The claimed Voynich page

[Fabrizio Salani]

*If* it's a 20th or 21st century copy, there are a limited set of options for the source it was created from given that it appears to have been copied using some sort of optical projection:

1) From the object itself -- vanishingly small probability once Yale acquired it, maybe pre-Krauss (but I'd say an unlikely maybe).

2) From the rotographs of f1-56 deposited with the British Library. This can be eliminated because f14v/f15r are missing from the scans (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). 

3) From an n-th generation copy of the pre-Yale photos (these got passed around prior to Yale posting the color scans online because before they gave Takahashi permission for his transcription it was an explicit condition of obtaining a copy of the Yale microfilm/copyflo that it couldn't be used to create a machine-readable transcription). I don't know what You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. looked like in these.

4) From the Yale microfilm or a copyflow print from that. This is a screenshot from a PDF containing scans of a copyflo copy from the old Yale microfilm (so some degree of degradation relative to the original copyflo) of f14v: 


Are there any features in the copy of the page (copying errors in the text in areas where the copyflo is hard to read, for instance, or matching distortion relative to Yale's color scans) pointing to use of the Yale copyflo?

(and, of course: 5) From one of the sets of color scans Yale did.)

Yes, these are theories I've heard before, and they're all American in origin. They don't take into account the fact that the parchment was located in Italy, inside a "madia" at an antiques market in Narni, Umbria. That said, we can hypothesize that a 20th-century "American" created the parchment, brought it to Italy, and placed it in a "madia" in Narni, hoping someone would find it and, more importantly, recognize it. Now, given that the theories about the manuscript's creation (from what I've read) range from the Cathars, to Nostradamus, to a young Leonardo da Vinci, to Filarete, to Woynich himself, and to aliens, then this American theory also has some plausibility.

For example, regarding the "Narni" story, some have challenged me, saying, "But you're the one saying that; there's no real evidence for what you're claiming." True. You have the financial means to have it made by one or more skilled forgers. This is also true (even though I don't know any forgers).
Motivations?

1 - As a joke. Thanks, but I have other things to do than make fun of people, and my morality and seriousness (in every human and professional field) cannot be questioned.

2 - To deceive MS scholars. Scholars weren't waiting for a Fabrizio Salani, and in any case, if you're a serious scholar, you do your research and then draw your own conclusions, and if you're a scientist, you want scientific proof, not words.
3 - To sell it and defraud a buyer. I've never tried to sell it, and in any case, IT'S NOT FOR SALE (no ifs, ands, or buts).