I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

[oshfdk]

Can you really reason all that away with "boys will be boys" when talking about a document of such historical significance?

Suppose every single word of what Voynich said about the manuscript was made up, the signature forged and the letter sourced separately. Does this really change a lot? This is genuine ~15 century parchment, judging by the images this manuscript was created in Europe, looking at wear and tear and insect holes going through the ink, the writing appears to be old too. Marci, Baresch, Kircher appeared to be as clueless about the manuscrript they talked about as we are about the Voynich Manuscript. What would materially change if the provenance story is wrong? There are of course hopes that tracing the provenance further in time would answer a lot of questions, but as it stands now, the provenance doesn't affect our reasoning about what the manuscript is and how to approach it.