New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

[R. Sale]

The simplest explanation seems adequate. If the sunflower controversy is the point of contention, then it is either accepted or rejected. Accepting "New World" evidence obviously required a change in the chronology.

This whole bit about 'expert opinion' only goes to show that these evaluations are not what they were hyped up to be. And given that the VMs can be demonstrably shown to be disguised and duplicitous, all the more reason that such opinions have been rendered irrelevant, except as a historical remembrance.

Various investigations seem to indicate an artistic 'frame of reference' in the first part of the 15th C.

If the VMs artist was WMV, with his claim of a Roger Bacon manuscript, then he has knowingly or unknowingly included anachronistic material that would render his proposal false (and he never mentions it), he has also included minor details that would be supportive (and he doesn't mention that either.)