The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[asteckley]

 ...
... If these discrepancies disprove their theory or prove yours, the burden of proof is on you to show why, not on them to show why not.  Add "thats why it's a modern forgery" to each of these and it shows the issue here. 

(and so on and so on...)

"The Voynich has provably anachronistic, newer, content? That's why it's a modern forgery. "

(and so on and so on...)

Hopefully my point is clear.

What is clear is that you have completely missed the point that proto57 was making with that list of points and the contrivance of explanations for them. 

And you are mis-stating the claims that he has made (as well as those of all the crazy moon-landing deniers).  In none your examples did anyone ever suggest  "that's why". 

You fail to understand the difference between a claim being made based on some evidence vs a speculation within  a theory's accompanying story given to explain points that lack observable data one way or the other.