The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

Yet they ignored this 17C style for the VMS which was a 17C forgery (initially - as per the Forgery Hypothesis).
Another case of Wilfrid being very smart where needed and very stupid where needed? ..

I'm sorry -- what is the 17C Forgery Hypothesis?

I believe Bluetoes is referring to the element of my 1910 hypothesis which asserts that the Voynich was originally created to (falsely) appear as though it came from the Court of Rudolf II, as that Court was "understood" though the work of Bolton:

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."

This would explain:

1) Why so many elements, illustrations and styles evoke those things seen in "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. 
2) Why so many pre-C14 experts believed it showed You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., and as above
3) Why Voynich pushed the "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., which he knew to be a lie
4) As above, why the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. was (ahem) "found" years after he "bought" the Voynich

And then Bluetoes is pointing out that, if my above suspicions are correct, then why did they "... ignored this 17C style for the VMS which was a 17C forgery". Well a good point, as a perfect forgery might be expected to be far more consistent, and match far more elements to such a desired time frame. But I would counter:

1) That this is a much higher standard of comparison to demand of my Forgery Hypothesis, than is remotely demanded of the 1420 Genuine Theory: Which has no overall context that explains the diversity of content, styles, materials and construction as well as Modern Forgery. Rather, if standards were applied equally, my hypothesis would hit on far more points. I mean, why are only those features which are used to support 1420/Genuine allowed; and the many more, which do not, ignored? There are many more modern writing and numerical styles in the Voynich, and that affects, or should affect, all theories equally. Modern Forgery allows and explains every scrap of data and content in the Voynich and its provenance, the 1420GT does not, it needs to ignore all these to exist.

2) There are many supporting elements in my hypothesis which do fall outside of a strict early 17th century timeline, such as later optics, microscopic imagery, influences from later illustrations, and so on. These fit with my view that this is a bad and inaccurate forgery. The use of "Follies of Science in the Court of Rudolf II" is, yes, my proposed "primer", the core, but I also list many comparisons which I contend show the Voynich was created from a wide range of content and influences, well outside the time frame of "Follies...". Would you or I do it "better" and stick strictly to far more narrow chronological and geographical ranges and styles? Maybe. But virtually all forgeries stray a bit, and the Voynich strays a lot... yet, it is still defended as "perfectly 1420"- so we have there an example of, in essence, claiming that "If a forgery, why so bad and all over the place with content and styles- it should be better if a forgery; BUT as a genuine 1420 manuscript, no, it does not really stray all that much at all, it is VERY consistent".

Which is it? It can't be both.

No, those very inconsistencies pointed out actually fit within the parameters of how my hypothesis envisions the Voynich: A fairly sloppy hodgepodge of styles, meant to loosely evoke the "sciences" of the early 17th century, in a sort of loose and fanciful amalgamation of what one's flawed impression of such a time would have produced. A kind of "popular" impression, as one would get from "Follies...". Colorful, brilliant, enigmatic, exciting... and therefore (hopefully) valuable.