The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[Bluetoes101]

This is the problem with people getting more fixated on discrediting someone's theory than they are on objectively evaluating it... they start to see things in the discussion that aren't there.

I get what you are saying, but I feel that if you do not address the base of this theory it is hard to "objectively evaluate" additional parts.
In continuing to address the base theory you seem "fixated on discrediting someone's theory", repeating yourself etc.
I'm not trying to do that, but explain my position, hopefully more on the "objectively evaluate" path.

Visualise the theory as a pyramid with 10 layers. Like a "the food chain" diagram you'd see in school.
The first layer holds the rest up, it is the most important. It's the one I can't make sense of.
I don't think that is an unfair visualisation, the core principle pollutes how we view the blocks therefore placed upon.

In todays expert opinion, the majority call the VMS a 15th century work.
Much of the research and testing on specific parts, we can have a good idea about, also point to the 15th century.
The (logical) modern hoax then, I think it is fair to say - is a very good fake 15th century manuscript that someone made.

However this is not the theory. The theory is that it is a fake 17th century manuscript, later changed to 13th century by removing some parts.
What is left behind then should still point to the 17th century for anyone "in the know". 13th for idiots.
I obviously have some concerns about this, but actually it does not matter for why I can't make sense of the base idea.

This is my main concern - What then is the profile of our hoaxer?
A paradox (I think) - the genius idiot.

With each new topic discussed the hoaxer becomes a greater genius and idiot.
If the example is very well known to be 20th century, why add it?
If the example is very well known to be 15th century, why add it?

Text on the internet can seem very "however you perceive it", right? So I'd just like to say I appreciate everyone's work here.
I don't really care if I disagree with things because usually it adds to my knowledge, and I'm thankful for that. Everyone on the "hoax side" provides great research and in the end hopefully all that research will bring us to a point - the believers and non-believers, someone will end up right, but we will all be somewhere progressed.   

This is just why I personally disengage with the theory, in so-far as replying much.
I can't "objectively evaluate" without seeming "fixated on discrediting someone's theory". The base idea must be regarded. I don't think it is right. So anything else balanced upon it is at best questionable in my eyes.