Rendlesham forest, "Ancient Aliens" episode 30.12.10 and binary numbers

reply to post by ArMaP


No problem! As for the link, i dont know if that would be illegal to post here? But if you search for "Ancient.Aliens.S02E10.Alien.Messengers.720p.HDTV.x264-DHD" you will find it!

reply to post by gmax111


That's what happens when I spend too much time looking at zeros and ones.

Thanks for the correction.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


(I've just posted this on the parallel thread, too - thanks to Smugallo for pointing out that there are two threads, though maybe they're a little different in character)


Alarm bells ring when either Nick Pope or Linda Moulton Howe push themselves into a case. Both appearing together in this attempted Rendlesham revival is just plain disturbing.

I've seen the programme and read through the thread, and important facts in three areas - facts key to beginning to believe in this unlikely tale - appear to be missing. Maybe someone out there can help.

First, who conducted the regression? What appropriate qualifications did they have? Is there a recording or transcript available? And given that regression is notoriously inaccurate in recovering memory, is totally unacceptable in courts, and is more likely to find confabulation than truth, why has it been used here?

Second, what laboratory/expert tested the age of the paper containing the binary code. Is there a written report available?

Third, has the binary code been tested/interpreted by anyone more professionally engaged and qualified in this work than a guy who happens to have a very simple site on the Internet? Do we know what qualifications and experience he has?

Hope somebody can help!

reply to post by Snippy23


I think IssacKoi will probably be able to help with most of your questions. As far as I know details are still fairly vague. Apparently there was testing done on Jim's enigmatic notepad, but this was just touched on briefly at the Rendelsham Reunion. I agree with your points on Linda Howe and Nick Pope though. I'm not really sure why he is there in the first place, I mean, apart from appearing on nearly every related TV show and conference on the subject, spouting the same stuff he usually does, what does he have to do with the case, really?

I know he investigated it, but if this was the case, wouldn't he have known about the numbers also?

Originally posted by Snippy23
Alarm bells ring when either Nick Pope or Linda Moulton Howe push themselves into a case. Both appearing together in this attempted Rendlesham revival is just plain disturbing.

I don't think either of them can be blamed in this instance. The problems with the documentary, and any issues regarding the purported message, do not seem to stem with them.

I've seen the programme and read through the thread, and important facts in three areas - facts key to beginning to believe in this unlikely tale - appear to be missing.

Yes, indeed.

Lots of fairly basic details do not appear to have been provided at the press conference and certainly were not given in the documentary. You may have seen my post above that gives some relevant facts and views that were omitted from the documentary.

Heck, even some of the information that is available is (on its face) contradictory, e.g. the number of pages of code - see another of my posts above.

Your questions are fair ones and (apart from some additional information on the regressions), I do not think the answers are currently available.

I think the fullest information about the forensic tests that has currently been made available is limited to that in another post above

All the best,

Isaac

Okay here are my edits.. Change the yellows. Then delete the red 1.

Block 4:

01000110 01001111 01010101 01010010 01010100 01001000 01000011 01001111 01001111 01000100 01001001 00001110 01000001 01010100 01000101 01000011 01001111 01011110 01010100 01001001 01001110 01010101 01001111 01010100 01010101 01010001 01010000 00001110

01000011 01100010 10101000 00101001 00100001 00100010 101000110 01001111 01010010

- FOURTHCOODIATECO^TINUOTUQPCb¨)!"£'©�

Becomes:

01000110 01001111 01010101 01010010 01010100 01001000 01000011 01001111 01001111 01000100 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010100 01000101 01000011 01001111 01001110 01010100 01001001 01001110 01010101 01001111 01010100 01010101 01010001 01010000 01001110

01000011 0100010 10101000 00101001 00100001 00100010 101000110 01001111 01010010

- FOURTHCOODINATECONTINUOTUQPNCEPRBEFOR


Forth Coordinate Continuous ?????? Befor - Whats that mean?

This is whats on the image i posted that had one full page on it...

• 0100011001001110101010
  10101010010010101
  000100100001000011
  01001111010011110100
  01000100100101001
  1100100000101010100
  0100010101000011010
  01110100111001010
  1000100100101001110
  010101010100111101010
  100010101010101000
  10101001110
  01000011011000101
  010100000101001
  00100001001000
  10101000110010011
  1101010010
  

It translates into this,

FNª©*$!§§¢$§ ª"¡§NTINUOTUQSØª
HH¨Éê

Block 4:

FOURTHCOODINATECONTINUOTUQPNCEPRBEFOR

There are a few things i can tell you..
I noticed these characters can be modified by changing 1 or 2 bits.
0100 1111 = O
0100 0101 = E

0101 0100 = T
0100 0100 = D

Which would change CONTINUOT to CONTINUED,

or you could possibly get CONTINUOUS the T can be changed to a U by changing 1 bit, but to change the following U to an S would need 2 bits changed.




EDIT: Actually it takes changing 2 bits in order to change O into E.. Sorry have been looking at too many 0's and 1's.. lol

reply to post by iamhaller


actually it translates into what i have above..

2cd

Just to ease the minds of the doubters, at least as far as the message using the ASCII binary language, this language was actually created in 1963, 17 years before the incident. While a lot of government computer systems, due to size and information contained within didn't switch over right away, by 1980 this was definitely the standard and most widely used. This would have been the code that was sent on the voyager missions. Not sure why they wonder why aliens would use binary code when that's one of the methods that we sent into space to communicate with them in the first place. Maybe, because binary is a technological language as opposed to an alphabet, it seemed a more familiar method to those delivering the message. Maybe part of the message is a picture just like we sent. I am not super with these codes by any means, but is there a way to view the data as an image? On something of this magnitude I know some had said it should be the validity of the event and witnesses that need to be re-examined, but if they just issued the the release of the code to the public so that the message could actually be decode, it would be a start towards that process anyway. If the code holds a vital piece of information that has been suppressed this long due to pride, fear, or what not, we (mankind) need to be given the opportunity to examine it. If it's BS that stinks and especially in such a well documented case, just harms the goal of truth seeking in these matters a lot. If it is legit, I mean that thought alone should blow your mind, it's not only validation once and for all that we "are not alone" what message is it, how important could this be?

reply to post by gmax111


Yes i just figured that lol :p

Originally posted by gmax111
Block 4:

FOURTHCOODINATECONTINUOTUQPNCEPRBEFOR

There are a few things i can tell you..
I noticed these characters can be modified by changing 1 bit.
0100 1111 = O
0100 0101 = E

0101 0100 = T
0100 0100 = D

Which would change CONTINUOT to CONTINUED,

or you could possibly get CONTINUOUS the T can be changed to a U by changing 1 bit, but to change the following U to an S would need 2 bits changed.

Going with CONTINUED seems safer(Less to change to complete the word).

Also, U can be changed to E and O can be changed to N by changing only 1 bit of each character giving you CONTINENT..
FOURTHCOODINATECONTINENTUQPNCEPRBEFOR ??????

While I think this is all baloney and has potentially forever killed the Rendalsham Incident as a serious case, Nick Pope being attached to it makes complete sense. Nick is one of the most popular figures in UFOlogy and in order for a UFO story to get maximum exposure, the big dogs need to be there to legitimize it. Or else it's just a bunch of nobodies talking about UFOs, which the AP could care less about.

The crop circle of the crabwood formation contained an alien holding a bianary disc, it was next to the radio
station satelite. This exhibits that this is their method of communication and who they are. Maybe they don't breathe air, so this is why they don't get out and say "Hello". Not to mention those army men probably had guns on them. England gets most of the sightings.... are these peoples their particular bio experiment?

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by jclmavg

 

That case is not a good comparison (they had two different samples, an old and a new, and the new one was written just some weeks before the tests), but thanks for that link.

No, this is quite a good comparison. And you misread the paper. The scientific question was if the document could have been written in 2003 and back dated to 2000. There was no "new one written just some weeks before the tests". Read the summary again. They put the document in controlled storage for 50 days to determine a second dating curve. In any case, this was in response to your suggestion that you could take a pen from the 80s and produce a document with that age that could pass a scientific dating test. Obviously the answer to that is no.

Wether Penniston's notebook allows for these tests we'll have to wait and see if these have been done.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Thanks for the helpful leads, IsaacKoi. This looks to me like a contrived, commercial 'event', rather than any genuine attempt to further research. It's worth noting that Nick Pope, who anyway was never more than a junior civil servant, with 0.5 of an even more junior civil servant supporting him, largely dealing with complaints about low flying aircraft and similar issues, was never involved in Rendlesham. He was nothing to do with the supposed 'UFO desk' in 1980, and has no more right to 're-open' this investigation than he would to 're-open' an investigation into the disappearance of Lord Lucan. Really, it looks like he'd turn up to the opening of a paper bag, so long as it had a flying saucer printed on it and someone from the press would be there.

Without the story allegedly produced through hypnosis, this event would have offered nothing new. So, it's important to know whether the hypnotist was properly - medically - qualified, and applied proper safeguards. Why was a decision to regress made, why did the 'psychologist agree to do it, and who paid for the consultation? Someone notes that David Jacobs does regressions, but then he's a history professor who needs new cases to write books. At present, pending the conclusions of a serious complaint regarding the making of medical diagnoses and the planting of post-hypnotic suggestion, he may not be the best example to quote for the reliability of regression. Could it ever be that a researcher would really need access to the soiled underwear of a supposed abductee?

The other planks of this shaky case are the historical status of the pages of binary code, and the interpretation of the rows of '0's' and '1's' by the guy with the 'for entertainment only' internet page. Proving the code was recorded from memory in 1980 is a greater challenge than the programme makers have been able to meeet, and while Ciske appears to be an interesting and entrepreunerial guy, who seems to have done long periods of work for two fundamentalist/evangelical Christian organisations, there seems to be no reason to accept the 'hi brasil' interpretation as in any way reliable. Ciske appears to be a web designer and ideas man, rather than an expert on computer languages.

So, at present it looks like the score is Fantasy 3, Rational Investigation 0. Anyone able to change those odds other than by ignoring the facts?

Originally posted by jclmavg
The scientific question was if the document could have been written in 2003 and back dated to 2000.

That was asked in March 2003, so it could only be some weeks old.

There was no "new one written just some weeks before the tests".

The "new one" would be the fake, the older the original. At least that was my interpretation of this, from Fig. 3's legend:

A trend-line has been calculated for ink type a) showing the degradation of crystal violet. For ink type b) such a trend was not visible and was not calculated for that reason.

This makes me think that ink type b) had already aged to a stable condition.

They put the document in controlled storage for 50 days to determine a second dating curve.

For a document that was, at most, 90 days old, another 50 days represents a large part of its age, so the ink was still relatively fresh and the decomposition was still relatively fast.

Could they see any difference if the document had been written a year before sent to the tests?

If ink type b) didn't show any ageing trend, does that mean that, for a 3 years old ink they could not detect any more the ageing effect? If true, it means that they cannot distinguish between a 3 years old and a 30 years old writing?

Or I may be interpreting this in a completely wrong way.

Sadly Rendlesham is the British Roswell in that it is constantly evolving and being added to. The sudden revelation of the binary code is a bit too much to swallow.

Rendlesham and Roswell are no longer "incidents" they are lucrative businesses.

I await the next add-on.

Originally posted by Snippy23
First, who conducted the regression? What appropriate qualifications did they have? Is there a recording or transcript available?

Ian Ridpath's website has a couple of pages which discuss the regression (including this one and - probably more controversially - this one and provide various links, including the one below which has the most detailed summary I've seen of the regression and mentions that it was videotaped:
web.archive.org...

In relation to your question about the availability of a recording or transcript of Jim Penniston's regression, I haven't seen the full videotapes mentioned above - but I've found some extracts from those videotapes in the SciFi Declassified documentary on Rendlesham:

Google Video Link

The regression footage appears at 1 hour 16 minutes onwards.

More directly relevant to this thread, the video includes Jim Penniston showing a notebook of his from 1980 showing several pages relating to Rendlesham.

The notebook appears a few times, including at about 21 minutes 45 seconds onwards and 28 minutes 50 seconds onwards.

No pages of binary code appear to be visible in that footage.

All the best,

Isaac

There is another page in full view right at the end of the documentary. I paused it and got the binary codes from it. Seems to be the page with the Longitude and Latitude.

00110101 00110010 00110000 00111001 00110100 00110010 00110101 00110011 00110010 01001110 00110001 00110011 00110001 00110011 00110001 00110010 00110110 00111001 01010111 01000011 01001111 01001110 01010100 01001001 00101001110

By removing the yellow we get:

520942532N13131269WCONTIN