RendleSham wrote:The chances of the binary matching the Woodbridge coordinates are infentesimal. Also the East/West error is a very common human error (especially if you live in the US) which just points even more towards a human source for the message.
Can't see why you would still choose West over East even when you're living in the USA. But there is always the possibility of human error as the W and E are both next to each other on the keyboard. We then have these coordinates where the 8100 isn't included even though it comes before the 520942532N... we seem to assume it isn't part of it. It feels the decoders are subjectively thinking to get their own result.
RendleSham wrote:Maybe X-Files did get it from another source- But unless we see another genuine UFO report with binary this will be in doubt.
I do remember reading another binary coded story in the past, but can't seem to locate it.
RendleSham wrote:Pity the History Channel didn't ask you to decode it as it sounds like you're better qualified than Nick Ciske-

Typical childish BS remark cheers.
RendleSham wrote:Isaac : (4) Could one of the online tools relating to binary code (including one that you appear to have developed) have been used in reverse to translate the relevant "possible message" into the binary code?
Nick Ciske :4. Yes, that's exactly what my tool does, and the most plausible explanation for how the message was generated. [Isaac - This view was not shown in the documentary. Indeed, Nick's comments as shown in the documentary implied that it would be difficult for somone to generate the relevant text. Nick is shown as saying "Could someone write out 6 pages of binary? Well, probably not. They would need some help or they would have to be some sort of savant or super calculator."]
RendleSham (Unless they were just copying it down from a computor program of course)
You see you didn't quote this in your previous message. It may have been more understandable than making the reader believe Nick's software is the only tool that could have been used. I don't agree with idea that it would be hard for someone to generate 6 pages of text unless they're some sort of super calculator. Just get an ASCII chart, get the decimal values for the letter and then convert the decimal value into binary. Of course this could take some time to do but we're talking hours here.
What we need is someone with handwriting examining experience to see what they get from Jims written sequence. In my opinion if Jim wrote it down from a computer programme he would have set it out in 8-bit blocks to make it easier to read. Pause every so often to see the next sequence to write down, creating possibly a neatly drawn 0 or 1. Would have been accurate in writing down the information.
Of course Jim may have wanted people to believe he did it on a spur of the moment, but to do that he would probably have to record it to audio first and then write it down.
99% of me says this sequence is rubbish but the other 1% of me has to ask questions.