The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

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 or not, but this seems farfetched to me, and they would have reported about the marginalia, as they did 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 of the report. The only thing they say about Sample 16 'pox leber' is

So what they actually report is about a difference, not about similarity.

Well we have to agree to disagree here... my take on it is that sample 116v was being included in their "contemporaneous" statement. But like I said, we will have to disagree I suppose, for the time being. You see, this is an old discussion, and when it comes up, as it inevitably does, I need to dust off all the background work I've done on it, long ago, in order to fully explain more about it, and further reasons I stand by the history of the dating of the inks in this writing, and the writing.

It is obviously an important point to 1420 Genuine, and like a hot potato for everyone. Nobody seems to know what to make of it all. For instance, the changing story on this. As I've pointed out... and no, right now, I apologize I do not have the various statements about this, but hope to put them together since this issue if of interest... I've pointed out that:

1) In the beginning, the official opinion by many was that... sorry, must paraphrase for the time being, "The 116v marginalia was in a different hand and written about 150 years later than the main text".

2) Then, at sometime, the dating of this marginalia was moved back to the time of the C14 tests. One example, from Voynich.nu up to 2024 states, "The handwriting of this extraneaous text is Gothic, and appears to be from the first half of the 15th century, as determined by Marco Ponzi and Koen Gheuens. In my personal view, the closest parallel is found in a 15th century manuscript in the Heidelberg library: Pal.Germ.647, which dates from 1445-1460."

3) But later, this statement was again removed. It is no longer there.

No, same ink is a clear problem for 1420 Genuine, for all the stated and obvious reasons. Whether it is or not is no problem at all for my hypothesis, of course. I've no doubt that... old or new, real or fake... several different inks needed to be created to finish it. And also, there are problems with many aspects of the inks, too... this question of who by and when the 116v ink was applied is just par for the course of a long line of difficult questions that need 'splainin'.