Rendlesham Forest Incident - I know what the binary code meant

a reply to: Wewillallbefree

Why is it so hard to except what Penniston said/did? If I was there, I would have done exactly what Penniston did.

the original story changed, and changed yet again...it grew, why would that be if it were all true?

originally posted by: Wewillallbefree
a reply to: VoidHawk
ALSO do you REALLY think this is the first time Binary has been used as a language with an alleged ET contactee ? You need to read up some more - Binary is a universal language.

I know binary rather well. Yes I agree that it could be universal, but are you aware of ascii? or any other interpetations?
When we use binary, we allocate letters digits and symbols to numbers, for instance the numbers from 65 (1000001) to 90 (01011010) represent the alphabet (caps). What makes you think our interpretation for the numbers would be the same as an alien interpretation?

ETA:

Peniston and his buddies expect us to believe that aliens have a table just like our one shown above!

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Wewillallbefree
And this is your opinion ? I totally understand why Penniston was reluctant to come forward at first, but if you have proof to prove your claim I would love to see it. a reply to: VoidHawk

About a year ago I had intended to post a thread on the Rendlesham incident. I didn't for one simple reason, and that reason was Peniston!
His (and his friends) contributions do nothing but muddy the waters.
Craft did visit the area, and the military were powerless to do anything about it. The story leaked and a coverup was required. Along came Peniston and hid buddies with a fantasy about aliens and binary data being inserted into his head! Everyone forgot about the serious penetration of air space, instead they all followed the "Aliens and binary data" story!

The first explanation of the light house looked plausible to me, a cover could have been just so the whole base would not look stupid. Living at the coast I understand how this could happen when fog is involved. The moving fog is very disorienting with lights and makes them appear to move. As you move around they seem to move a great distance but then you find they were stationary if you know what you were looking at.

Hi Char-Lee.
I'm not a disbeliever, I do think something took place at rendlesham, I just dont buy Penistons add on bs.
The light house theory has been rather well proven to be highly unlikely, if I can remember what docu it was that researched this I'll post it.
Void.

a reply to: VoidHawk

Exactly. If you wanted to send a "universal message" using binary then you would send numbers, in binary. Maybe a sequence of prime numbers. Something that is totally language-independent.

E.g. you might send the following:

10
11
101
111
1011
1101
10001

and so on. Any intelligent being should be able to decode that. It is a universal code.

But even if you didn't do that, the code is utterly bogus. Let's say you wanted to send those co-ordinates. You would send the actual numbers in binary. You wouldn't write them in decimal, and then look up the (totally arbitrary, man-made) ASCII representations of those decimal number characters, and then transmit them in binary!

However, if you were a hoaxer who knew nothing about binary, or decimal, or number theory at all, but wanted some kind of pseudo-scientific "high-tech" clap trap, that is exactly what you might do...

Also, funny how Penniston never showed any of this "binary code" in his notebook until 2010, isn't it.


I have an open mind about Rendlesham, although I do think the lighthouse is by far the most likely culprit (two of the main witnesses even admitted in their primary witness statements that they followed the light for a long distance across country before realising it was the lighthouse!) But one thing I am certain of is that this "binary code" is a load of well-rotted 100% organic farmyard fertiliser cooked up long after the event.

So please take us through the steps of translation. Binary code is just zeroes and ones, right? If you are going to translate it, how do you get to the English letters? You first have to translate the binary to something significant, such as ASCII code, then translate the ASCII code to a language. If it's not ASCII code (which seems unlikely for an alien spaceship), what is it? How do you translate [insert whatever code this is except ASCII here] code into English? Why English?

take us through the steps, please. Simply proclaiming this as so doesn't make it so. Show your work.

Lord, I hope your right. Earth is a mess and getting uglier by the day!

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: VoidHawk



Also, funny how Penniston never showed any of this "binary code" in his notebook until 2010, isn't it.

.

Here is a video where he is asked that question

a reply to: eNaR

Would you land on a planet that's still indifferent to eachother? The idea of being captured, studied, and questioned about how my technology works doesn't sound enjoyable, all in the name of national security, and getting an edge on your own kind from the other hemisphere.

a reply to: schuyler

Who is this post directed to?

As you say, using ASCII code is vanishingly unlikely if the code came from aliens. And the clumsy way it was done suggests that it was done by a human trying to create something "mystical" but ending up with a load of misspelt nonsense!

So there is no other way to "decode" it. It is what it is.

would you mistake a lighthouse for a UFO ? Would you Mistake a tank for a car?

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Wewillallbefree
And this is your opinion ? I totally understand why Penniston was reluctant to come forward at first, but if you have proof to prove your claim I would love to see it. a reply to: VoidHawk

About a year ago I had intended to post a thread on the Rendlesham incident. I didn't for one simple reason, and that reason was Peniston!
His (and his friends) contributions do nothing but muddy the waters.
Craft did visit the area, and the military were powerless to do anything about it. The story leaked and a coverup was required. Along came Peniston and hid buddies with a fantasy about aliens and binary data being inserted into his head! Everyone forgot about the serious penetration of air space, instead they all followed the "Aliens and binary data" story!

The first explanation of the light house looked plausible to me, a cover could have been just so the whole base would not look stupid. Living at the coast I understand how this could happen when fog is involved. The moving fog is very disorienting with lights and makes them appear to move. As you move around they seem to move a great distance but then you find they were stationary if you know what you were looking at.

Your speculating on how a number of different personalities/life forms would do things. You have no idea why they chose that code, or why it happened that way - Is Penniston or his colleagues getting rich off this?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: VoidHawk

Exactly. If you wanted to send a "universal message" using binary then you would send numbers, in binary. Maybe a sequence of prime numbers. Something that is totally language-independent.

E.g. you might send the following:

10
11
101
111
1011
1101
10001

and so on. Any intelligent being should be able to decode that. It is a universal code.

But even if you didn't do that, the code is utterly bogus. Let's say you wanted to send those co-ordinates. You would send the actual numbers in binary. You wouldn't write them in decimal, and then look up the (totally arbitrary, man-made) ASCII representations of those decimal number characters, and then transmit them in binary!

However, if you were a hoaxer who knew nothing about binary, or decimal, or number theory at all, but wanted some kind of pseudo-scientific "high-tech" clap trap, that is exactly what you might do...

Also, funny how Penniston never showed any of this "binary code" in his notebook until 2010, isn't it.

I have an open mind about Rendlesham, although I do think the lighthouse is by far the most likely culprit (two of the main witnesses even admitted in their primary witness statements that they followed the light for a long distance across country before realising it was the lighthouse!) But one thing I am certain of is that this "binary code" is a load of well-rotted 100% organic farmyard fertiliser cooked up long after the event.

did you seriously just suggest that ET's would need a table? Did you ever think that they just knew it? Seeing as they are a hyper intelligent race who masted space travel and I would say their propulsion system was probably a little high tech - did you really just suggest they would have a piece of paper - why would you assume a super intelligent race would EVEN use paper?

You are the worst government internet troll I have ever met.

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Wewillallbefree
a reply to: VoidHawk
ALSO do you REALLY think this is the first time Binary has been used as a language with an alleged ET contactee ? You need to read up some more - Binary is a universal language.

I know binary rather well. Yes I agree that it could be universal, but are you aware of ascii? or any other interpetations?
When we use binary, we allocate letters digits and symbols to numbers, for instance the numbers from 65 (1000001) to 90 (01011010) represent the alphabet (caps). What makes you think our interpretation for the numbers would be the same as an alien interpretation?

ETA:

Peniston and his buddies expect us to believe that aliens have a table just like our one shown above!

The Rendelsham Forest event is an important one in the history of UFO cases. I have to admit to having a great suspicion regarding Penniston and his binary numbers. A previous poster poured scorn on Penniston's ability to be able to remember the code, and considering Penniston wrote six pages of it, I think it only prudent that we take him with a pinch of salt.

Penniston has introduced a set of fantasy elements to the event that can be easily scorned, and thus place doubt on the whole event, which I think is part of the cover up.

The event itself is served better, and with greater evidential clarity through other more credible witnesses. This was a three night event, and one of the more credible researchers to have looked into it is a retired British Detective called Gary Heseltine, who has gone deep into it. Gary created the first database of police UFO sightings in England, but being an ex-Detective, he only deals in real evidence as a policeman would.

a reply to: Wewillallbefree
That's not the point: it's not whether the aliens had a paper ASCII table. It's why they would use ASCII at all. It is simply not a natural use of binary.

If they understood human communication well enough to know what ASCII was, and to use English words and then convert each individual letter into ASCII, they would understand enough to use plain English! They might have spelt the words right too.

Whatever the truth of the original Rendlesham sighting, the binary code is utter rubbish.

a reply to: Wewillallbefree

The thread title is misleading. The title implies fact, while the bulk of the thread are hastily put together subjective theories. Glad to see you gave it a run.

It's fabricated.
- It was coincidentally "discovered" just before an episode of Ancient Aliens, 30 years after the fact.
- He claimed to write it down in his little notebook the next night, but never mentioned this code when discussing the incident initially.
- The 14 pages of numbers were never seen in any interview he did at the time while flipping through his notebook for the cameras.
- He claimed he thought the numbers were just gibberish and not worth mentioning. But, at the same time he shows his gibberish type of glyph drawings.
- If the "aliens" knew binary code, they knew the English language. If they knew the English language, it's likely that's how they would communicate.
- Binary code seems more mathematical and intelligent, therefore would be the exact type of thing someone would make up to show how an intelligent being would communicate with humans. Stereotypical silliness.

This code is one of the weakest part of this entire case.

originally posted by: Wewillallbefree
would you mistake a lighthouse for a UFO ? Would you Mistake a tank for a car?

originally posted by: Char-Lee

originally posted by: VoidHawk

originally posted by: Wewillallbefree
And this is your opinion ? I totally understand why Penniston was reluctant to come forward at first, but if you have proof to prove your claim I would love to see it. a reply to: VoidHawk

About a year ago I had intended to post a thread on the Rendlesham incident. I didn't for one simple reason, and that reason was Peniston!
His (and his friends) contributions do nothing but muddy the waters.
Craft did visit the area, and the military were powerless to do anything about it. The story leaked and a coverup was required. Along came Peniston and hid buddies with a fantasy about aliens and binary data being inserted into his head! Everyone forgot about the serious penetration of air space, instead they all followed the "Aliens and binary data" story!

The first explanation of the light house looked plausible to me, a cover could have been just so the whole base would not look stupid. Living at the coast I understand how this could happen when fog is involved. The moving fog is very disorienting with lights and makes them appear to move. As you move around they seem to move a great distance but then you find they were stationary if you know what you were looking at.

Actually the Lighthouse has been mistaken for cars and boats and all kinds of things when the fog is in, direction and everything gets weird at night in the fog.
I don't understand the tank/car allusion? If a Tank had lights in the dark and a car had lights in the dark...yes, how would I tell them apart?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
It's fabricated.
- It was coincidentally "discovered" just before an episode of Ancient Aliens, 30 years after the fact.
- He claimed to write it down in his little notebook the next night, but never mentioned this code when discussing the incident initially.
- The 14 pages of numbers were never seen in any interview he did at the time while flipping through his notebook for the cameras.
- He claimed he thought the numbers were just gibberish and not worth mentioning. But, at the same time he shows his gibberish type of glyph drawings.
- If the "aliens" knew binary code, they knew the English language. If they knew the English language, it's likely that's how they would communicate.
- Binary code seems more mathematical and intelligent, therefore would be the exact type of thing someone would make up to show how an intelligent being would communicate with humans. Stereotypical silliness.

This code is one of the weakest part of this entire case.

The very first interview I saw there was NO landing at all.

a reply to: SecretKnowledge

maybe the aliens, who have been said to be able to screen and/or replace the memories of abductees, are also able to enhance a human's memory, temporarily or for long periods, for just such a purpose (remembering the binary code). i also think that some geniuses like Tesla may have been the recipients of similar 'enhancement'. but that's another story.

originally posted by: VoidHawk
Peniston is a liar!
The event did happen, but peniston and his friends added the part about the landing and the et's to to place the event into the realms of fantasy! It was psyops, for the purpose of hiding the truth!

So...

This is all just your opinion.

You really should clarify that.