New video: "Is the Voynich Manuscript fake?"

[Jorge_Stolfi]

So if a report is reasonably expected to provide evidence for a claim -- or possibly against it -- but instead provides no evidence that can be relied on in either direction (because, for example, it is found to be demonstrably flawed), is it not misleading to claim that it is "consistent" with any particular theory?

If they were brutally honest, they would say explicitly that "Our tests on the ink and paint samples we collected did not reveal any substances that were not available to the Ancient Greek.  But, sophisticated as they are, they cannot provide any specific information about when the manuscript was written, nor exclude a modern or ancient forgery."

And "compatible with a medieval origin" is basically a more marketing-friendly way of saying that.

All the best, --stolfi