Copyright © Gary Osborn 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © Gary Osborn 2017. All Rights Reserved.
In light of the information above taken from a legal journal published by Boston University School of Law, it is a proven fact that 1), websites can be hacked and the information on webpages can be tampered with and falsified, and 2), that it could even be made to appear as if the falsified information had been presented on the same webpage for a number of years, in that what appears on ‘Wayback Machine’ can also be tampered with.
Therefore, the assertion that Jim Penniston copied four or five of the seven coordinates from the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website remains mere conjecture, a theory and not fact. And so, what has been found and what appears to support the assertion that Jim Penniston created the binary code himself can hardly be used as proof against him, as some are already claiming – and neither can it seriously be used as hard evidence.
And really, would Jim Penniston, who had ‘Top Secret clearance’ and whose credibility and honesty was highly-respected with military commendations and perfect performance reviews given annually by many high-ranking officers throughout his years in the USAF, really be that dumb as to concoct a hoax – especially using information that was already on the Internet and could easily be checked?
The online satellite mapping program, Google Earth, has been available since June 2005. If I was going to include coordinates in a binary code message which I was creating myself to deceive the public – making perfectly sure that I covered all my tracks so that no one would ever be able to detect it was all a hoax – I would certainly not be stupid enough to use coordinates that already existed on the Internet. I would have determined my own unique set of coordinates by cursor-scanning the locations I wanted to target, which is very simple to do with an accessible online program like ‘Google Earth.’
Also, why would Jim Penniston go out on a limb to jeopardize his sterling reputation by perpetrating such a hoax when he was reticent at first to come forward about what he witnessed that night during the incident? – Much less the binary code which he had kept to himself for thirty years?
The opportunists who are trying to grab their “15-mins of fame” by focusing their energies on trying to discredit Jim Penniston and the other witnesses of the Rendlesham Incident, are the same people who tend to overlook the fact that Jim Penniston never wanted the pages of ones and zeros to be made public in the first place, and the reasons he gives are all perfectly understandable. 
Of course, people can continue to believe what they want to believe, but until it can be PROVEN and without any shadow of a doubt that Jim Penniston copied the coordinates from the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website, then the assertions that he did, and that all this time his account of what he witnessed and his explanations as to how he received the binary code has been a lie, are merely assumptions masquerading as “fact” and not worth anything.
‘Sacred Destinations is an educational and travel resource founded in April 2005. An ongoing project, it currently profiles more than 1,200 sacred sites and religious places in 61 countries around the world, illustrated by over 25,000 photos.’
Source: About Sacred Destinations.
It was discovered that the four sets of coordinates listed below, which were found in the binary code claimed to have been received by Jim Penniston on Boxing Day morning, 1980 happen to be the same sets of coordinates being displayed on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website and on the pages given to the relevant locations. There was another set - the Giza coordinates - but for some reason these had been removed.
16.763177 N 89.117768 W . . . Canaa Pyramid: Caracol, Belize, South of Yucatán Peninsula, Central America.
14.701505 S 75.167043 W . . . Nazca Plain: Nazca, Peru, South America.
36.256845 N 117.100632 E . . . Mount Taishan: Tai Shan Qu, Shandong, China.
37.110195 N 25.372281 E . . . Temple of Apollo: Portara, Naxos Island, Greece.
This assertion aimed at Jim Penniston was also seen to be supported by the fact that the same pages can be found on the online caching service, ‘Wayback Machine,’ supposedly showing that these coordinates had been displayed on the relevant pages of the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website since 2009 and early 2010 – approximately one year before Jim Penniston went public about the existence of the binary code in November, 2010.
In the wake of these assertions, which were first aimed at Jim Penniston on the ATS (Above Top Secret) website in June 2016, Jim Penniston says that he stands by his testimony that he received the binary code during the incident he witnessed on the morning of Dec 26, 1980, when he touched the “black, unidentified triangular craft of unknown origin.”
Jim Penniston also maintains that the string of binary code and its message which has now been deciphered and which was found to contain seven sets of coordinates, originated from that same incident (now over 36 years ago), and that his account as to how he says he received the binary code, is the truth.
Having got to know Jim over the last six to seven years, I accept his account of what he says he witnessed that night and exactly as he relates it. I have observed Jim closely, and having noted every little nuance in the way he talks and conducts himself and how he also reacts to certain questions I have put to him, I had to conclude that he believes what he says he witnessed, including how he received the binary code and that although the string of binary code he wrote down in his notebook the next day after the incident had come through him, he had no part in having devised it and did not determine the coordinates that were found in the binary code.
To have chosen and determined the seven sets of coordinates, which both on their own and together produce a wealth of correlative information, not only would Jim have to possess knowledge of what had been encoded at Giza which has remained unknown for centuries, but also Jim would have had to have been familiar with my research work and discoveries prior to me being involved in the binary code – things which I just know he could not have known. Even now he’s still not familiar with many of the themes and elements of my research work. I have had to explain a lot of what I’ve been working on to bring him up to speed on it all – especially how the results of the coordinates correlated with what I already knew and understood. It’s not because he isn’t smart enough – because Jim is intelligent: it’s because he hasn’t “lived and breathed” these things daily like I have and for almost 20 years now, and this would be the same situation for anyone else. I just know from my interactions and discussions with him, that what emerges from the coordinates of the code is something that he just would not have had the knowledge, the aptitude and especially the patience to create or implement himself. I would also have to rule out the possibility that Jim devised it with someone else who may have had some knowledge of my work.
So, speaking in Jim’s defense, although there appears to be evidence of ‘foul play’ here, it depends on what side this ‘foul play’ is being operated from, as it is also conceivable/possible that the coordinates that appear on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website may have actually been taken from one of the sources that presented the full deciphered message of the binary code, and which had been in the public domain since the publication of the book ‘Encounter In Rendlesham Forest’ in April 2014.
Not surprisingly, this possibility, if it has been considered at all, has largely been ignored.
However, the possibility indeed remains that someone, or a group wishing to discredit Jim Penniston as a credible ‘Rendlesham Incident’ witness and bring his account concerning the binary code and how he received it seriously into question, could have hacked into the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website to tamper with the information presented on the website, using a skilled hacker to do it. In other words, the coordinates originally published for the same ancient sites on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website, could have been altered and changed to the coordinates found in the binary code, to make it appear that Jim Penniston himself had 1), copied them from the website, 2), converted them to binary code and 3), then added them into the binary code message that he then wrote into his notebook many years after the incident and after the coordinates had first appeared on the website.
It could even have been made to appear that the ‘falsified’ information presented on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website had been displayed on there for many years – especially making it look as though the coordinates were on the relevant pages of the website the year before Jim Penniston went public with the existence of the binary code . . . .
Again, all I concentrated on were the coordinates, as was asked of me. My initial findings on the coordinates from the code and from the time Jim Penniston sent them to me on Feb 3, 2011, led to an unforeseen six-year study, and in that time, I discovered more than enough ‘additional’ information from those seven sets of coordinates to fill three or more large volumes.
Aside from the initial message, the information factored into the coordinates offers up certain details that with a little research, will forge various connections and associations with other related data – all of which adds to augment the ‘bigger-picture’ being presented to us.
During the first three years of my study, Jim Penniston remained largely quiet. He also held back from making any comments on what I was discovering. I found that frustrating and I wondered why I had no interaction, feedback, support or encouragement from Jim during that time, but it later made sense when he later explained to me that he wanted to know if there really was anything in the code, and that he had to be careful with whatever interpretations were being arrived at, which is why he also had other people studying the code. He wanted to make absolutely sure that he didn’t lead, influence or place any suggestions in the minds of those studying the code, as to what we might find, or that whatever we had each found wasn’t contaminated by any outside influence, interpretations or conclusions arrived at from the others studying the code.
In early June 2016, an assertion was made against Jim Penniston which appeared to challenge his account of ‘how’ and ‘when’ he received the binary code. The assertion was that Jim, or whomever had devised the binary code, had copied FOUR of the SEVEN sets of coordinates found within the string of binary code from the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website.
USAF Staff Sergeant Jim Penniston was a first responder and primary witness on the first of three consecutive nightly events from the 26th to 28th December 1980, known as the Rendlesham Forest Incident.
In brief, Jim Penniston claims he received a “telepathic” download of ones and zeros while touching an “unidentified, black triangular craft of unknown origin.” The stream of ones and zeros were then fixed in his mind’s eye like an ‘after image.’ It was only after he wrote the string of binary code ones and zeros down in proper sequence in his notebook in the early morning hours of the next day (Dec 27) that Jim Penniston was then able to rid himself of the tormenting mental images that had been continually plaguing his mind since the event.
In early January 2011, Jim Penniston had agreed to the free ‘offered assistance’ of Joe Luciano, a retired ‘Computer Systems Engineer’ with over 50 years of professional computer experience, to decipher the pages of binary code from the notebook using photocopies of the pages.
Included in the binary code message was seven sets of coordinates.
Almost a month after Joe Luciano began work on the binary code and had deciphered and determined the coordinates, I was contacted by Jim Penniston who requested my assistance in examining the seven sets of coordinates from the code. Jim Penniston asked if I could discover any additional information from them. On February 3, 2011, Jim sent me the coordinates.
During April 2012, I was introduced to Joe Luciano, through Jim Penniston. Joe sent me the full message he had deciphered from all 16 notebook pages of the binary code. Below is the full message Joe Luciano had deciphered from the binary code which Jim claims he received and was later published in April 2014, in the book, Encounter In Rendlesham Forest by Nick Pope with Jim Penniston and John Burroughs:
Taking seriously what is stated in the quote given above and also the quotes from the legal journal about ‘evidence tampering,’ the same doubts and aspersions which have been widely-distributed in posts on social Internet sites and online forums from those who are far from being objective about this and have already made up their minds that the code is bogus and find it right to simply point the finger at Jim Penniston, could just as well be cast on the person who actually brought this issue to people’s attention in the first place, and which by all accounts had originated with one of the posters on the ATS (Above Top Secret) website who continually hides behind a pseudonym and remains anonymous.
Whether true or not, it is a fact that it is presently being rumored on various blogs and forums that the ATS site is notorious for being one of many sites which various government agencies will use to spread disinformation.
For example, see: The conspiracy website abovetopsecret.com is controlled opposition run by the DOD/CIA, and it’s not the only one.
Now, at this stage, the only person who could shed light on all this is the owner of the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website.
'Sacred Destinations' which lists 1,200 sacred sites around the world and which includes coordinates to those sites, would be the perfect Internet site to place the coordinates copied from Jim Penniston’s binary code message to generate controversy as to where the coordinates in the binary code had really originated, making Jim Penniston’s whole testimony about the incident and his account of how he received the binary code appear highly dubious and questionable.
I learned that the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website is run by a husband and wife team. I personally emailed the owners of the website, to discover what I could about the coordinates displayed on their webpages. I asked for any information they might have about these particular sets of coordinates, which are the same as what had been deciphered from the Rendlesham binary code – i.e., what date(s) they originate from, and how and why they were chosen.
Unfortunately, to date, I have not received a reply.
At the time when this ‘Sacred Destinations’ issue had first reared its head on the ATS forum in April 2016, during discussion in which I took part, I responded that what had been produced made no difference to what I have found in the code – which was true, and still holds true today, as I will reveal in this presentation. And I am certain that if people had already seen the results of my then ‘five-year study’ of the coordinates from the binary code, they would have found it extremely difficult to accept the assertions made against Jim Penniston – i.e., that the same coordinates had been copied from the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website.
From my own perspective after studying the seven sets of coordinates from the binary code, each of these sets of coordinates were carefully determined to provide – both individually and collectively – a vast amount of additional information. In other words, the seven coordinates found in the binary code are a ‘code within a code’ and are each an integral part of a ‘bigger picture’ and therefore serve a purpose. Whereas, the coordinates featured on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website only serve to reference and locate ancient sacred sites or various sites of interest around the world.
Furthermore, what emerges initially from the careful placement of the coordinates from the binary code are TWO-perfectly-proportioned, geometric templates – one covering a large part of the Earth’s surface centered in the Atlantic, and one at Giza, and both based around the Phi-ratio. The larger Phi-ratio-related geometric template can be used not only to derive more information, but at the same time also confirm certain alignments. All this was so meticulously planned, that in my view, the coordinates found in the binary code were certainly not lifted at random from a New Age Website, as if someone was compiling “a New Age holiday wish list” as one author/researcher has described it. 
From what I now know and understand, I really can’t see how four or five sets of coordinates could be picked from a website whose owner had already chosen and determined these coordinates without any prior knowledge of the vast amount of encoded information these coordinates produce with the remaining coordinates found in the binary code – each of which plays an integral part in a larger picture. And I can’t see how Jim Penniston would have known what coordinates to pick to produce the vast amount of information I have only outlined above and which I know is way beyond his capabilities to even conceive, let alone strategically formulate so that it can all be tightly encapsulated within two precisely-proportioned, geometric templates based on the Phi-ratio with everything then being factored and converted into a relatively short string of binary code.
The Nazca Coordinates found in the Rendlesham Binary Code and the Great Pyramid of Giza
What convinces me that the four sets of coordinates found on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website were in fact copied from the same four coordinates out of seven that were deciphered from the binary code – and not the other way around as many have been led to believe – stems from the fact that one of the decimal digits in both the Nazca longitude coordinates found in both sources is different, as if a ‘copying over’ error had been made . . .
Nazca coordinates from the Binary Code: 14.701505 S 75.167043 W.
Nazca coordinates from the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website: 14.701505ºS 75.137043ºW.
Now, according to Wikipedia, the official north latitude coordinates upon which the Great Pyramid is centered is given as 29°58′45.03″N in degrees arc minutes and seconds. When converted to decimal degrees these latitude coordinates are 29.979175ºN – which rounds-off to nearest ten-thousandth at 29.9792ºN, referencing the first six digits of the c (speed of light) constant. 
During September 2013, one of the things I discovered was that the distance in miles between the Nazca coordinates found in the binary code of 14.701505 S 75.167043 W and the coordinates of 29.979175ºN 31.133733ºE, which target a significant point on the western face of the Great Pyramid of Giza and exactly parallel with its apex center, is a distance of precisely 7,687 miles – no more, no less.
OK, so what is so special about the mile distance of 7,687?
According to the studies of Stanlee Meylor first written and copyrighted in 2002 (see webpage: Giza Surveyors Marker), in terms of the Golden Mean, Phi 1.618…, and in respect of the circumference of the Earth, in miles the number 7687 is referred to as the ‘Golden Mileage’ or what Meylor terms ‘The Philine’ (Phi line). In summary, Stanlee Meylor puts forward the theory that the Great Pyramid of Giza and the location of the pyramid field at Giza is related to other natural and non-natural sites (man-made) throughout the world in terms of distances based on Phi and the Golden Mean.
According to Meylor we simply take the number 7687 and multiply it by 1.618 (Phi). The result is 12,437… – which happens to be half the WGS 84 authalic sphere circumference of the Earth in miles. So then, the number 7687 is a significant one as Meylor says.
Now, whether it is true or not that the ancients had devised such a grand design and had deliberately constructed sites around the world that were separated by significant distances based on the Golden Mean is another thing and is beside the point, as I will explain.
Whoever devised the binary code appears to have used the same 7,687 ‘Golden Mileage’ data as published by Dan Sewell Ward (2005) and Stanlee Meylor (2008) – but first written and copyrighted by Meylor in 2002 to pinpoint the Nazca coordinates, so that when we measure the distance between the Nazca and Giza coordinates – especially to and from the Great Pyramid – the result is exactly 7,687 miles.
One would be inclined to take the view that on behalf of whomever had devised the binary code, emphasis had been given to the value 7687 and its significance according to Stanlee Meylor’s theory that Giza is related to other natural and non-natural sites throughout the world in terms of distances based on Phi, and the Golden Mean.
But, the question is, why?
I ask this because compared to the information I have discovered about the Giza Plateau – most of it being the result of the Giza coordinates (one of seven sets of coordinates found in the Rendlesham binary code) – the findings and accompanying theory being put forward by Meylor, is not as astounding as might first appear.
Meylor’s discovery pales into insignificance when we realize that one of the new and potentially ‘major’ discoveries about Giza – and which again was a direct result of the Giza coordinates found within the Rendlesham binary code – is that the Giza Diagonal does indeed encode a ‘precessional timeline.’ In addition to this, the same Giza coordinates have also led to the discovery that the monuments on the Giza Plateau, including the Giza Diagonal were designed and positioned in relation to the Phi-ratio proportion.
Fig. 3: From the Nazca coordinates presented in the Rendlesham binary code
following a line northeast at the azimuth heading of 63.11 degrees (26.89º) to Giza.
Fig. 5: The Phi-ratio-related ‘geometric template’ to which the Giza pyramids and the Giza Diagonal are aligned and positioned. It consists of two golden spirals, both in an inverse position to each other – like the number 69 – with the two heads of the spirals both aligned to the apex of G2, while the tail ends align with the apex-centers of G1 (Great Pyramid) and G3.
The mathematical data that emerges from the distance figures in royal cubits encapsulated in this Phi-ratio-related ‘geometric template,’ as revealed below, is truly remarkable.
I will provide a brief summary here to show how this simple template works in providing us with the following mathematical data and more besides:
First of all, it is a fact that both the numbers of 256 and 56 are closely related to the dimensions of the Great Pyramid.
As we can see, the full height of the two combined golden spirals from the apex-center of G1 (Great Pyramid) to the apex-center of G3, and as expressed in their proportions, is 2.618 (≈ Phi squared – Φ ).
The Great Pyramid height of 280 (royal cubits) ÷ 5 = 56.
56 x 2.618 (Φ ) = 146.608, which is the height of the Great Pyramid in meters.
146.608m / 0.5236m = 280 (royal cubits).
As shown, the numbers in the latitude coordinates that divide the two Phi proportions of the golden spiral on the right in the graphic above are 29.976625.
We simply multiply the number 29.976625 by 256, which results in the number 7,674.016.
56 ÷ 7,674.016 = 0.0072973525205056 . . . the Fine-Structure Constant (0.007297352566355) to ten decimal places!
This is because 7,674.016 ÷ 56 = 137.036… – the approximate value given to the reciprocal of the Fine-Structure Constant.
The correct value would be 7,674.015951784 as a result of 137.035999139 x 56.
However, this would be the result of a latitude of 29.97662481165625ºN, which is an absurd number of decimal places and highly impractical. This simply means that the newly-discovered latitude of 29.976625ºN, which is a significant latitude at Giza as it just happens to divide the two Phi-ratio proportions between the pyramids of G1 and G3, contains numbers that are the closest one can use practically to generate the Fine-Structure Constant, the most mysterious number known in physics.
In fact, 29.976625ºN and 29.976625ºS are the only latitudes in the world that contains the right numbers that can be calculated via the numbers 256 and 56 to find the ‘Fine-Structure Constant’ and to this high number of decimal places, and the northern latitude happens to run through Giza at exactly 540 royal cubits south of the apex-center of the Great Pyramid.
540 x 256 = 138,240, ÷ 32 = 4,320.
From the apex-center of the subsidiary pyramid “G3a” to the apex-center of the subsidiary pyramid “G1a,” the Giza Diagonal follows the azimuth heading of 43.2 degrees.
The Giza Diagonal ‘royal cubits’ length of 2,160 ÷ 2.618 (the combined height of the proportions of the two golden spirals) = 825.0572956455309, x 0.5236 meters (one royal cubit) = 432 meters exactly.
432 x 100 = 43,200.
As first discovered by Professor Livio Stecchini (published in 1971) and then explored further and confirmed by the author W. R. Fix (1978), the Great Pyramid was deliberately constructed as a mathematical ‘scale model’ of the northern hemisphere of the Earth at the scale of 1: 43,200.
Furthermore, 540 royal cubits is one quarter the distance of 2,160 royal cubits (the length of the Giza Diagonal), and 1,080 royal cubits is half the distance of 2,160 royal cubits.
2,160 royal cubits x 2 = 4,320.
All these numbers are subdivisions of the Great Year (precessional cycle) of 25,920 years according to the ancient estimate, which was easier to remember and encode, as the number 25,920 and its subdivisions are all multiples of the number 9.
How many “coincidences” do we need to stack up before we finally accept the fact that these significant numbers have all been encoded here and for an important reason?
Now, let’s return to the distance of 7,687 miles from the Nazca coordinates found in the Rendlesham binary code . . .
One can simply discover for themselves just how meticulously precise the distance from the Nazca coordinates is in intersecting a key point of the Phi-ratio-related ‘geometric template’ upon which the Giza pyramids are positioned and the Giza Diagonal is aligned, as shown above.
7,687 miles is exactly 12,371,027.328 meters – although 12,371,027.00 is close enough.
Again, beginning from the Nazca coordinates found in the Rendlesham binary code, the distance of 12,371,027.00 meters ends exactly at the coordinates of 29.979175ºN, 31.133733ºE on the western face of the Great Pyramid aligning parallel with the Great Pyramid’s apex-center.
Fig. 7: From the Nazca coordinates presented in the Rendlesham binary code (14.701505 S 75.167043 W),
following a line northeast at the azimuth heading of 63.11 degrees (26.89º) to Giza, and to a point on the west face of the
Great Pyramid at the coordinates 29.979175ºN 31.133733ºE, is exactly 12,371,027.00 meters.
Artwork overlay Copyright © Gary Osborn (courtesy of Google Earth Pro) 2017. All Rights Reserved.
By using the ‘Ruler Tool’ in Google Earth Pro we can alter/adjust the meter distance from 12,371,019.84 to 12,371,035.33 without changing the value of the converted distance of 7,687 miles. In other words, the exact 7,687-mile distance of 12,371,027.00 meters from the Nazca coordinates is the only distance that will target the Great Pyramid at the precise coordinates of 29.979175ºN, 31.133733ºE, and this is truly significant . . . because these coordinates are on the same N/S longitude line as the coordinates of 29.976625ºN, 31.133733ºE, which intersects both the north-east corner of the Phi golden rectangle and the Giza Diagonal, at the significant, and intended distance of 540 royal cubits.
And again, the numbers in the latitude of 29.976625ºN, are what provides us with the ‘Fine-Structure Constant’ to ten decimal places via two simple calculations using the numbers 256 and 56.
All that you see in the graphic below is way beyond chance and could only have been implemented by deliberate and premeditated design . . .
Fig. 8: The distance of 7,687 miles (12,371,027.00 meters) from the Nazca coordinates deciphered from the Rendlesham binary code, ends on the western face of the Great Pyramid aligned with the apex-center at the coordinates 29.979175ºN 31.133733ºE, aligning with and confirming the Phi-ratio geometry upon which the monuments of Giza were constructed.
From the apex-center of the subsidiary pyramid G3a to the apex-center of the subsidiary pyramid G1a, the Giza Diagonal follows the azimuth heading of 43.2 degrees. However, on a flat surface the angle of the Giza Diagonal is 46.8º . . . 90º – 43.2º = 46.8º.
Artwork overlay Copyright © Gary Osborn (courtesy of Google Earth Pro) 2016. All Rights Reserved.
The Phi-ratio proportions incorporating the 540, 1,080 and 2,160 royal cubit distances associated with the placement of the pyramids of Giza, and which respectively represent 1/48th, 1/24th, and 1/12th of the precessional cycle of 25,920 years according to the ancient estimate, was originally envisioned and put into plan by the architect(s) who designed Giza and the monuments that have been constructed at Giza.
The reality of this Phi-ratio-related ‘geometric template’ encoded at Giza, emerged in a logical, step-by-step fashion as a result of studying the location of the Giza coordinates found in the Rendlesham binary code in relation to the location of the Sphinx and its dimensions, which provides the key to the Giza Diagonal – a precessional timeline.
The reality of this Phi-ratio-related ‘geometric template’ is confirmed by the intersecting alignment made on the western face of the Great Pyramid, as a result of the exact 7,687-mile (12,371,027.00 meters) distance from the Nazca coordinates – another one of the seven sets of coordinates chosen by whomever had devised the Rendlesham binary code.
It is my view that the discovery and theory about the ‘Golden Mileage’ distance of 7,687 miles published by Stanlee Meylor has merely been used as an existing reference, in that the 7,687-mile distance between the Nazca coordinates found in the code and the Great Pyramid of Giza, and which confirms the Phi-ratio-related geometry revealed above at Giza associated with the Giza Diagonal (an encoded precessional timeline to mark certain events in the precessional cycle), would not be overlooked and could not be mistaken as mere “coincidence” or “happenstance,” as 7687 was a significant number that already existed in the public domain relating to the observed distances between ancient sites.
The Nazca Plains are vast, and the fact that the Nazca coordinates from the Rendlesham binary code are found to be at this precise distance from the Great Pyramid of Giza, shows that the Nazca coordinates were chosen deliberately to bring attention to this distance being significant and really for the purpose of targeting a specific point on the Great Pyramid that would eventually lead us to, or confirm, our discovery of the Phi-ratio-related geometric template on the Giza Plateau that emerges from studying the carefully-chosen placement of the Giza coordinates also found in the binary code.
Now, in comparison, the Nazca coordinates found on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website of 14.701505 S, 75.137043 W, and which targets a point some four kilometers distant east of the Nazca coordinates found in the binary code, will not produce the same meaningful 7,687-mile result to the Great Pyramid of Giza. Again, this is because one decimal digit in its longitude coordinates is different (as highlighted above in blue).
In fact, from the ‘Sacred Destinations’-related Nazca coordinates, and measured at the same 7,687-mile distance to target the same 29.979175ºN latitude that runs through the apex-center of the Great Pyramid, the same distance will overshoot not only the Great Pyramid, but the whole Giza complex to target a nondescript location east of Giza, providing us with no significant or meaningful alignment . . . nothing.
To me, this sends up a glaring “red flag” which tells us that the Nazca coordinates that appear on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website were copied from the Nazca coordinates from the binary code and sometime after they were first made public in 2014 with the book ‘Encounter In Rendlesham Forest.’ In other words, by this one decimal digit being different, one would suspect that a ‘copying over’ error had been made. If the coordinates had been copied correctly then of course there would be no way we could know the difference and I would not be able to make the case that these coordinates were copied from the coordinates in the binary code, and not the other way around as is believed or has been made to appear.
Fortunately, for Jim Penniston this one little mistake has given the game away.
But, let’s imagine that Jim Penniston DID copy the coordinates from the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website and that with the Nazca coordinates had made that copying error with the one decimal digit . . . then how fortuitous his mistake would turn out to be when it is discovered that the coordinates he has mistakenly copied are an exact and significant 7,687 miles distant from a significant point on the Great Pyramid of Giza that aligns with and confirms the Phi-ratio geometry at Giza and leads to the very thing which all seven sets of coordinates from the code are in fact pointing to?
My view that the Nazca coordinates that appear on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website were in fact copied from the Nazca coordinates presented in the binary code, and not the other way around, is made all the more convincing in the following summary of what I have revealed thus far . . .
On Stanlee Meylor’s webpage, it is actually stated that the Golden Mileage of 7,687 miles is evident in the ‘mile’ distance between Giza and the mysterious Nazca lines in Peru amongst others.
Again, the Nazca Plains region is vast, and Meylor gives no specific landmark or feature there and neither does he provide a landmark at Giza. So, with no specific location or feature to anchor each end of the 7,687 miles distance from Giza to Nazca to, this distance could only be approximate, in that it merely falls in the “ball park.” Therefore, Meylor’s statement is really only technically correct.
However, whomever devised the binary code presented us with specific coordinates on the Nazca Plains to press home the point regarding the 7,687-mile distance as discovered by Stanlee Meylor – again, coordinates which pinpoint a specific location at Nazca, which when measured to the Great Pyramid of Giza, results in a distance of precisely 7,687 miles. And when I say ‘precisely,’ I mean no more and no less.
The odds against this significant mile value coming up ‘by chance’ between the coordinates found in the binary code and the Great Pyramid is astronomical – especially considering the theory of Meylor who states that this same distance exists between the Nazca region and Giza. Therefore, the only conclusion one can come to, is that the Nazca coordinates found in the binary code were chosen intentionally so that they produce these same results and for the purpose of bringing attention to another specific location, which only I and several others know about at present.
The thing is, although the Nazca coordinates found on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website and in the binary code are on the Nazca Plains and amongst the lines and giant animal/creature effigies found marked into the ground, there appears to be NOTHING at these coordinates – no landmark, no feature . . . nothing. However, unlike the coordinates found on the ‘Sacred Destinations’ website, the Nazca coordinates from the binary code serve a purpose in not only pointing to the Great Pyramid of Giza via the significant distance of 7,687 miles, but also to confirm the Phi-ratio geometry ay Giza discovered as a result of the Giza coordinate also found in the Rendlesham binary code. Again, this can only mean that the Nazca coordinates had been especially picked to make sure that the distance from these coordinates to the Great Pyramid of Giza is found to be exactly at this same distance.
The significant 7,687-mile distance between the Nazca coordinates and the Great Pyramid of Giza, also gives us a glimpse into the mind of the originator(s) of the binary code.
Again, it seems very likely that Stanlee Meylor’s written work originally dating from 2002, and/or the Library of Halexandria webpage by Dan Sewell Ward (2005) – both of which present the ‘Golden Mileage’ value of 7,687 miles – had been used and added into the binary code via the specific Nazca coordinates. Of course, this hypothesis that either one or both of these two sources influenced the originator(s) of the binary code violates the ‘Timeline’ according to Jim Penniston, who claims he received the binary code containing the coordinates on Boxing Day morning, 1980 – approximately 22 to 25 years earlier than these two sources.
However, and again, if the originator(s) of the binary code ARE from the future, and/or able to manipulate time and space, then everything that has happened could be seen from “their” perspective of the future, or from a time or place external to our Timeline.
Now, if it could be proven once and for all that the notebook pages of binary code dates back to December 1980, then the implications would be enormous in regard to everything I have laid out in this presentation. There would be no other way around the ‘time anomaly’ aspect/nature of the binary code and the conclusion that the binary code contains information that is sourced from the future, or what to us would be a ‘non-local’ realm external to our timeline . . . and I could give many instances that suggests such a scenario or conclusion from my own timeline of experiences, both leading up to my involvement with the binary code and while working on the code.
It should be mentioned that in July 2012, Jim Penniston had the age of the paper that contained the binary code from the notebook analyzed and tested by an independent forensic laboratory. The results that came back to Jim Penniston on August 3, 2012 was that the notebook paper dates back to 1980. However, again, some would say that this does not mean that the actual entry of the written ones and zeroes is from that time – meaning that many years later, someone could have written the binary ones and zeros onto the blank pages of the notebook originating from 1980.
But, really, would Jim Penniston go to all this trouble to perpetrate a fraud?
Having known Jim for some time now, he is not the kind of person to do this; it is simply not in his nature. Being a down-to-earth, no-nonsense guy, he would neither have the wherewithal or patience for such things. And on top of that, I can’t see how Jim Penniston could have acquired the level of esoteric knowledge, geometry and mathematics that the coordinates from the code produce – let alone factor it all into a string of binary code and in such a way that only a ‘super mind’ intelligence could attain.
Jim Penniston is determined to get the notebook tested again, and this time to determine the age of the written ink. He has been told that any ink testing in the future will involve testing the natural degradation of the ink that occurs after being written. Using biro pens and paper from 1980 in the present will not produce the same ink degradation that would be evident with ink that had been written onto the same paper in 1980. From exposure to light, air, and such, the ink degrades over time, and it is possible that the duration of time which has expired since the initial writing can therefore be determined. This is ‘fool proof’ testing, and Jim was told that the age of the ink could be dated to within a week!
Unfortunately, at present, the technology for this is not available, but we have been told it will be available in the very near future. When available, the cost of the testing has been estimated to be between $8,000 and £9,000, and so unless someone offers to fund the testing, there is no way this more rigorous test will be done with the binary pages of the notebook as it is cost prohibited. In view of this, Jim Penniston says he KNOWS when the binary code was written in the notebook as stated in his account, as it was him who had written it on the morning of Dec 27, 1980, and therefore has no problem submitting it for date authentication now, or in the future, as much as he never had a problem in 2012 when the notebook pages were tested and verified as having dated from the time he says he wrote down the string of ones and zeros in 1980.
The fact that Jim Penniston is still willing to have the notebook pages and the ink tested and analyzed and has no problem with this even though he doesn’t really care if people believe him or not, speaks volumes.
What people should be concentrating on – and I have said this time and time again – is WHO devised the code? And again, I am certain it was NOT Jim Penniston, so people are on the wrong track if they believe this and this will be evident once the additional information I have found from my six to seven-year study of the seven coordinates has been published.
So, who was it? And what is “he/she/their” purpose? Again, this side of things is for the investigative researchers to look into. And although no one is doing anything about it now, I predict they will once the additional information I have discovered within the coordinates in full is released.
I am certain the code was not devised to bring ridicule to the Rendlesham Forest Incident and the witnesses – far from it – as will be evident once the information is published. On the contrary, it would appear that the code and what it encapsulates was devised to ENHANCE our understanding concerning knowledge that has been hidden from us – things that have remained a mystery for many of us and for many years, and is evidently part of a sophisticated, mathematically-based science developed by an advanced civilization somehow lost in the mists of antiquity, as first brought to attention by Graham Hancock in his seminal work Fingerprints of the Gods in 1995.
For example, as for the other six coordinates – not counting the Giza coordinates – we find these ‘mathematical constant’-related distances between the remaining six coordinates from the binary code and the crown-head-center of the Sphinx at Giza, but also pointing to certain intersections of the Phi-ratio-related geometry at Giza, revealing a grid-like geometry that has been used to encode a ‘precessional timeline.’
Fig. 9: The same significant distance of 7687 miles from the Nazca coordinates of 14.701505º S 75.137043ºW (as displayed on ‘Sacred Destinations’ website) to the latitude coordinates of 29.979175ºN (which passes through the apex-center of the Great Pyramid), targets a nondescript location east of Giza. This is simply because one digit is different in the longitude coordinates (as highlighted in bold), from the longitude coordinates of Nazca found in the Rendlesham binary code.
Artwork overlay Copyright © Gary Osborn (courtesy of Google Earth Pro) 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Artwork Copyright © Gary Osborn 2016. All Rights Reserved.
Fig. 1: The full message deciphered from the 16 notebook pages of binary code by Joe Luciano, 2012.
“B. E-Evidence Tampering
1. General web site attacks
It is tempting to believe that once a user retrieves the cached version of a web site through a caching service, the page presented is an accurate representation of what that page looked like on the day in question. But there are a number of ways to replace accurate information with inaccurate information online. A malicious attacker could place inaccurate information into the system at any number of points; caching services [for example, ‘Wayback Machine’] may copy the fake web pages, or have their originals replaced with fakes directly.
Judges note that the hacking of web sites has become common, with even Microsoft’s sites having been compromised. If a web page is the subject of an attack before it is cached, then the webcrawler will cache the hacked version. In this situation, even though the original page author had no responsibility for the content on the hacked web page, all that appears in the cached archive is the defaced version, leading users to think that the defaced version is the author’s intended original version. A common kind of hack, and the one considered in this section, is a “web defacement attack,” in which the legitimate web site is modified to display information that the hacker chooses, instead of the page created by the owner.
2. Webcrawler exploits
A hacker needn’t actually replace the target’s page with his own, because other, subtler attacks can accomplish the same result. As a consequence of some of these attacks, a site owner likely wouldn’t know that her site had been compromised until she actually saw the cached version of their page. Before a page is cached, webcrawling robots can be susceptible to a number of exploits involving temporary redirects. Most of us have encountered “redirects” when we try to access a web site that has moved: a message appears stating “web site has moved, you will be redirected to the new URL in five seconds.” Then, without any user input, your browser takes you to the new site. Web pages can redirect robots, like Googlebot, to other pages as well. This is potentially dangerous because a temporary redirect can cause a webcrawling robot to think that one page is actually another. In this way, someone who was illegally serving copyrighted material on his web site could redirect webcaching robots to a non-infringing site, making it appear that his site was legitimate. Likewise, a malicious attacker could redirect robots from a noninfringing web site to an infringing one, making it appear that the innocent party had copied the material.
3. Attacks on the locations where cached pages are stored Hackers can also attack the server farms of webcaching companies where cached web pages are stored.”
by Matthew Fagan.
J.D. Candidate, Boston University School of Law, 2007; B.S. Computer Science,
Carnegie Mellon University, 2004; B.A. Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon University, 2004.
“Among the core self-identified purposes of JTRIG are two tactics: (1) to inject all sorts of false material onto the internet in order to destroy the reputation of its targets; and (2) to use social sciences and other techniques to manipulate online discourse and activism to generate outcomes it considers desirable. To see how extremist these programs are, just consider the tactics they boast of using to achieve those ends: “false flag operations” (posting material to the internet and falsely attributing it to someone else), fake victim blog posts (pretending to be a victim of the individual whose reputation they want to destroy), and posting “negative information” on various forums.”
by Glenn Greenwald, (posted February 24, 2014).
Fig. 2: From the Nazca coordinates on the Nazca Plains presented in the Rendlesham binary code
(14.701505ºS, 75.167043ºW), we follow a line northeast at the azimuth heading of 63.11 degrees (26.89º).
Fig. 4: From the Nazca coordinates presented in the Rendlesham binary code (14.701505 S, 75.167043 W), following a line northeast at the azimuth heading of 63.11 degrees (26.89º) to Giza, and to a point on the west face of the Great Pyramid exactly parallel with its apex-center at the coordinates 29.979175ºN, 31.133733ºE, is exactly 7,687 miles.
Fig. 6: The combined proportions of the Phi-ratio-related ‘geometric template’ and it’s dimensions in royal cubits.
Artwork overlay Copyright © Gary Osborn (courtesy of Google Earth Pro) 2017. All Rights Reserved.
Artwork overlay Copyright © Gary Osborn (courtesy of Google Earth Pro) 2017. All Rights Reserved.
What are the odds against ALL these significant mathematical results?
If the coordinates were simply lifted from the 'Sacred Destinations' website, then why do their kilometer and mile distances to the Sphinx, when using the mathematical formulas demonstrated above, produce the three most significant universal constants of pi, Phi and e, along with a reference made to the mi/sec speed of light in a vacuum figure, plus the precessional cycle of 25,920 years according to the ancient estimate – all of which had already been encapsulated within the dimensions of the Great Pyramid and the monuments of Giza?
I should mention another fact associated with the Nazca coordinates from the binary code.
I discovered that from the coordinates of the crown-head-center of the Sphinx (29.975295ºN, 31.137712ºE) to a specific location at a significant ‘map length’ distance of 10,047.21 miles away on Easter Island (37.764102ºN, 25.428938ºW) and at the azimuth heading of 264.82 degrees, the line passes straight through the Nazca coordinates from the binary code while missing the Sacred Destinations-related Nazca coordinates by some 1.5 kilometers . . .
“Whoever it was who manipulated this ‘Sacred Destinations’ red herring, had no idea at all that there was a more defined purpose behind the Rendlesham binary code than first looked at.
I believe the people trying to discredit the Rendlesham Code fall into two camps. 1), people who don’t believe that the Rendlesham Incident was a real unexplained event. and 2), people who understand the ramifications of the code and are trying to redirect the focus. Either way, these people will not stop the most factual book yet on the Rendlesham Forest Incident, including new evidence, as well as the meaningful information that has been contained in the binary code since Boxing Day, 1980, and which only makes sense now in the present.”
Jim Penniston (USAF ret).
Notes and References
1. It was on the film set of the TV series Ancient Aliens in Phoenix, Arizona, October 2010, that John Burroughs, one of the witnesses who was with Jim Penniston the night of the encounter, had asked Jim to look through his notebook to see what dates were logged in there, and it should be noted that Burroughs didn’t say why he wanted Jim to look for any dates in the notebook. Investigative researcher Linda Moulton Howe was also on set that day. Burroughs happened to be standing behind Jim who was seated, watching over Jim’s shoulders as Jim leaf through his notebook. Burroughs then noticed something odd and told Jim to go back to what he had just glimpsed in the pages, which Jim did, and looking at the pages of ones and zeros, asked, “What’s that?” Jim says he was mortified as he really didn’t want anyone to know about the ones and zeros in his notebook, but, he knew that he couldn’t hide what was in the notebook, as the very act of doing that would incite more questioning. The notebook has a ring-binder, and so Jim would often place the pages of ones and zeros at the back of the notebook or remove them altogether. Jim was angry with himself for being careless in having forgotten that there were still the first five pages of ones and zeros in the notebook and also leafing through the notebook while Burroughs was standing behind him.
After a few seconds, Linda Moulton Howe was alerted and she also stood behind Jim Penniston staring down at the pages of ones and zeros. Straight away, she said, “That’s binary code Jim.” Realizing the importance of what they were seeing, it was then that Burroughs and Linda Moulton Howe and others on the set began to pressure Jim Penniston into having the binary code deciphered and revealing whatever message it might contain to the public.
2. See: Encounter in Rendlesham Forest: The Inside Story of the World’s Best UFO Incident by Nick Pope with John Burroughs and Jim Penniston (USAF-ret), (Thomas Dunne Books, St. Martin Press, 2014), p. 245.
3. I have written extensively about the numerous ‘speed of light’ references in the Great Pyramid, in both meters-per-second and miles-per-second in a vacuum, and it can be argued that this close reference to the speed of light in the Great Pyramid’s latitude coordinates was intentional on behalf of the architect(s) who designed the Great Pyramid.
In light of the superlative mathematical data encapsulated in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, in which even the Fine Structure Constant – the most mysterious number known in physics – can be found to seven decimal places, it is possible that a slight error was made by the builders. However, it is also possible that when more accurate satellite data becomes available in the near future, it will be determined that the true latitude coordinates on which the Great Pyramid is centered are in fact 29.9792ºN, or even 29.9792458ºN, which, according to USGS Earth Explorer passes through the Great Pyramid at only one meter south of its apex-center, and according to Google Earth Pro passes through the north edge of the Great Pyramid’s truncated apex at only 5.67 meters north of its apex-center.
For more substantiative evidence that the speed of light-related latitude was intentional see here:
Quote from EarthFiles:
End of Quote.
We can see the problem, and skeptics have used the above to dismiss the code. However, Joe Luciano was able to do just what Linda Moulton Howe and Red Collie were asking of someone who had the right skills to determine the correct coordinates, and Joe was able to deduce what he is certain are the correct coordinates.
And now we are to believe that with all these variables we are faced with in determining the correct coordinates from the binary code message, including the possibility that the decoder could get it wrong, that Jim Penniston had simply copied the coordinates from the 'Sacred Destinations' Website into his notebook in 2009.
Isn't it more logical to conclude that the coordinates that are now on the 'Sacred Destinations' Website were copied from the coordinates that Joe Luciano was able to determine from the binary code? This is especially evident when we note that in the initial deciphering one is faced with 24 different variations to choose from to come up with those specific coordinates now found on the Sacred Destinations Website.
I should also mention that a great deal of the insights, geometry and mathematics I have been able to connect together in regard to the Great Pyramid of Giza and which was inspired by what I had found during my six-year study on the coordinates from the code, have been included in an appendix that is about to be published in the new book Cosmic Womb by Robert Bauval and the mathematician, astronomer and astrobiologist, Chandra Wickramasinghe PhD., whose Doctoral advisor was Fred Hoyle. I was asked to contribute some of what I had discovered to the new ‘cutting edge’ data that has already gone into that book.
There is zero chance that this is coincidence. It is clearly obvious that whoever devised the binary code also wanted to bring our attention to Easter Island in the Pacific AND AT THESE SPECIFIC COORDINATES ON THE ISLAND, which proves significant in another alignment, which I will not present here.
Furthermore, the distance between the Sphinx and the Nazca coordinates from the binary code is 7,687.21 miles (still keeping to the meaningful 7,687 miles) and the distance between the Nazca coordinates from the binary code and the coordinates of Easter Island is an exact, all-round 2,360 miles.
The total distance is 10,047.21 miles, which is a significant number in the context of the length of the ancient Egyptian Royal Cubit.
For example, the mile distance number from the crown-head-center of the Sphinx to Easter Island of 10,047.21 ÷ 2 = 5,023.605. And if we drop the 05 on the end, the zero between 2 and .6 and the decimal point, the number we are meant to engage with is 5,236, which just happens to be the distance from the crown-head-center of the Sphinx to the Azorean island of São Miguel in kilometers.
Furthermore, if we take the clue of the 05 on the end of the distance figure and add the zero and decimal point at the beginning of 5236 the result is 0.5236, which is the length of the royal cubit in meters. These significant numbers are also confirmed by the fact that from the coordinates on Easter Island (27.096788ºS, 109.369792ºW) to the Nazca coordinates (14.701505ºS, 75.167043ºW), is 2,360 miles precisely – providing us with a checksum for the last three digits of 5,236.
Obviously, like the Giza coordinates from the Rendlesham binary code, which guides us along the correct heading of 295.40 degrees to our target on São Miguel island in the Azores (Atlantic Ocean) from the head of the Sphinx and at the significant distance of 5,236 kilometers, the Nazca coordinates also from the binary code guides us along the correct heading of 264.82 degrees to our target on Easter Island in the Pacific Ocean at the significant distance of virtually 10,047.2 miles . . . reminding us of the number 1.0472, which is 2 x 0.5236 (one royal cubit in meters).
It is evident that the correct azimuth headings, as guided by the coordinates from the Rendlesham binary code, and the significant number distances from the Sphinx to both the Azorean island of São Miguel in the Atlantic and Easter Island in the Pacific assist us in determining the correct coordinates at these target locations that produce these meaningful alignments.
In comparison to these meaningful distance results, the distance between the Sphinx and the Nazca coordinates from the ‘Sacred Destination’ website is a meaningless 7,685.42 miles and the distance between the Nazca coordinates from the ‘Sacred Destination’ website and the coordinates of Easter Island is a not-so-all-round 2,361.79 miles.
Furthermore, it should be noted that this connection between the Sphinx and Easter Island in the Pacific, is meticulously connected to a global network of alignments and precessional encoded number distances that includes the ancient site of Göbekli Tepe (c. 10,000 BCE) in modern-day Turkey and the Azorean island of São Miguel in the Atlantic, and like the Giza coordinates from the Rendlesham binary code which guides us in the correct azimuth heading of 295.4 degrees from the Sphinx to the island of São Miguel in the Azores, the Nazca coordinates from the binary code serves the purpose of guiding us in the correct azimuth heading of 264.82 degrees from the Sphinx to Easter Island.
Both the islands of Easter Island and São Miguel, are tiny “specks” of land in their vast oceans, and so the facts of these alignments from the Sphinx assisted by both the Giza coordinates and the Nazca coordinates from the binary code cannot be simply passed off as random coincidences.
Posted, July 12, 2017
"Far left vertical column: possibilities of latitudes North, depending upon placement of the decimal point. Top, extending left to right, are the possible West Longitudes. Those latitude and longitude combinations produce 12 possible options. Then the same latitudes North are placed with the left to right East Longitude possibilities. Those latitude and longitude combinations produce another 12 possible options for a total of 24 latitude and longitude options.
If you go to Google Earth and drop in each of the possible 24 coordinates, some are in the ocean off the Gulf of Guinea or the Ghana coast. For the ones with the latitude at 52.09 N on the West Longitudes, if you go to .1313 W, that’s an open field north of Guilden Morden, England, which is not even a town – more like a few buildings southeast of Cambridge.
If you go too 1.313 W, you’re in an open field northeast of Banbury, England, north of Oxford.
At 13.13 W, you’re in the ocean off the southwest coast of Ireland, with no apparent undersea features on Google – it’s just kind of sea bottom there.
At 131.3 W, it’s in the ocean right off the edge of Kungkit Island west of British Columbia, Canada.
Then if you go East and do the same thing, the southerly locations are either in the ocean or the jungle in Africa somewhere, except if the decimal point is placed at 52.09 N latitude.
At 52.09 N latitude and 0.1313 E longitude, you end up at an airport runway in Doxford, England, southeast of Edinburgh on the coast.
Then at 1.313 East, you’re in the town of Woodbridge, Suffolk, England, and that’s the one that Dr. Drew – when he was trying both east and west longitude directions- thought it was significant because it came out right in the middle of the Woodbridge town near RAF Woodbridge and Rendlesham Forest.
If you go further to 13.13 East, you’re on the west side of the little town of Luckewalde, Germany.
Then if you go to 131.3 East, you’re out in a mountain wilderness area in the middle of China.
So of all the 24 possible latitude and longitude sites, the one that stands out is the town of Woodbridge in the east direction. In the west direction, you are either in the ocean or in an open field. Because there is that one zero that has a 1 drawn in the zero, it means we have to look at the East longitude, too, and that is the one that includes Woodbridge, England. After we checked all of the 24 options, Dr. Drew decided the Woodbridge site seemed to have the most relevance to the RAF Bentwaters mystery with Jim Penniston and John Burroughs.
WHY WOULD ANY INTELLIGENCE TRANSMIT LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE COORDINATES WITHOUT SPECIFYING A DECIMAL POINT?
Yes, it seems like a glaring oversight if you are trying to transmit coordinates that a human can understand.
IN YOUR LOCATION TABLE FOR BINARY CODE, ARE YOU ALSO ASSUMING DEGREES, MINUTES AND SECONDS?
Yes, Dr. Drew and I took it as decimal-based. Whoever wrote the binary code, or put it in Jim Penniston’s mind, understood the basics of ASCII, and certainly most of the message seems to be 8-bit. But we haven’t translated the whole thing in 7-bit and we haven’t moved an 8-bit filter and a 7-bit filter through each potential start point to see if the message changes. If you move what we have now over 1 bit, all the letters and numbers go away and you might end up with nothing but control characters or some other letter and number combination.
7-bit and 8-bit Computer Code Filters Are Needed
We really need someone who is skilled in software programming who can take the original Penniston binary stream of zeros and ones and go into it analyzing all the way through in 8-bit and then 7-bit with no variations in each run – apply 8-bit all the way through and see what that produces. Then apply 7-bit all the way through, see what that produces and compare with the 8-bit translation.
After those runs, we need to move over one bit and do it all over again in 8-bits and 7-bits. Then move over one more bit and keep repeating the analysis process – putting the extra numbers from the front at the end – and keep moving through Penniston’s binary stream number-by-number with an 8-bit filter and a 7-bit filter to see how each translates.
With the combination of those translations, we might be able to put together a more coherent message.”
If any Earthfiles viewer has professional knowledge or knows a skilled binary stream analyst who could help us apply 7-bit and 8-bit code “filter combs” to Penniston's zeros and ones, please email: mailto:[email protected]"