I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

[Jorge_Stolfi]

While I agree the provenance is shaky, it has already been pointed out that this is fairly normal for medieval manuscripts.

That fact is not an argument for "the VMS is not a modern forgery".  It is a great boon for forgers, since they don't have to forge the provenance for their "products".

I see no serious evidence that the VM is not a 15th century work and I think this still remains a more parsimonious hypothesis compared to being an 18th century+ forgery.

I agree that a modern forgery is very unlikely. (But not because it is the most parsimonious hypothesis -- that is a very weak argument in general, and even hard to apply.) 

But I still give some probability -- say, 20% -- to the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., that says that the VMS is not the book that Marci sent to Kircher. 

I believe there is ample evidence that the VM was created by or under the supervision of one person. All VM imagery relays the same odd 'mindset', and so does the entire text, regardless of scribal hand.

And I agree with that, too.  And I don't think that there was more than one Scribe.  The calligraphy (cacography?) is quite uniformly sloppy throughout the whole book...

All the best, --stolfi