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

[asteckley]

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?

  

The point is that unless there is a clear reference then any case (Rene's or otherwise) about whether Voynich had seen it is irrelevant.
We can argue all day long about whether Voynich was at the Chicago Worlds Fair but unless the Fair actually has something to do with the
Voynich manuscript, it too would be irrelevant.

That entire discussion about whether Voynich saw it or used it or faked it is a straw-man with respect to the theory
of the VMS being a modern forgery.  It only ever came into play (by Rich or whoever) in response to the claim that the letters
are evidence of the manuscript existing prior to the time of the letters -- because that evidence depends on a passage representing a clear reference.

If one found a letter that contains  a clear reference (and of course that does mean the source of the reference itself must be unquestionably dated) then it would falsify the modern forgery theory. If all that exists are dubious references that could plausibly be referring to something else, then even if they are from the right time period, they don't even provide strong evidence for
the authentic manuscript theory let alone falsifying a modern forgery theory.

Not sure how to make that point much clearer, I'm afraid.

I do see that your concern (and that of a few others) is around arguing the authenticity of the letter itself. 
But that is putting cart before the horse.
To falsify the theory with a clear reference, one must:
1) find a reference to the manuscript from an earlier time
2) show that the reference to the manuscript is strong enough to not be coincidental
3) show that the source of the reference is itself authentic

I have probably not been clear enough in spelling all three steps out explicitly.

Number 1 has been accomplished, but 2 has not.  I have focused on trying to explain what 2  requires, because I have taken as
obvious that 3 is entirely irrelevant unless and until 2 is completed. I now see that you don't see that as obvious. Mea culpa. But on the other
hand, much of the discussion is unproductively lamenting that one will never be able to accomplish 3 simply because one person (Rich)
will make it too challenging. I agree that this is an effective way to denigrate Rich in order to more easily dismiss anything else he says.
But it is not a way to evaluate whether the manuscript is authentic or just a modern forgery.
Number 3 is functioning as a straw-man for not dealing with number 2.