The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[ReneZ]

- I have this theory

- Prove me wrong

- If you can't, I win

That is not what I mean.  The last line is "If you can't, then my theory remains possible".

OK, I understand that. If anyone is looking for public opinion (as in politics), then the term would be "win", but when it is about finding out the truth, then it is indeed "remains possible".

Now the term "possible" covers a wide range of probabilities, and is a subjective term. The same thing could be "barely possible" for one, and "quite credible" for someone else.

To get out of that difficult situation, one can usually decide relatively easily whether for statements or hypothesis there is any evidence or not.

For most alternative explanations, there is no evidence at all. They tend to be "possible" or "could have happened".

I know that you are fully aware of that, and you look for evidence of your own hypotheses.

I am also fully aware that alternative explanations can be formulated. 

For some time, there has been the alternative explanation that the Voynich MS (and all the other ones) were not in Villa Mondragone, but in a castle in Austria. The evidence for that was that Voynich had said so himself. (He never ever mentioned Villa Mondragone).
I followed that trail quite intensively, but it eventually became clear that it was a lie by Voynich.

All the reasons behind that story are now also fully understood:
- Why he argued this in the first place
- Why he changed his story
Here again, the "why" is interesting but not too important, since we know what really happened from letters that were long hidden in the Vatican.