New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

[asteckley]

I do not understand how anyone can seriously believe that the titanium found in a sample of the Voynich MS ink by McCrone has any chance of being the suspicious anastase crystals. This would have been a major find. McCrone knew it and Yale/Beinecke knew it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(This shows that the anastase was found in/near the apparent yellow stain lines surrounding the brown ink - no such thing in the Voynich MS as far as I am aware)

This would mean that McCrone were either highly incompetent (not realising it) or dishonest (knowing it but hiding it).

The quality of Koen's summary video is that it relies on evidence, not on incredible speculation.
The McCrone conclusion is evidence.
The idea that they might have been incompetent or lied is speculation.

But Rene -- it is precisely BECAUSE the presence of anatase would have been such a major find and everyone involved knew it (presumably), that we would expect their report to be particularly specific on details regarding titanium compounds!  They would go out of their way to be explicit on whether it did or did not contain anatase, or if they were simply unable to identify that fact one way or the other. 

If, by "incompetent", you mean being unaware that it would be important to their client and to everyone else interested in the manuscript (as opposed to simply being incompetent with the technology), then YES -- it appears that they were either incompetent or else they were being intentionally vague.  And, while one could imagine some plausible reasons why they might want to be intentionally vague, it does seem most likely that they were simply --and incompetently-- unaware that the detail was a relevant one.  (After the Vinland fiasco, how could they not know?).

In any case -- in ANY case -- they did not specify the compound. And so we do KNOW the compound. It is pure speculation to say, based on the report, that they found any particular titanium compound as opposed to any other one. And it is therefore invalid to assume a specific answer in order to support any thesis that depends on the particular compound -- it does not matter whether the thesis is for genuine, forgery, or extraterrestrial origin.
(To be clear, Rich has not done that -- he is using the lack of specificity as evidence against a thesis, which is distinctly different than using an assumed specificity as evidence for a thesis.)