What's the evidence that the colors were added later?

[LisaFaginDavis]

I addressed Bernd's question somewhat in my Toronto lecture...the recording will be available soon. I don't see any evidence to suggest that the pigment is later. Recent XRF elemental analysis on ff. 1r and 1v did not find any evidence that the pigments were later (also introduced in my lecture but not yet publicly available...the Yale team is working on a report). All of the elemental signatures of the ink and pigments are consistent with the 15th c., except for the Marci annotations, which are zinc-gall and therefore confirmed as post-medieval. The elemental signature for the Tinapius signature is heavily occluded by the sulfur-based reagent Voynich applied.

The suggestion that the pigments must be later because of the offsets makes no sense to me. It's just the opposite. The offsets suggest that the manuscript has been in its current state for centuries. If your favorite theory only works if the pigments are later, then you're going about it backwards. 

In my lecture, I have laid out a clear and evidenced-based timeline for the material history of the manuscript (original structure, annotations, stains, offsets, binding, rebinding, and conservation). Once the recording is up, I'll be happy to answer questions here.