Let's consider this small section from WE ARE NOT THE FIRST:
Originally Posted by superunknown
The Voynich Manuscript contains well over two hundred and fifty pages about the format of the book you are reading. On most of the pages there are diagrams in colour with captions. There are also thirty-three pages of text. In the opinion of Professor Newbold, the parchment, the ink and the style of the drawings indicate the 13th century as the time of origin. Other experts think it was written around 1500.
The document is devoted to botanical, astronomical, biological and pharmaceutical subjects. There are charts depicting cross sections 0f leaves and roots which could only have been observed with a microscope, but the microscope was not invented until the 17th century. One illustration shows a spiral with eight legs, a cloudy mass with stars in the centre, and some writing in it. The legend, deciphered by Newbold, reads that the object is within a triangle formed 'by the navel of Pegasus, the girdle of Andromeda and the head of Cassiopea'. This chart, therefore may refer to the Andromeda Galaxy which is invisible as a spiral without a strong telescope.
In studying this chart during the twenties Professor Eric Doolittle of the University of Pennsylvania made a remark that 'in my opinion it unquestionably represented a nebula and that the man who drew it must have had a telescope.' But if he did not have a telescope, how could the author have observed the Andromeda Galaxy long before the invention of his instrument? And how could he have studied cross sections of plants without a microscope?
It just so happens that The Voynich Manuscript contains random drawings from a fraud who lived during the Middle Ages. But how can you dispute the professor's opinion as such? He's not trying to represent the truth of the matter here.