It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by IsaacKoi
This notebook... beginning to appear like one of these...

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:42 PM
I'm curious as to why it's assumed that the binary numbers are a message from aliens? Was that stated anywhere by the witnesses involved? Do some mental conditions exist where symptoms include persistent mental images? I don't know, I'm just curious.

Also, why would we automatically assume the binary is encoded text? Wouldn't it be interesting to see the full binary and then "up code" it to the various common assembler languages/operating systems in use at the time?

Perhaps this isn't text at all, but a mini-computer program representing a mathematical operation. Just speculating, but my point is there is no reason to assume it's encoded text.
edit on 2-1-2011 by elitelogic because: Fixed typos.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:43 PM
Something that worries me about this is if the tv company paid for the rights to the binary code (believing it to be genuine & not contrived)
Would they not use a randomly generated binary code for the tv show to record instead of using actual parts of what was written down in the notebook?
It wouldn't take too long & would protect the information they paid to acquire.

Secondly, if this whole thing is genuine. Why would the message need editing to make sense?
While I understand it's natural to be curious & feel the need to remove a 0 or 1 here & there to generate something which resembles an answer.
Doesn't that immediately raise suspicion that the original code ,if the code taken from the TV show is the real one, isn't a complete genuine binary message meant to be read in English.

As a side note I'd like to thank Isaac for your exemplary work here.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 02:45 PM
reply to post by JustCurious1

One thing that spring to mind is that when JP wrote the codes out from memory, perhaps it wasn't 100% accurate. Inconsistencies are to be expected i guess.

@Elitelogic - You raise some valid points. If these binary numbers were indeed real, then the assumption that it may just be a text message is not the only one that should be explored.. Perhaps it is something else.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Smugallo because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-1-2011 by Smugallo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:14 PM
reply to post by elitelogic

We are much ahead of you. We "assume" its ASCII text because its producing recognized characters that make some sense.. If it were not ASCII we would be getting a bunch of non recognized characters such as this - ÔÈÀäÐÈÔÌ©‘É¡‘©™

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:15 PM
I thought this was fascinating. I don't know how anyone can just explain this away as bs.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:20 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:26 PM
reply to post by chimaybliss

It is fascinating, yes, but if you've been following the thread, you will see that there is still a lot of missing information. That's why it can be explained away as BS, fascinating or not. You can't just produce evidence 30 years later. Of course questions are going to be asked. And the link to the blog site doesn't mean a thing, some guy posting something there is definitely not the end of the road as far of this is concerend.
edit on 2-1-2011 by Smugallo because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 03:44 PM
Here is another page.

01000101 01011000 01010000 01001100 01001111 01010010 01000001 01010100 01001001 01001111 01001110 01001111 01000111 01001000 01010101 01001101 01000001 01001110 01001001 01010100 01011001 00110110 01101100 11011001 11000001 10001001 10000001 10000


If we change the Yellow "1" to a "0" we get:


I choose to make it the word "OF" instead of "ON" (as suggested by happytohelp) because "OF" only requires 1 bit to be changed where-as "ON" would require 2 bits to be changed.

And if we add 3 bits ("010") where the text gets jumbled it adds correct amount of bits to make the rest of the characters recognizable to ASCII. (I choose 010 over 000 because all Capital Letters begin with 010)

01000101 01011000 01010000 01001100 01001111 01010010 01000001 01010100 01001001 01001111 01001110 01001111 01000110 01001000 01010101 01001101 01000001 01001110 01001001 01010100 01011001 01000110 11001101 10011011 00111000 00110001 00110000 00110000


What is 8100? Anyone able to make sense of this?
I'll also try to find the characters that can be used with the least amount of bit modification in order to correct the "FÍ›"

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:03 PM
i'm researching ufos and other paranormal stuff for some years now and this is one of the most interesting cases i've read about. even if the message isn't real, it would be interesting to see if hy-brazil really exists. i think the island may have existed, because it's showing up on some old maps. maybe it sunk at a great flood. someone should do an expedition to the coordinates and look if there is something there. i would like to do it, but i do not have the resources. but if anyone want to help to organize a expedition project please contact me.
edit on 2-1-2011 by seb99 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:21 PM
reply to post by Smugallo

You're right, I don't know whether it's because I imagined this in true Hollywood fashion (Where he would recall every 1 & 0 in the correct order)
But he is human, he is fallible as are we all so mistakes should almost be expected.

edit: Though if we are to expect there to be mistakes, wouldn't that mean no matter what people manage to make the binary code say. The factor of the assumption of there being mistakes and then intervention to "correct" the code would always render it unreliable.
edit on 2-1-2011 by JustCurious1 because: Added to the post

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:31 PM
reply to post by JustCurious1

Hmm maybe, but the fact that there are string of readable text in there in the first place is fairly strange. I'm not sure what the odds of that are, given that Jim Penniston is telling the truth. I just wish the full data set was available for analysis ArMap, Gmax, and IssacKoi to play around with. This, however, is not the case.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:31 PM

Originally posted by eyeoftruth
This would have been the code that was sent on the voyager missions.
I think that code was made by vertical and horizontal bars, not zeros and ones.

Maybe, because binary is a technological language as opposed to an alphabet, it seemed a more familiar method to those delivering the message.
Binary is just another way of writing numbers, it's not a language in itself.

That's why we have to use an ASCII conversion table to get a readable message, and that's part of the problem, as far as I'm aware we never sent an ASCII table in any probe.

As an example, 01000001 is the same as 65, and by looking into the ASCII table we can see it means "A".

Maybe part of the message is a picture just like we sent.
It's too small for that, in average, each page of that notebook has less data than it's needed for a smiley like this one.

I am not super with these codes by any means, but is there a way to view the data as an image?

Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Block 4

The white squares at the bottom right corner were not used.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by ArMaP

I always learn something new at ATS, who said the Internet rots your brain?

Interesting stuff ArMap.

I guess that means that if the craft in question was an ET craft, then they would have to have an ASCII conversion table hehe. Either that, or it's something mathematical. Or the most likely; fabricated by us, for a crappy History channel show.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by gmax111

Instead of gmax's idea of adding 010 to the part of Block 2 that turns into garbage, if you assume the "6" was OK, by adding a single zero to the top of the next three bytes, you can get an entire number:

00110110 [0]0110110 [0]0110110 [0]0111000 00110001 00110000 00110000

The "[0]" are where I inserted the zeros. That gives you:

For clarity, without the square brackets:
00110110 00110110 00110110 00111000 00110001 00110000 00110000

If we go with the gmax idea and assume 010 (so that we get an "F" instead of a "6"), by flipping one bit in the next byte, we can get an "M" following the F, so that it looks like the 8100 number is related to some kind of FM radio frequency:
[010]00110 [0]1001101 10011011 00111000 00110001 00110000 00110000
Where [010] is gmax's 010 add, and the "[0] is my change of 1 to 0, for clarity:
01000110 01001101 10011011 00111000 00110001 00110000 00110000
which gives:
where the "[junk]" is a non-alphabetic character.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 04:59 PM
After reviewing the page with the scribbles on it i was able to correct some of errors in Block 1. The beginning of the message was blurry in the youtube video.

01010101 01001111 01010101 01010011 01000110 01001111 01010010 01010000 01001100 01000001 01001110 01000101 01010100 01000001 01010010 01011001 01000001 01000100 01010110 01000001 01001110 00011100 10001001 00001


Which means we now have.
Block 4 - FOURTHCOODIATECOS•S•SÕTT (??4th Coordinate Cosmos Scout??)
Block 3 - 520942532N13131269WCONTIN

??Whose planetary advance, ours or theirs??

Also I think Block 4 may need to be re-written from the HD copy.

BIG QUESTION: This was only 4 pages! Where are the other 2 or 8 pages?

edit on 2-1-2011 by gmax111 because: added 6668100 to block 2

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:03 PM
reply to post by yankprintster

Yes you are correct i did play around with this. When i got 666 i got freaked out. HAHA..

No really i just assumed it was more likely that he forgot one chunk of 3 bits instead of 3 chunks of 1 bit. But at the same time in 7 bit binary code the first digit isnt use because it assumes the bit is off (or 0) anyway. So this would make sense.


posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by gmax111

Aww man, I've been glued to this thread for days. It gets better and better, wish I had the patience to play around with binary. This thread certainly seems more productive than it's sister thread.

Do you suppose that perhaps they are holding back the rest of the pages for another History Channel exclusive or something like that? I'm starting to think that this is the case.

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
reply to post by Smugallo

Im not sure but im actually really curious myself. Maybe they found something of significant importance on those pages?

Funny enough it seems that Nick Ciske only had 4 pages also. In the documentary when it shows the scanned binary pages on his MAC there is only 4 windows.
You can also see this in the picture from iamhaller. This post, 4th picture down:

So whats going on here???

edit on 2-1-2011 by gmax111 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 05:16 PM
I always thought that Rendlesham forest was a good case with lots of evidence. However the history channel is parted with reality sometimes. I really don't understand why you would release something like this on the history channel. If you really had a telepathic download of binary numbers, and wrote them down. Why keep them from the public and just release the converted code message. I think it really needs to be demanded from Jim, that we are able to see, and have someone scientifically analyze the papers that he wrote on. So he might have some bit of credibility here. Why would you only give the code to one guy? Why not give the code to several different people
and see if they produce the same type of message? how does it go extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also i was playing around with the code and made a barcode out of it. Don't ask me why but it looks interesting.

Oh and has anyone tried to reverse the code, replacing 1s with 0s, or flipping it upside down.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in