I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

[LisaFaginDavis]

Uncertainty among experts is definitely not a sign of forgery. It is a sign that connoisseurship is inherently subjective. Paleographers and art historians rarely agree on anything. I was at a conference recently where the paleographers and the art historians were 150 years apart in their attribution of a particular manuscript. Unless there is internal evidence such as a colophon or name, assigning a date and place of origin is subjective. Disagreement happens quite often. 

I have said it numerous times here but I will say it again for the sake of those who have posted to this thread. I have spent dozens of hours with the manuscript over at least a dozen visits to the Beinecke Library over the last thirty years and there is absolutely NOTHING about the manuscript that gives me ANY doubt that it is an authentic fifteenth-century object. Parchment is 15th c. Inks and pigments are consistent with that period. Much of the sewing is original and also consistent with the period. The different layers of provenance are consistent with the documentary evidence about the manuscript's history (the De Tepenecz signature and ex libris; Marci's handwriting on f. 1r; the 17th-c. style of the foliation; 19th-c. Roman limp-vellum binding). 

And I'm going to say this in shouting capital letters because it is really important: NEARLY EVERY SINGLE MEDIEVAL MANUSCRIPT HAS UNCERTAINTIES IN ITS PROVENANCE. It is totally reasonable for a fifteenth-century manuscript to have an unknown origin or an unknown early provenance. I would be suspicious if it DIDN'T! 

Also, to confirm what Jorge wrote: I did not use any kind of computerized analysis to distinguish the five scribes. I used an annotation program (a bespoke version of DigiPal that I called VoynichPal) to annotate and tag glyph-forms so I could perform the visual analysis manually.