Re: VMs: new revelations

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 22:47 02/01/03 +0100, Rafal T. Prinke wrote:
> > But still, why would de Tepenecz' autograph have been removed
> > in the first place?
>
> The conspiracy theory would be that Voynich used sympathetic
> ink for the signature so that it couldn't be easily
> compared to the original signatures of Tepenecz.

...or that Voynich forged the signature himself, then realised that he had 
to remove it so as to prevent people checking his modern ink? :-)

It's the fact that a signature (presumably denoting ownership) had been 
removed *without another being put in its place* that confuses me. Is that 
normal behaviour for MS owners of this period?

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling.....

______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list