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

[LisaFaginDavis]

The Marci letter, which is genuine beyond reasonable doubt, already takes it back all the way to the 17th century and mentions several owners. Several other pieces of evidence confirming and extending this have been found in the mean time.

As I've said before, I'm not convinced of the modern forgery theory but also not of the alternative authentic 15th century theory.
(If I had to make a wager, I would probably put my money on the 15h century theory, but with conservative odds.)
I don't have the experience of looking at these old artifacts or of the historical contexts, so I mainly have to
base my evolving opinions on what is reasonable to an average person, and
on basic concepts of logic, information, evidence, data, etc. all of which transcend the specialized experience.
So I have to ask what may be  some dumb questions about details when they are more 'historical' in nature.

Anyway, it's pretty clear that the particular provenance that is 'known' rests critically on the authenticity of the Marci
letter that Voynich claimed to have found in the manuscript. (That is to say, if the letter is authentic, then the evidence
of the other letters holds some weight. If not, they weaken considerably.)

But there's been a few questions I've had about that letter. These are separate from anything Rich has outlined in his blogs (as far
as I know).

I was wondering if you, or anyone else, might answer any of them (or point me to more detailed sources of the answers).

1) What is the Marci letter written on? Can it be C-14 tested?

2) If the letter was in the manuscript, one would expect that it was there for a considerable period of time.  Possibly near 250 years,
but at an absolute minimum for the few years from the time it was in the Jesuits' hands till Voynich later found it, and
most likely for one or more periods of time measuring decades.
Is there any transfer of the ink, or more likely, the sealing wax onto the VMS vellum?

3) Why might Marci omit using Barschius's name while providing a review of the history of the book as he knew it.
He outlines the information that both of them already knew, but uses the terms "a close friend" (of Marci's) and the "then prossessor of the book",
even though both Marci and Kircher already knew Barschius.  And he had made previous references to most of the same information in earlier 
letters to Kircher. In those earlier letters, Marci had already
referred to Barschiuss by name, and as being among their "mutual friends"? Is it assumed that he had forgotten all that?
It simply stood out as a weirdness when I first read the letters all in order.

4) And additionally, in reference to you comments above, what are the several other pieces of evidence that have been found? (That is, where can i find the description of them?)

1) The Marci letter is written on paper and so cannot be C-14 tested. But it is paper with a texture and watermark that are consistent with a seventeenth-century date of the letter. The watermark can be seen in this image that I took in 2019: 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
2) We have no way of knowing where and how the letter was stored or, if it was tucked into the manuscript, where and for how long. There is no clear material evidence that connects the manuscript and the letter. 
3) There are lots of reasons why Marci might use an alias like "a close friend," but there's no way to definitively determine why.
4) Rene has laid out more evidence about Marci, Baresch, and Kircher here: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.