The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[eggyk]

1) parchment is authentic 15th-century parchment. Yes, I know, that's doesn't prove anything: Voynich could have found piles of old, unused parchment...possible but unlikely.

Until there is convincing scientific evidence identifying the manuscript as anything other than an authentic early fifteenth-century manuscript, you won't convince me. The case for forgery requires a truly implausible series of events. With each piece of the forgery argument, the improbabilities multiply. It is simply not plausible.

For what its worth, I think that the averaging of the each of the individual carbon dating results relies on assumptions we cannot rely on. I believe that you are personally working on how the pages were first organised before they were rebound? The statistical analysis that gave a clear early 15th century dating made assumptions on the timeframe of creation and binding in order to justify doing so. 

Without doing that, you have individual folio ages from the mid 14th to late 15th century if including the uncertainty. Its a nitpick, and doesn't address it being genuine or a forgery, but it could be relevant for other discussions.