The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[asteckley]

I have only seen:
- "he could have acquired old parchment...."
- "he could have seen the Barschius letter"
- "he could have seen a genuine Tepenec signature"
- "he could have copied the handwriting of Marci's scribe"
This is not what I would call evidence of Voynich actually doing any of these things.

Anyway, the sort of 'evidence' you are looking for simply does not exist for the majority of old manuscripts around the world...

Well of course what you have listed are not examples of evidence!

They are simply elements of the "story" or narrative that often accompanies an historical (that is, retrodictive) theory. They are speculative but plausible claims that fill in gaps where the theory lacks direct observational data. In other words, they serve to explain aspects of what transpired for which no observable evidence exists.

As I have described elswhere in this forum, the “story” in an historical theory plays a role analogous to the “model” used in a nomological (that is, predictive) theory, such as one in physics. In a nomological theory, the model allows one to predict what will happen if the situation is repeated in a controlled experiment. In an historical theory, by contrast, the story is a narrative that helps explain the sequence of events that occurred in the past—events that cannot be repeated or tested experimentally.

I am not familiar with all the details of the proto57's MFT, so I am sure he could outline all the evidence he has observed much better than I. But off the top of my head, I can say the "evidence" includes:

• anachronisms (e.g. drawings that depict post-15th century objects, flora, and fauna)
  
• unusual features for a 15th century manuscript (e.g. foldouts)
  
• similarities to content in other later documents (e.g microscope images) 
  
• red flags related to handwriting and paleographic analysis (e.g poor use of Latin in colocated letter, and pantographic-like signature)
  
• physical inconsistencies (e.g unexplained presence of titanium, beyond trace levels, in the chemical analysis report of the ink and paint) 
  
• other circumstantial evidence (e.g. Voynich inexplicably ignoring the colocated Marci letter for several years; no one before Voynich --perhaps most expectedly Marci-- commenting on the de Tepenec signature)
  

Again, opinions can, and do, differ widely on whether each of these pieces of evidence is strong or weak, and what the collective weight amounts to, but one cannot say the evidence is non-existent.

By the way, I am not actually "looking for" evidence for any of the origin theories. At least not at this time. My interests are more on the Voynichese, which has features that, in my opinion, present challenges to all of the current origin theories.  And just to be clear, I have also never said that I think the MFT is the most probable theory to be the correct one. I've only been critical of the flaws in most of the arguments put forth to deny it. I have, myself, made no judgement on what the totality of evidence suggests.

There is no need for it to prove that any book is genuinely old.

No need for evidence to prove something??
That sounds more like religion than science