posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 02:36 PM
a “Continuous protection of humanity 49.27n, 11.5e. Expose Hidden Knowledge to ALL ` citizens. Advancement imperative for planetary survival. Beware
of Orion 1350.3 and Z Ruticuli 39.170. Avoid [signal] messages sent.”reply to: play4keeps
The message was in binary code which was written the back of the motel receipt. This neural binary download is common with advanced ETs. It reveals
an unintelligent and inefficient method of communication used by the supposed ET source. 8 bit binary code requires 40 digits comprised of zeros and
ones to transmit a five letter English word. The binary message here has approximately 1940 binary digits,while the decoded message in English has a
mere 162 digits. Also, the ASC11 encoding process has the essential requirement that the message must exist in the English language prior to encoding.
Would an intelligent source complicate the transmission by involving the binary coding and decoding stages unnecessarily? The answer is no but it is
Regarding “multiplexer” binary code,it is not Because once you change the code system from anything but 1s and 0s, it is no longer a binary
system. As a computer speaks in those numbers off on or off. If you can build a computer to read data differently, for example, characters represented
by the wavelength or frequency of a charge, it may be possible to have the same piece of data to represent multiple letters depending on the layer of
the wave. But to me that would be highly improbable, if not impractical. A predetermined set matrix will need to be created to hold the whole message
at each layer along with the overhead of converting a value to represent a different letter at each layer. Then it hit me because I realized this has
already been done at the software level. Visiting a website of Dr. Drew’s explanation of decoding the message confirmed my assumption. This is
nothing more than data compression. I am not sure exactly which algorithm is being used, but given the fact that archaic communication (ASCII as
opposed to Unicode) is preferred, I wouldn’t doubt it is either the stacker algorithm from the C-64 or Phil Katz’s original zip algorithm.