31-10-2025, 06:42 PM
(31-10-2025, 04:04 PM)asteckley wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But if we believe they fell short as much as you describe, then we can't at the same time rely on their analysis to provide support for the claim that the ink and paint is consistent with a medieval origin.
"Consistent with a medieval origin" means only that they did not find any evidence of a more recent origin. And indeed I cannot see any such thing in their raw data.
But they did not find any evidence that it is of medieval origin, either.
In that direction, AFAIK so far we have only the C14 test (not in this McCrone report) that proves that the vellum was made in the 1400s. Is there anything else?
We have Marci's letter, but some are disputing its authenticity. Even if it is genuine (which I think it is) and the book it was attached to when it was sent to Kircher is the VMS (which I am assuming its, but can't think of a conclusive argument for), that still leaves the possibility that the VMS was written anytime between 1430 and 1600, using vellum made in the 1400s, before it was obtained by Baresh. Or maybe even by Baresh himself...
All the best, --stolfi