The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[rikforto]

For one thing, it fails at the same spot where all "ancient hoax" theories fail: why would Voynich create that manuscript?  Which contains no "bait" that would make it attractive to book collectors?  Like alchemical symbols, recognizable famous names, an "LCF" signature below the illustrations, ...

Unfortunately, that is the common and weak argument of "*I*. wouldn't have done it that way, therefore it can't be a forgery".  
There is lots of evidence for the modern forgery theory and lots against. It is the cumulative weight that matters. But all the evidence still needs to be evaluated and explained in and of itself.

This is a plain strawman; Stolfi does not say it fails because he would do it differently, but instead he points to the absolutely baffling set of choices the supposed forger made and point out your theory doesn't really account for them. This becomes more acute, as pointed out elsewhere, when you consider the disparity between the evidence for an early 15th century dating and Voynich's identification that it was an earlier document.

Even if we found otherwise incontrovertible proof of a forgery tomorrow, the nature of the forgery would still demand an explanation because it is quite anomalous

(edited because I mixed up who was saying what)