From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 01:28:50 -0500 (EST) Archived: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 07:50:26 -0500 Subject: Re: Jim Penniston's Binary Code And Symbols >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 08:24:14 -0500 >Subject: Re: Jim Penniston's Binary Code And Symbols >>From: Jason Gammon <boyinthemachine.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 00:39:56 -0500 (EST) >>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 <snip> >>>"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. >We think memory does not work like that. But then, >neurophysiologists don't really know how or where a memory is >stored. They just have some idea which brain structures and >chemicals may participate in memory formation and retrieval. >There have been other anomalous memory phenomena that do not >conform to expectation and can't be explained. These suggest >that the computer storage analogy is probably wrong. >Here we may have unknown ET technology involved, so we have to >allow for the possibility that Penniston's memory was >manipulated somehow. As long as you allow the possibility that Penniston was not able to correctly remember it. If you do not allow this possibility then I reject all of what you claim. >>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. >When pushed, Penniston will only say that the new book will >include the rest of the binary code and will explain all. If you haven't listened to the Joiner interview with Penniston, do so below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMAzvYz3zZ4 In the interview he does state that he wants to take time to make sure it's what he believes (paraphrased). >>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. >It seems you are just refusing to let go of an opinion that is >demonstrably wrong. I showed that the communication did not >fail, so I'm puzzled why you would say that it did. The message >was a graphic that was part of a set defined by the common >decoding algorithm. We just can't be sure of the reason for the >communication. You have not shown the communication did not fail. You merely assumed it didn't. You assumed that Penniston was able to correctly recall all of the binary code without making mistakes. You are free to your own opinions. However, I am free to disagree. As I wrote above, are you allowing the potential of Penniston not being able to correctly reproduce the binary code? Because if you are allowing this then I can give you some freeway. If not, I must reject your conclusions. 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp