fact if the text is deciphered and is shown to be consistent with the early 15th century as are the drawings it still allows room for Rich to claim it is a modern forgery.
There could be a thousand references to the Voynich in a thousand other sources, but Rich could just claim that they were also faked by Voynich.
So essentially the claim that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is virtually unfalsifiable. However that hardly makes it likely that it is a modern forgery and liklihood is key here.
On the basis of the evidence the liklihood that the Voynich manuscript is a modern forgery is very small and Rich's arguments otherwise are very weak. So whilst the possibility will always remain that it is a modern forgery it is hardly worth considering seriously.