It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: ctj83
a reply to: Tulpa
Halt and Burroughs have been talking to each other since at least the UK / Aspel documentaries. I feel Anything that has been held back in confidence will be used.
originally posted by: Tulpa
a reply to: mirageman
Hopefully these new books aren't going to be as hard to find for obsessive collectors like myself.
I'm sure quite a few others out there will be out looking to spend...what?...£12?
The kerching sound should be quite loud somewhere.
Will we get value for money?
Sounds like it could end up being a tit for tat fest if you ask me.
Whoever sells the most gets to be "telling the truth" and wins the next round.
Might I suggest that any other bookworms who get their hands on the first copy of whichever one arrives first, give us all a nod before we rush out and buy?
They may need to prop up their Air force pensions with book sales but there's enough costly clutter on my shelves as it is.
Can't really say I'm looking forward to much more reading from them.
Unless, of course, one of them comes clean.
First of all, binary numbers are just that: numbers. Nothing special about them. The only reason they exist is because our computers are preferably constructed with low-cost electronics.
We, as humans, happen to have 10 symbols to express numbers (0...9), simply because we have 10 fingers.
Our computers, however, are handicapped: They only have ‘two fingers’ (0…1), because it is cost-efficient to produce electronics that is based on two states (high or low voltage).
Because of the low-cost electronics in computers, we are forced to use binary numbers for them.
Binary numbers are no more ‘universal’ or ‘mysterious’ or ‘mathematical’ than decimal numbers.
In fact, binary numbers are a disaster because they tend to grow very rapidly in size. That is why we need a lot of memory in our computers to handle all these 0’s and 1’s. Further, binary numbers are almost impossible to read. The only advantage is that you just need two symbols (0 and 1 for instance) to write down a binary number.
So Jim’s binary message is simply a series of numbers.
If we assume that each binary number in his message has 8 digits (they are grouped in chunks of 8 ‘bits’), the message consists of 114 numbers in total: 69 88 80 76 79 82 65 84 73 79 78 79 71 72 85 77 65 78 73 84 89 54 108 217 193 137 129 129 169 145129 201 161 145 169 153 …etc.
So how do we get the final English message? Simply by using a lookup table constructed here on Earth.
Computers can only work with numbers, so IT engineers made an agreement in the past on how to represent our alphabet and other printable characters with numbers. This agreement, represented in the so-called ‘ASCII table’, makes it easier to interchange files with human readable text between computers. (Note that the ASCII table is already old and is now often replaced by the Unicode table that can also encode foreign characters).
So these IT engineers simply agreed which number would represent which character. Number 65 is an ‘A’, 66 is a ‘B’, 67 a ‘C’, etc. If we use this ASCII table to look up the characters belonging to the numbers in Jim’s message, we get the English text.
Now why would someone pass an English message to a human being using numbers from an ASCII translation table made here on Earth? And then make it even more difficult by using the binary instead of the decimal representation for these numbers?
Some people speculate that the numbers in the binary message may not represent ASCII characters at all, but something else. Some other code or message that is hidden in all these bits.
However, the odds that some other code would accidentally also yield whole English words in ASCII are astronomically small.
Of course you could speculate that the Creators of the Code were brilliant enough to hide some other Message underneath what appears to be a message in ASCII, but …
1. The first coordinates in the message correspond to the last decimal to the Google Earth Woodbridge coordinates from a Tele Atlas map from 2009/2010. For different map makers, the coordinates of a town centre will differ in the last three decimals because a map maker has to select a square foot somewhere in the middle that represents the town centre, and every map maker will select a different square foot.
A total of six digits (there are two coordinates, so 2x3 digits that match) exactly match with Tele Atlas – a one in a million chance. Note that in 2009/2010, Tele Atlas provided the map data for Google Earth…
2. The message contains a common spelling error (COODINATE instead of COORDINATE – the ‘R’ is missing).
In binary this means exactly 8 bits in a row that correspond to the ‘R’ are missing in an otherwise perfect sequence of 80 bits:
COODINATE: 01000011 01001111 01001111 01000100 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010100 01000101
COORDINATE: 01000011 01001111 01001111 01010010 01000100 01001001 01001110 01000001 01010100 01000101
So even if a binary message was conveyed by some Superpower, what are the odds that exactly these 8 bits did not come through – the same bits that represent a common spelling error?
So the only sensible conclusion is that this message was constructed by someone who had access to the internet, a Tele Atlas map, and who occasionally made a spelling error. Now who could that be …?
The irony is, Warren probably has the most stable story - with no injuries or binary code 'evidence' to trip him up. Burroughs has either planned or been forced into exposing Penniston. It will be interesting to see which. I cannot believe that both will come through this with their own narratives unscathed...
Each writer has treated the case with their own personal views..........
......three new books , at this stage, may only really help to entrench the views of different sides depending on which "character" they prefer.
I'll end up tracking them all down eventually but how many others are going to go and get all three?
John Burroughs and I, are in contact with other key witnesses. We know there are some discrepancies with some of the past reports. We do understand why, and have talked over dissemination of the facts. Our decision is, we have jointly decided on a course of action which will put this to bed once and for all. John will be posting a joint statement on this course of action. Information to help resolve this case will be forth coming in the future, at our time schedule.
Gary and I are co-authoring the definitive book on the Rendlesham Forest Incident. Full disclosure on Rendlesham is coming, hopefully by the end of the year.