1665/66 Marci Discussion: Locked?

[davidjackson]

My contention is that the reason they are not answered is because they cannot be answered. How would you answer the concerns on my Marci blog? For instance, why the fold lines do not make sense? I have a "supposition" for it, but have heard no other to explain it.

Rich, you know I have the greatest respect for you, and have so for many years.
But I'm afraid that the reasons they are not "answered" is because your forgery theory has been cunningly crafted out of bits of real theory. You collect all the bits of evidence and then re-interpret the conclusion to your own fashion, usually writted up in thousands of well crafted and persuasive words. People look at it and sigh.
For example, the folding of the letter.
From You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:

There were two basic ways a letter was prepared for delivery in the times before manufactured envelopes became available: One, the letter itself was folded into an envelope, with the writing to the inside and the address on the outside. Then this was usually secured with a “wax” seal, impressed while hot with the emblem of the sender.

An envelope is a protective sheath - you cannot "fold the letter into an envelope". In this case, you sealed your letter and then (optionally) write the name of the addressee on the back. This was done when you knew that the letter would be protected anyway, it was being sent in a satchel or via messenger. Nobody wrote a name and address on an envelope and dropped it into a mailbox. If there were a bunch of letters in one parcel being carried to the same person, you didn't even need to write the name on the back of the letter, because all  the letters were being bundled up safely together.
A small yet crucial detail as improper use of terminology which shows lack of expertise with the subject matter. The letter may seem different and odd to you but I'm not aware that any of the historians who have studied the matter have raised any issues with the folding or materials employed. If there are any, I would appreciate you bringing this to my attention.

The 1665 Voynich/Marci letter seems different, and odd, in this area. So I printed out the 1666 Marci letter, and tried to fold it on its apparent fold lines. There are ways to fold it, but they do not make sense.

(emphasis mine)
Exactly. You don't know how to fold it. And this lack of knowledge has caused you to jump to conclusions. 
If you look at the correct way to fold it, it fits up nicely, in the same way (albeit much less dramatically) as an origami swan only works if refolded correctly.
It is nicely sealed up, with the sides coming in to prevent people snooping upon the contents / the sides snagging and tearing during travel. It's something the scribe would have done thousands of times during his working career.