The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[Mauro]

Well here we run into the common bugaboo of the flexibility afforded in the relative values of likelihood, based on the use of words allowing some range of interpretation. And also, one then needs to second guess the original opinions based on the data, with their own, alternative interpretation, and come to a different conclusion than they did... than Barabe did, in this case. As I showed in my previous comment, what he stated is very clear to me,

“All of the inks used for text or drawing were identified as iron gall inks. The variability of the amounts of iron present is not unusual in iron gall inks. We found no significant differences between the writing inks and the drawing inks used throughout the document and tentatively conclude that the text and drawings were most likely created contemporaneously.”
Rich

This is indeed what they wrote. But notice they're talking about the drawings and the main text: what they tentatively conclude is that the illustrations and the main text where coeval, not that the marginalia and the main text were coeval. One could quibble if "writing used throughout the document" includes the 'pox leber' marginalia, but assuming this seems a bit farfetched to me. Also, they would have reported specifically about the marginalia: even concluding tentatively that the 'poxleber' marginalia is coeval would have been an important and unexpected result. Indeed they report about page numbers, quire numbers and the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. substitution key in the very next paragraph, which are important results in their own sake: it's incredible that they forgot to specifically report about what would have been the most important result of all.

And, the only thing they say about Sample 16 'pox leber' is 
   

So what they actually report is about a difference (not further elaborated upon), not about similarity.