From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 00:39:56 -0500 (EST) Archived: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:30:42 -0500 Subject: Re: Jim Penniston's Binary Code And Symbols >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 12:33:47 -0500 >Subject: Re: Jim Penniston's Binary Code And Symbols >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 01:09:42 -0500 (EST) >>Subject: Jim Penniston's Binary Code And Symbols >>Am I the only one who is skeptical of the interpretation given >>for the binary code Penniston allegedly received from the UFO? >>I am quite skeptical of it. I interpret the event a little >>different from most would I suppose. For me, it appears that an >>intelligent machine attempted to make contact with Penniston. I >>say machine as the size of the UFO may exclude the potential for >>a crew. As I view the experience, I sense a machine intelligence >>attempting to communicate with Penniston and choosing a binary >>code with the hope that Penniston would be able to comprehend >>it. I think the communication failed. Since this was done >>telepathically I could only speculate that the machine lacked >>the ability to either transmit speech or direct thought as most >>occupants are reported to be able to do. >>I am also quite skeptical of the interpretation given for the >>symbols that were etched onto the fabric of the craft. I think >>humans have this weird tendency to think too hard and too >>imaginatively about things like this. When I look at the symbols >>I see designations of the craft, perhaps it's model and maker >>and even time stamp. I do not sense any message to humanity in >>these symbols. I would venture they have no meaning other than >>to that which services them. >>I do not blame Penniston in the least. I think he did the best >>he could under the circumstances. I'm sure the process must be >>very hard for a machine intelligence to 'dumb itself down' >>enough to communicate effectively with a human being. >The interpretation of the binary code supported by Penniston has >always been problematic. Here on this list as well as other >places, I described the slap-happy way they decoded it in order >to get something meaningful. >http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/jan/m08-001.shtml >I found that Penniston's data from 1980 is better decoded as an >image using a decoding algorithm encoded in a crop formation in >2010. The result is a cartoon figure that looks a little like >Snoopy. I treated the data from beginning to end as 8-bit pixel >values; i.e., I did not arbitrarily switch between 7 and 8 bit >ascii and insert missing characters as Penniston's "expert" did. >The same decoding algorithm also found instantly recognizable >images in two crop formations that appeared 22 and 30 years >later. The whole story is told in the following article. >http://www.treurniet.ca/bigpic/CCImages.htm >A source listing of the decoding algorithm and the raw image data >are included in this file. >http://vixra.org/pdf/1112.0050v1.pdf >In my opinion, the following rationale best explains the >presence of the images in the three data sets. >"Six meaningful images were decoded from the three sets of data >using the same decoding algorithm. Because the decoding >algorithm was specified in the latest data set, all of the data >sets must have been designed by the same agency. Further, we >were not meant to see the images until 2010 when the decoding >algorithm was provided. Three of the images offer greetings, and >the remaining three depict harmless animals and a child. The >implied message seems to be that we should not fear the authors >of the images when we eventually meet. Since this message would >be trivial if the source were a human agency, we may infer that >the authors are probably not human." >It is also possible that the project was an operation jointly >carried out by a human agency and a non-human agency. The images >may have been a way to test a method of communication between >them. Either agency might have been the intended recipient. If >that is true, the images may never have been meant for public >consumption. >It is, of course, possible that the entire project spanning 30 >years was carried out by a human agency alone, but I can't think >of a motive when there is no non-human involvement. >In any case, by not focusing strictly on Penniston's binary >data, we can see a bigger picture. >William I appreciate the effort you put into it. However, I'm still of the opinion that the communication failed. Although binary code is indeed a universal language, most human beings are simply not capable of translating binary code in their minds. We know Penniston is not, as he claims he had no idea what binary code was at the time. The notion that he stored this info in his brain without forming any errors is also problematic. Memory doesn't work like that. The post-hypnosis information is very troublesome. I won't touch on it here as it appears to be the plot of a bad Sci-Fi flick, on par with SyFy's Saturday night movies. Plus, Penniston wants time to figure out if it's what he believes or not. I translate that as wanting time to get his story straight. So, I reject the post-hypnosis information. I still accept the pre-hypnosis information, which does indeed include the binary codes, just not the interpretation. I perceive the encounter as a machine-intelligence attempting to make communication, but the communicaion failed and I will have to leave it at that. Jason Gammon Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp