07-09-2025, 03:25 PM
I agree. The main argument against it being a "forgery" is that it would be too costly to fake and therefore not worth it. Except that forgers and embezzlers specialize in exactly the kind of knowledge that makes it worth while and then exploit the general public belief that no one would go to that kind of trouble for a hoax.
This theory isn't about how it was produced, but why. That being said, and the question of when being answered to my satisfaction, it still begs the questions of who and where and how. And seeing the investigations going on now to answer those questions is exactly why I decided to post here at all. Somewhere there is a reference to the manuscript or to the community or person holding it that predate the current earliest reference. Somewhere there is a sample of writing that matches the marginalia handwriting. This can't possibly be the only thing that person ever produced. (Well, anything is possible. I suppose every other sample of their hand might have been destroyed... fires etc.)
This theory isn't about how it was produced, but why. That being said, and the question of when being answered to my satisfaction, it still begs the questions of who and where and how. And seeing the investigations going on now to answer those questions is exactly why I decided to post here at all. Somewhere there is a reference to the manuscript or to the community or person holding it that predate the current earliest reference. Somewhere there is a sample of writing that matches the marginalia handwriting. This can't possibly be the only thing that person ever produced. (Well, anything is possible. I suppose every other sample of their hand might have been destroyed... fires etc.)