The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

But why use XVth century imagery if his aim was to pass it as a lost work of Bacon? That would be quite weird to do, given his expertise with rare books. Why not use XIIIth century imagery?

This will be repetitive to many, but I think you missed it, Mauro, so I will briefly repeat myself:

1) I in no way believe this was created to look as though it was created by Roger Bacon, nor at all look like it came from the XIII century, in the first place, but rather to look as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century (as that Court was inaccurately and fancifully described in Carrington Bolton's "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II")

2) Much of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., matches the above choice, or is close to it.

As I write in my You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

"I further propose that is was created first as a Jacob Horcicky botanical, which was meant to appear as though it was created in the Court of Rudolf II in the early 17th century, and as such was falsely “signed” by him. At some later point (by about 1910/11?), the intended author and time was changed to Roger Bacon and the 13th century, probably by removing many of the now missing pages (which may have run counter to a Roger Bacon claim). Sometime later, the 1666 Marci to Kircher letter was forged, in order to strengthen this new, intended, Bacon authorship."

And of course, as is rightly pointed out by many, Voynich could not have known of the future advent of radiocarbon dating, and so picked the wrong age vellum for his purpose. I see asteckley has proposed a suggestion as to why 15th century parchment may have been a more likely, if still happenstance, choice at hand.