27-04-2024, 03:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 27-04-2024, 03:58 PM by Mark Knowles.)
It is clear that you are trying to be very selective about when you listen to people you call experts and when you don't. The manuscript being "geninue", or not, is a dating conclusion. If you respect these people's opinions you should listen to their resounding conclusion that the Voynich is not a modern forgery and not downplay or ignore that opinion.
The contradictions between the different datings does not imply your theory is true. I think that many or most of the people that you list can hardly be considered "experts" when it comes to dating as I said a long time ago. Was "Newbold" really an expert? In addition the difficulties in dating an object like the Voynich in part account for the various datings.
Why have you chosen to focus on the opinions of mostly dead people? Why not refer to people who can tell you what they actually think of your theory?
The contradictions between the different datings does not imply your theory is true. I think that many or most of the people that you list can hardly be considered "experts" when it comes to dating as I said a long time ago. Was "Newbold" really an expert? In addition the difficulties in dating an object like the Voynich in part account for the various datings.
Why have you chosen to focus on the opinions of mostly dead people? Why not refer to people who can tell you what they actually think of your theory?