The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

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.

But of course it is an argument toward some sort of subterfuge on his part. We know he was intentionally hiding "something", the question is "why?". It is valid and expected for anyone who wants to claim something is genuine, and/or not gotten under means, to present proof of how they did get it. Police usually demand a bill of sale, or a receipt, for instance.

Voynich either could not, or for some other reason refused to, explain where he actually got the manuscript. Simply stating this it not an argument is not correct... of course it is an argument to some sort of malfeasance: That the work was either forged, or stolen, or sold to him when he was not supposed to be allowed to buy it.

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.

These "valid explanations" are not actually known to be factual, they are opinions based on slim evidence, or worse, on Voynich's "word", when we know his word cannot be trusted. 

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.

You have repeated this many times, and yet I don't see how his buying other manuscripts... genuine ones... 30 or 300 or 3000... has any bearing, at all, on his possibly forging or having forged the Voynich. There is zero connection between the two. I of course acknowledge he bought other, real manuscripts, and I don't understand your insisting this implies, in the least bit, that the Voynich is genuine.

In fact, it does the opposite: Because those 30 works, to varying degrees, do have provenance, do have name labels, do have ex libris plates. The Voynich does not. If it was among the other works, why does it not have any of this evidence? 

This point is never mentioned, bceause it is also a bit of a killer for Voynich's possible motive to create a fake.

But Rene, it is mentioned all the time, by you, but it does not logically follow. It is not at all a "killer" to modern forgery. He had plenty of motive to create one... his buying other works has no impact on his creating or owning or selling any forgery. Every forger... I think every forger I have ever learned about has also owned and sold genuine works (usually a great many more genuine works, in fact), and I don't have any reason to assume Voynich was any different.

I'm not sure why you continue to claim these as arguments against forgery... I don't mean that sarcastically, I hope you understand. I really don't understand it. 

Why present such obviously incorrect arguments?

Well I don't present the arguments you have used, above... at least, not in the way you frequently misstate them... the actual arguments I use are different than the ones you claim I do. It is very simple: He bought real stuff, he used the places he did buy the real stuff as a cover for the fake Voynich by implying it was among them, while he had no provenance, otherwise, for the Voynich. There is no evidence, at all, that the Voynich was among those other works. It is that simple. There is no evidence the Voynich ever existed before about 1911, in fact.