Voynich manuscript discussion: 2005 January 22 - NEW TOPIC

[Martin]

Cold case solved -right? Looks like a most probable yes to me!

[3220]

In relation to APOD dated January 22 2005, is NASA still interested in deciphering the manuscript?

[original post was removed by the author, and restored from quote below - makc]

[Chris Peterson]

In relation to APOD dated January 22 2005, is NASA still interested in deciphering the manuscript?

I don't think NASA ever had a formal interest in this document. Why would they? But certainly, there must be thousands of individual astronomers, historians, linguists, and others who would be most interested in an answer, or at least some insight into the matter.

[3220]

Just looking for a yes or no.

[original post was removed by the author, and restored from quote below - makc]

[Chris Peterson]

Just looking for a yes or no.

No.

[3220]

I am presuming NASA read this forum in the background, and that is an official "no" to any interest in astronomical data contained in the manuscript.

[original post was removed by author, it is restored from two quotes below - makc]

[Chris Peterson]

I am presuming NASA read this forum in the background, and that is an official "no" to any interest in astronomical data contained in the manuscript.

Your question was no more answerable with "yes or no" than "are you still beating your wife?"

NASA's involvement in APOD is limited to their hosting it. There is no "NASA" to read it in the background. No doubt many employees of NASA view the site, but not in an official way that could be said to represent the agency.

I doubt many people think the Voynich document contains any astronomical information or data of [astronomical] scientific value. Its interest is historical, and that isn't something in NASA's mandate. I don't know who is doing work with the manuscript these days, but it surely isn't NASA in any official capacity.

[bystander]

I am presuming NASA read this forum in the background, and that is an official "no" to any interest in astronomical data contained in the manuscript.

This forum has no official connection to NASA. If you want an official answer, you'll have to contact NASA. BTW: I think Chris's original answer to your question was the best one possible. If you have something new to add, I'm sure many would be interested in seeing it.

For those interested in the previous discussion of APOD: 2005 January 22 - The Mysterious Voynich Manuscript see:

Voynich manuscript discussion: 2005 January 22 (locked)

[bystander]

Useful references from previous discussion:

Wikipedia: Voynich Manuscript
Crystalinks: The Voynich Manuscript
René Zandbergen: The Voynich Manuscript
Dept of Math, UC Riverside, John Baez: The Voynich Manuscript
Scientific American, July 2004, Gordon Rugg, The Mystery of the Voynich Manuscript
Wired Magazine, September 2004, Joseph D'Agnese, Gordon Rugg: Scientific Method Man

[Jody Maat]

http://www.voynich.nl

Love your opinion

J. Maat ( I am not hiding, my real name)

[makc]

how about 12 pages over there and another 2 pages here for "our opinion"?