[Design of Marci Letter]

[proto57]

As a person who started this discussion I would like just to say that I have no personal opinion and no idea if VM was rebound or not  I was just repeating the mainstream view.

Hi Rafal: I understood that... I didn't mean to sound like I was arguing with you on the matter. I was only describing what I found out on the topic you had brought up.

What I wrote does reflect a very common phenomenon in Voynich studies, one I carp on all the time: That "we are told" many things about the Voynich, its provenance, its construction, materials, and so on. They are often either stated as fact, or implied as fact. But then when we critically examine them... look at what is actually known, for certain, and what is not, and then these firm, foundational "facts" often turn out to have many alternative possible outcomes contrary to the given ones.

It was the main point of my recent Zoom talk segment. Not about my theory, or anyone else's particular theory, but just making the point that we often cannot take the current paradigm's building blocks for granted, because there is, it often turns out, little or no foundation for them. The binding seems to be yet another case... even I was going on about the "18th century cover" until recently, taking it for a fact, and what such an age cover might mean to me or others...

... and a couple of hours of research, and yet again... it turns out there is no little to no foundation to it. Until further testing is done we just don't know when that cover is from, or when it was put on the Voynich. I guess I'm repeating myself... but anyway, I didn't mean to argue with you, but with the provided "rebinding paradigm". It could happen to be correct, but there is little to no basis for it. Important to know, I feel.

Rich