(29-10-2025, 06:06 PM)tavie wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.OK, I'm stepping in here before we have another round of this debate. We have a policy of one thread per theory.
?!? I'm not sure what "one thread per theory" really means. It is infeasible to isolate the numerous theories about the manuscript so that they are mutually exclusive. There is far too much overlap between all the theories and ideas that are the whole purpose of this forum. I presume though that you really mean "one topic per thread"?
(29-10-2025, 06:06 PM)tavie wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Discussions about whether the manuscript is a modern hoax should stay on the You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. Let's keep this thread on topic.
Proto57's post prior to yours -- which is presumably the one you are referring to -- WAS on topic! It was not about whether the manuscript is a modern hoax (!?). it was directly addressing the "absence of evidence" argument that was being made to suggest that conclusions could be drawn if another letter were found with the same watermarks. That is, obviously, well within the scope of this thread's topic -- at least to the extent that the comment it was responding to was within scope. If a thread cannot include commentary on the strengths and flaws in the arguments being made, then there's little value left in most ANY of the threads on this forum.
Frankly, anyone who reads it as a discussion or defense of a modern hoax theory is completely missing the several relevant and valid points that were made.
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)
