The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[asteckley]

This is something I often find, as I said... people arguing 1420 Genuine are not arguing everything really known about the manuscript, they are forced to be selective, and reject much solid counter evidence; and at the same time, when arguing my Modern Forgery Theory, must restate elements of it, and the basis and reasoning I use for those elements, in order to attempt to make a case against it.

This pretty much sums it up. I've seen the same pattern ever since I joined this forum (I can't speak for other platforms). With very few exceptions, those trying to attack Rich's theory either lack basic sound reasoning and lean on obvious logical fallacies, or they are so rigidly committed to a prior belief—usually what Rich calls "1420 Genuine"—that they simply can't recognize the flaws in their own position.

That's the real problem here. I'm not convinced the MFT is correct, but it is nowhere near simple enough to dismiss out of hand. Rich deserves a serious, capable opponent to test the strengths and weaknesses of his theory. After watching these discussions for so long, I’m highly doubtful he’ll find that here—at least not in a way that will actually move Voynich research forward.