Your 3rd link is a study that contradicts the findings from your 2nd link, invalidating the claim that it's fake! If you read all of the reports on the left-ha

Your 3rd link is a study that contradicts the findings from your 2nd link, invalidating the claim that it's fake! If you read all of the reports on the left-hand side of the page you link to, you'll see that about half of them are part of an argument between McCrone and Cahill on whether McCrone's analysis is valid, with some others pitching in. None of the reports seem to give strong evidence that the map is fake. They are research indicating the possibility of materials on the map which are not consistent with the time in which it was claimed to be created. However, this does not eliminate all possibilities that could explain why the map contains those materials.