01-02-2026, 12:19 AM
Saying that Voynich hiding the place where he got the manuscript, suggests that the MS is likely to be a fake by him, is a classical example of a 'non sequitor'. This is when a conclusion does not follow from the argument presented.
First of all, there other perfectly valid explanations.
What is more: we even know exacly why he lied about this, both from his own words and from other documented and independent sources.
But it is even worse.
Apart from these points, Voynich actually bought about 30 perfectly genuine manuscripts from the very same place, so that settles that question.
This point is never mentioned, bceause it is also a bit of a killer for Voynich's possible motive to create a fake.
Why present such obviously incorrect arguments?
First of all, there other perfectly valid explanations.
What is more: we even know exacly why he lied about this, both from his own words and from other documented and independent sources.
But it is even worse.
Apart from these points, Voynich actually bought about 30 perfectly genuine manuscripts from the very same place, so that settles that question.
This point is never mentioned, bceause it is also a bit of a killer for Voynich's possible motive to create a fake.
Why present such obviously incorrect arguments?