John Titor and the Secrect capablities of the IBM 5100

In interest of titor's articles everywhere on the internet regarding the IBM 5100, for the last couple years, we decided to investigate this. We did give out business cards to almost every computer shop there is in town, for a long time, finally a guy called us up and said that he found the ibm 5100 which he could sell to us for a measly 50 bucks. We then ran down to his shop and purchased it immediately.

The machine is in perfect working order and we transferred the programming which we made our own "shell" program to contain the original "translating" source code and we integrated it into our linux operating systems. I am not going to say how that was done since its a technical feat required to be worked on by computer experts. So, I am just going to say it basically.

When we first "played around" with the original coding, and about three days ago, we accidently discovered the true ability of the original code.

Whoever said this was a "translating" code?

Its a code that does "compressing units". We then added our own Win32 apl linguistics and viola! integrated it into our window machines. It was to be used for testing grounds. (which originally came from the linux side)

oh my god... you wouldnt believe what this came out to be. In order to believe it, you would have to see it for yourself. It is now possible that we created a new operating system based on a different routine parameters. It is nothing like linux, beos or windows operating systems, even though we did use windows DLL formats to assist it's routine parameters.

Therefore one of our experts named it "winux" since its a combination of linux and windows at the same time. What is it, that in the basic coding system that can accept both "executable formats" at the same time?

I have not mentioned what version of windows or linux we have used in our experiments for our security reasons, but we have debated over this issue for the last couple days that we could have invented something by accident because one of our experts was trying a different format CD disk until he realized that he used the wrong disk which belonged to a linux version and it loaded up the run parameters on a windows machine which has the "winux" loaded.

We determined the issue of this so called little accident and we did think of similiar machines that had WINE attached to linux machines. Its like a "shell within a shell" when running the WINE application under the linux operating system, however this is different. This has nothing to do with WINE applications since it just accepts several executables on the same format without going into a "shell process".

Wouldnt it be nice to have a computer that accepts different kinds of executables? Like for example, a windows machine that accepts .EXE, .DEB, .RPM, etc... onto the same machine. Ever thought that could be possible?

We are still working on this experiment.

Maybe this was what John Titor was after... hmm... if our success leads to complete invention and patenting of a new operating system led after even those words "JT" spoke on these articles, it could very well change our path and it could be different than what was expected to happen.

So Pro7 asked me to relay this. I aked him if he could tell me any more about about the 5100....and he did.

here it is in its entirity, 4 emails.

Hello Titorite,

All I can tell you regarding the IBM 5100 machine is listed below:

1. IBM 5100 Emulation design has a reversable binarial capability. Modern computers do not have this capability. You may need to study this yourself what this means. Do not let other "experts" tell you otherwise what it means. This "reversable binary language" concept was never taught in computer science courses in school or college, except only the direct aspect of the binary language being taught as if it is a "true" universal language. In computer science courses or books written anywhere, has no indication of such "reversable binary language".

2. IBM was under a possible secret military contract at the time of the development of the IBM 5100 machine hence "Project Mercury". IBM quickly designed the IBM 5110 computer version which suspiciously no longer have the reversible binarial capability. They did add some stuff to the 5110 version to make it look like it was enhanced. I do still believe that this military contract is still top secret. *why do you think it was called the Emulation 360?* (in math you can consider 360 as a "turn around or degrees")

There you go.. The original IBM 5100 machine was a experiment, possibly a military-government experiment at personal computing. Now look at what we have today... we got extreme fast machines now.

.................

oh another thing i forgot to add:

In order to prove this is in fact that IBM 5100 has a "reversable binarial capability" is to write a basic program.

On any modern computers, we must follow the step by step commands, for example:

In basic

10] Print "Hi how are you?"
20] Goto to 10
30] END

In modern computers, once you make that simple basic command program and you click "enter" it will repeat over and over again on your screen with no end. In modern computers, you cannot "reverse" the basic programming to start at "30" to end at "10". It will give out a syntax error.

On the IBM 5100, you can do just that, and that is why it is so special about that machine.

What happens then if a modern computer has a "reversable binarial capability?" This means the entire hardware package must support it, not software alone. Like I said before, modern computers are "zero based" (speaking in binary terms) while the IBM 5100 is "one based". Here is what will happen if someone created a machine with all hardware and software support to be "one based":

1. Encryption would fail on all levels. (Hackers would love this...)
2. Dynamic Links, Registeries, and etc.. would be "backwards"
3. Hardware instruments would be tweaked far beyond the "Time Flux barrier" (speaking of microns measures)
4. Other items would be "backwards" as well too. Even the computer clock will have the capability to "naturally" run backwards without any further software adjustments.

As a time travel fascination by me, I personally believe that the IBM 5100 machine has the means somehow to develop some sort of a time machine mechanism. The problem is, its not going to be easy because the original hardware in its "one based" mode has never been made or developed for public use after the 5110 model came out. Apparently anyone who wants to build a "one based" machine, unfortunately, will have to start over from stratch. This is why I think the military or the government is already working on something like this.


........................

20] Goto 10 (sorry my mistake on that lol)

............................

just a update... i just possibly posted my last post on the forum under titor.. you got my permission to repost everything i said in the emails i sent to you.. please spread the word.

I just hate government control.

many thanks anyways. bye

..................................................

I tried to relpy but I only get this message:
Fatal error: Call to a member function on a non-object in /home/timetrav/public_html/ttiforum/mess_handler.php on line 84

hm, as a programmer myself, I'm failing to grasp how a reversible binary language would enable a machine to somehow run any kind of app, or translate anything, any moreso than a normal computer...

what am I missing?

reply to post by scientist



I do not know I am not a programmer. I am only relaying the message I was giveing.

"...because one of our experts was trying a different format _CD_ disk until he realized...."

I can't helt but to ask the obvious here..

The IBM5100 didnt have a CD drive, it had/has a floppy drive..?

Or perhaps im way of here?

It's potentially huge. 1011 means one number, and 1101 means another. There could be a whole different computer language, in reverse. A backdoor to the backdoor, so to speak.

Very little of what was posted here makes any sense. There is NOTHING in the IBM 5100 that would allow you to run applications on Windows that were written for Linux.. this is compete nonsense. Here is some information about this computer:
en.wikipedia.org...

It has a max of 64K (that's kilobytes...!) of memory. Your average cell phone is more advanced than this thing.

Originally posted by JustMe74
Very little of what was posted here makes any sense.

I'll second that.

The instructions are based on the hardware/cpu (what it can do).

The program line example is strange. Program are procedural. The instructions are processed in an order to accomplish a task. If they are executed in reverse order, what do that accomplish? That akin to printing a page of text before the text is on the page.

The closest that I can come to this -- is -- IBM had its own way of doing things. Back then in the '70's IBM was about it for business machines. If you look for IBM Basic programming language it is not the same as the example that you give or what most people think the BASIC programming language is. It is similiar to BCD - or Binary Coded Decimal. That is where instead of counting from 0 - 15 in Hexadecimal number system -- you only count from 0 - 9 and that is BCD. Now I am not sure about this but if you set a switch on any computer (or commonly known as a flag for the microprocessor) at least it was still mentioned in just a few years back computer courses then -- all you can do is code a program in BCD. This may seem like something new, but it is not. Now combine that with the way that IBM makes the code for characters (A, B, C, a, b, c........) and so forth which IBM never adopted ASKII coding for making the characters and then also IBM changed that also so it is re-visioned a few times and other languages included sometimes - and only two at the most -- look it up in Wikipedia - - and look up the abbreviation for what IBM called it - I can't quite remember it right now - but it similiar to EBCDIC or something like that, then look up the BASIC programming language of an early IBM computer - then you will see that to me the rest of whatever the hardware that they are talking about - even on the other forum -- would have to be seen to make me believe that it works that way and it is not actually just similiar to BCD - or Binary Coded Decimal formatting that one can use on a computer.

Otherwise I did look up some of that, and that is all I can say about it. Back then, IBM was about all there was until personal computer came out, and then those were only kits that you made with lights like to light up. Then Apple came out with the Apple II (which I did not buy) and then the Apple II+ ( which I did own - and it only had capital case letters on it) and then according to my recollection the Apple IIC (which I still own - although I had to beat it -- the last time to get it to start up - it just sits there for some reason) and then the Apple IIC had its own resolution and character keyboard and own commands since it was the Apple OS on the computer. Combine that with different microprocessors that were in the early days -- each different - and a programmer had to learn -- several different programming languages -- usually machine language (assembly language) and each time something was done on the computer to make a program -- it had to use its own language. Same way with the IBM 5100.
==========================================

What I am getting at is that the Apple II+ I bought in 1978 - I am pretty sure - and although the website like the oldcomputer.com website gives 1984 or something for the Apple IIC - I am sure I bought my Apple IIC in 1980. Games were also coming out, and Flight Simulator was one of the first ones by Bruce Shelley who also wrote a book on programming back then, and other such games such as "Rendevous" which was flying a (space shuttle? -- actually just a target) into space and docking with a space station -- which was acurrate in the fact that you drifted all over the place in the three motions of three-dimensional space. (not two dimensional.) It was rocket burns to make an orbit that was good enough when blasting off and also thrusters to move the other directions of yaw, and pitch up or down and all of that plus forward to get to the docking station.

In other words to me some of the info on oldcomputer.com is wrong as to the year some things came out. It was either Intel then with the 8088 for programming and not flat memory programming but segment page programming (which I still have books on) or the Apple's 6502 processor (which I sitll have books on) or an Tandy type computer (maybe an 8088 - don't know for sure now) or an Atari computer which also had its own processor or an Amiga computer - which also had its own processor -- and all games or programs had to be written for the processor that the computer had in it, and usually only 64k of memory or 128k of memory.

Ah, the good ol' days of deciding which computer to buy and what support it may get. Usually games came out for all of them, and all of them had no cross-platform any type of programming because they did not use the C programming language - afterall 64k of memory is not all that much - and so the only language to program in - was machine language - and that depended on the processor in the computer. Then there was the big mainframe computers and the IBM 5100 computer - but who was going to spend $20000 on a computer -- I mean the Apple cost enough as it was -- around $2400 and early kits did not contain all that much memory either -- like 16k at the most, then first it was cassette tapes to load up anything or a program until the 5-1/4 floppy disk was created a couple of years later. My computer had the 5-1/4 floppy disk and they were all different also depending on the computer and the way that the disk was formatted to usually something like 360k total disk drive space until harddisk came out usually with about 20mB of memory for the harddrive disk space. That was the memory and drive space back then in the early days of personal computing.

Yes, the games still work. (well I have not actually tried them out for years but they use to work -- although I threw a lot of stuff away - limited space now for all the years of changing computers and books and books and books and books and software, and software, and still more software.)



[edit on 11/11/2007 by AmoebaSized]

I'm just going to be straight, this is the biggest load of crap I have read in a long time...a very long time. Not only are there certain things in the post that show it to be false, such as "the windows cd". But this also just technically flawed on all levels.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by TheStarMan]

thanks for proving just how easy it would have been for a hoaxer in 1999 to come up with a 5100, and to learn enough about it to almost sound credible

the million dollar question is


if you could build, run, and manitain time machines, why would you risk an operative giving away your military operations on the internet to acquire a 5100 ?

From the Wiki page referenced above:

The 5100 was based on IBM's innovative concept that, using an emulator written in microcode, a small and relatively cheap computer could run programs already written for much larger, and much more expensive, existing computers, without the time and expense of writing and debugging new programs.

Two such programs were included: a slightly modified version of APL.SV, IBM's APL interpreter for its System/370 mainframes, and the BASIC interpreter used on IBM's System/3 minicomputer. Consequently, the 5100's microcode was written to emulate most of the functionality of both a System/370 and a System/3.

IBM later used the same approach for its 1983 introduction of the XT/370 model of the IBM PC, which was a standard IBM PC XT with the addition of a System/370 emulator card.

The 5100 came with a tape drive.

So the magic is that it could run, via emulation, two other program languages found on two other IBM systems - Basic for system/3 and APL for system/370.

There was an early IBM PC/XT that could emulate 370 (I assuming APL).

So either the need was for the system/3 basic programs or the software was on tapes.

It appears IBM still uses the APL programming language.

From Wiki - Today, most APL language activity takes place under the Microsoft Windows operating system, with some activity under Linux, Unix, and Mac OS. Comparatively little APL activity takes place today on mainframe computers.

Even if some horrific problem gets created in computers using IBM APL, the platform would appear to be modern. May be the suggested 2038 Unix issue?

So it would appear that there would be a need to use some old IBM tapes in order to save or reboot the US. But then it's running on a primitive computer that is no long used. Lets hope some black project isn't based on this 5100 computer.

I find it hard to believe the Titor 5100 story.

It Does have the not widely know capability to debug computors, i dont think any computor has been made since that can do what this one computer can do

sorry, absolute nonsense.
porting some fictional special feature of an old computer to create an operating system that can run linux and windows programs and write in DLL support.
Its just utter nonsense, although it is completely possible there is no way you actually did it and its completely possible without stealing something from an old computer.

Look at Mac OS X, it can run x86 binaries and also PPC binaries by translating things on the fly. Its impressive technology but not a conspiracy

Whatever happened to this story?

As a computer programmer of 21 years myself, this sounds SOOOOO bogus, however as it's just random ramblings, and I have an open mind, if you give actual specifics I'd be happy to test them.

It doesn't look good though.

This statement;
"I have not mentioned what version of windows or linux we have used in our experiments for our security reasons"
is a complete red herring.

"Wouldnt it be nice to have a computer that accepts different kinds of executables? Like for example, a windows machine that accepts .EXE, .DEB, .RPM, etc... onto the same machine. Ever thought that could be possible?"

For a start, deb and rpm are not binary executable formats, they are package types, perhaps you mean ELF? Regardless, my computer runs many different types of binaries, I run ELF natively, I run EXE natively, with just an API compatibility layer (WINE), I run old MZ EXE, (thanks to DOSBOX), and many more types, from many more machines, often completely 'transparently'. That's all available on Linux. Windows can give you this type of thing too, DOSBOX and the other emulators are available on windows too, and Linux programs can be run fine mostly with andlinux/colinux and other such systems.

Your reverse code thing sounds silly too, kind of like COMEFROM (look it up). I've written BASIC interpreters many times, and there is and has never been any restriction like you claim on what order to run the program in. I store the tokenized form in a linked list, and I can choose to start at the head, or the tail if I wish, If I start at the tail, I will expect weird results though, unless I craft the program to work in reverse as well as forwards.

Nowhere in that is the potential for "Encryption to fail at every level", even if it is 'one based' as you claim.

Your whole notion of being '1 based' is ridiculous and makes no difference to the underlying machine at all. Some forms of BASIC use 1 based arrays, ie by default the first index is 1, not 0, this is purely an abstraction aimed at non-programmers/non-maths people who may find an array starting at 0 odd.

I challenge you to provide more details that those of us with actual knowledge of hardware and software can test, so far you have just provided us with incoherent ramblings.

Also, for those that think the idea of the machine itself running multiple binary types is something amazing that has never been done since, I challenge you to look into the Mega PC (a hybrid of the sega megadrive/genesis), and the the RM (RISC) 386's, that were a kind of hybrid of x86 and the acorn archemedies.

Even the modern x86 does a form of this, although it is classed a CISC machine, you code is actually converted to a RISC type microcode behind the scenes.

I assume however though, if you do provide more details, and those of us with actual knowledge prove it as bogus, you'll just pull out some usual claim of "alternate timelines" where Titor actually had a totally different 5100 or some crap.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by bobafett]

Originally posted by titorite
In order to prove this is in fact that IBM 5100 has a "reversable binarial capability" is to write a basic program.

10] Print "Hi how are you?"
20] Goto to 10
30] END

Don't be so gullible. You have "Want to Believe" that is impairing your judgment.

10] int x = 15
20] int pylons = (x*2)
30] print "You need %pylons pylons"
40] int x = 4
50] int lanes = (x*3)
60] print "You need %lanes lanes"
70] END

Run it forwards the bridge is a success, run in backwards the bridge collapses. Programs cannot be run backwards. That is why when you get instructions for putting something complicated together the steps are numbered, they do not say "start at one end of the book till you reach the other side."

Use your head.

You could run programs backwards, especially with a line based language, also some esolangs allow and even encourage weird behaviour like this, here is a quick program I made for a BASIC that allows computed GOTO.

10 REM
20 LET A = 1
30 LET B = 60
40 LET C = 90
50 LET D = 170
60 PRINT A
70 LET A = A + 1
80 GOTO C
90 IF A ≤ 10 THEN GOTO B
100 GOTO D
110 LET A = A + 1
120 PRINT A
130 LET A = 1
140 LET B = 120
150 LET C = 10
160 LET D = 90
170 REM

The program when run forwards or reverse will do the same thing, print the integers in order from 1 to 10

I had to edit line 90 as the open angle bracket symbol isn't allowed on ATS (it's a html thing), it should read as if a is less than or equal to 10 then goto b

None of this anything particularly useful or exciting though, it's just fun gimmicks and games coders play sometimes.

[edit on 9-7-2008 by bobafett]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!


This is the stupidest thing EVER! We who have been programming assembler know that this is just BS. Its just like beating an alien to death in the middle of the night while your wife and kids are watching.

edit : again .. typos

[edit on 9-7-2008 by tep200377]

reply to post by tep200377


hah, I fear no matter what we say these people will still be

add dword ptr [belief_level], 1000

maybe at some point they'll wrap around to a negative belief

[edit on 9-7-2008 by bobafett]