A hidden message encoded in the pattern of the Palenque lid?

[Akusius]

It is clearly not the "only possible" operation. How many different things did you try before coming up with your results?

 

I have spent quite a bit of time (almost 15 years by now) on this topic (of course not exclusively...)

Also wrote several programs for the solution, e.g. a Java utility to test other layouts and operations.

What would persuade you that you were mistaken?

 

E.g. would be very grateful to learn what could be a good argument against bringing the two X-shapes to cover each other by rotation:

Here is the animation for the operation.

(And thanks for the responses...)

[Ophiolite]

 

I'm not sure what the formal name for the fallacy of "jumping to ludicrous and unjustified conclusions" is.

Jumping to a concussion.

[StringJunky]

Is there hints of pareidolia in the OP?

[Acme]

...

But the distance diagram would have been to plain to include it directly (or rather the Solar System diagram too complex to hide it behind a transformation procedure).

 

Apparently the designers wanted to demonstrate their intelligence level by using that complex process, and assure us, that this is indeed a secret message. ...

Have you or other decipherers identified or claim(ed) to have identified or located the stars? If so, has anyone compared such an ID to actual star surveys?

Is there hints of pareidolia in the OP?

Hidden in plain view?

Jumping to a concussion.

I think it's jumping to a concoction.

[StringJunky]

...Hidden in plain view?

 

Not so subtle then.

[TheGeckomancer]

This whole topic.

 

And my comment obviously means I am one of the master minds responsible for this devious plot trying to distract you. But then I wouldn't have.....wait.........

Edited November 28, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Strange]

I have spent quite a bit of time (almost 15 years by now) on this topic (of course not exclusively...)

Also wrote several programs for the solution, e.g. a Java utility to test other layouts and operations.

 

Thanks for confirming that it is not the "only possible" operation. In fact you clearly had to search among the large space of possible manipulations until you found something to feed your pareidolia and alien fantasies. This is fallacious and unscientific on many levels. Perhaps the most egregious are "cherry picking" and "begging the question".

 

Ironically (given your Aliens!!1! delusions) you appear to have ignored the meaning of the large cross-like structure in the centre of the image.

[Akusius]

Is there hints of pareidolia in the OP?

 

Sorry, but no pareidolia here at all. Do the two X-shapes cover each other after the rotation? Yes. Do the triplets start to join inside? Yes, again. So it's absolutely not my fantasy, it is pure fact (and as I see, nobody could contradict it).

Have you or other decipherers identified or claim(ed) to have identified or located the stars? If so, has anyone compared such an ID to actual star surveys?

 

The other solar system is identified as being a binary star approximately 3-times as far away from us as the PC, and having 3 inner and 3 outer planets. No direct identification yet, but this info should be enough to narrow down the search significantly.

Thanks for confirming that it is not the "only possible" operation. In fact you clearly had to search among the large space of possible manipulations until you found something to feed your pareidolia and alien fantasies. This is fallacious and unscientific on many levels. Perhaps the most egregious are "cherry picking" and "begging the question".

 

Please be aware that solving a puzzle or cracking a code requires (at least usually) multiple attempts and the testing of various methods and approaches. With "the only possible operation" phrase that singular operation was meant, which finally proved to be the only suitable action able to take the solution one step further.

And my question would be again: how to interpret the fact that the two X-shapes cover each other exactly after the rotation?

[Strange]

And my question would be again: how to interpret the fact that the two X-shapes cover each other exactly after the rotation?

 

Because that is the arbitrary choice you made.

 

And please define what you mean by "exactly". As the two shapes are not identical, the match cannot be "exact". I assume you mean "it looks exact to me".

Edited November 28, 2015 by Strange

[Akusius]

And please define what you mean by "exactly". As the two shapes are not identical, the match cannot be "exact". I assume you mean "it looks exact to me".

 

Please focus on the highlight at the bottom right:

There are the two X-shapes covering each other exactly (by "exactly" I mean: if we rotate the second layer around the center point of the upper square, then the two X shapes fall together precisely).

Because that is the arbitrary choice you made.

 

What arbitrary choice have I made? It was not me who placed the X shapes there. I only recognized that they cover each other if we duplicate the pattern and rotate the second layer (which is BTW the direct consequence of the fact that the distance of the vertical X shape from the top is equal to the lid's width).

Sorry, but you really seem to have already decided that this pattern could not contain a hidden code by any means, and so are obviously reluctant to even consider any possible argument against your presumption. (It's no problem at all, but then how to discuss it?)

[TheGeckomancer]

So. In any kind of cypher or hidden message. The goal is to encode the message so unwanted eyes can not read it but guarantee that the correct ones can. Which means only one proper way to decode the message and no get gibberish. If you want to claim there is a message there lay out the proper way to decode the message as well as what you think it means so that peers can review your work. If you want to crowdsource a speculation committee I can bring in 10,000 other equally odd looking visual logos.

 

Also, logically, if we accept there is a hidden message then the likelihood is that there are more hidden messages. If you want to spend your life trying to read WAY more into things then is needed you will probably not get much accomplished. It is possible to find a hundred dollar bill under a rock but that is not a good 9 to 5 strategy in place of a job. See the fact that you even bring this up indicates that you search for these kinds of things. Which is why I say that.

Edited November 28, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[Akusius]

If you want to claim there is a message there lay out the proper way to decode the message as well as what you think it means so that peers can review your work.

 

Quick overview of the decoding:

http://akusius.github.io/palenque/overview.html

 

The solution process in detail:

http://akusius.github.io/palenque/steps.html

[TheGeckomancer]

 

Quick overview of the decoding:

http://akusius.github.io/palenque/overview.html

 

The solution process in detail:

http://akusius.github.io/palenque/steps.html

 

 

No. I looked through this. I hate to say it this way but you have wasted your time. I can take literally any of hundreds of images and do that same thing. You still never got to the what is the message part. Just how you can manipulate symbols to get what you want out of it. Lets assume, like I said there is a hidden message, you may eventually decode it only to conclude it was a hidden joke from some mathematicians. Again, assuming you DO find a message, you have to assume there are other hidden messages, and hence a lifes work of reading more into things and hoping something comes of it. Or, even assuming you do decode it what then? What if the message is not for you and you just legitimately don't understand, or it required context?

[Akusius]

No. I looked through this. I hate to say it this way but you have wasted your time.

 

OK, no problem at all, thanks for looking through it!

 

I can take literally any of hundreds of images and do that same thing.

 

Of course, the rotations can be performed on any arbitrary item layout, but (most probably) we would not get a well-arranged pattern similar to the one in the control phase:

IMHO it's almost impossible to get such an ordered pattern randomly and/or without anticipating it initially.

So it seems obvious (at least to me) that there is indeed something special about the configuration of the triplets, and also there might be a code hidden in the pattern.

But of course an in-depth review and a scientific discussion would be indispensable to verify this hypothesis...

[Strange]

Of course, the rotations can be performed on any arbitrary item layout, but (most probably) we would not get a well-arranged pattern similar to the one in the control phase:

 

Then why not take a scientific approach and test this. Stop cherry picking and succumbing to confirmation bias. Try and take a sensible and objective approach. This is, after all, a science forum.

 

After that, you can try and find some reason why your insane idea about alien overlords is more plausible than a map of the nearest water wells, an application for planning consent for new round windows, or an order for bagels. (Hint: it isn't.)

 

 

But of course an in-depth review and a scientific discussion would be indispensable to verify this hypothesis...

 

Yes, because of course you won't just dismiss any objections on the basis that you must be right.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Strange

[Akusius]

Then why not take a scientific approach and test this. Stop cherry picking and succumbing to confirmation bias. Try and take a sensible and objective approach. This is, after all, a science forum.

 

I have already tried to compute probabilities for (very) basic scenarios, and also created computer-processable files for each state.

The problem is that it's really hard to define mathematically, what makes a "well-arranged" pattern, and so intuition is still necessary to examine a layout...

However, it seems already sure that the layout and the control state is special to a high degree (only the exact amount is uncertain).

Yes, because of course you won't just dismiss any objections on the basis that you must be right.

 

I'm really trying not to do so...

I think, the most effective way to discuss the issue might be to focus at first exclusively on the geometrical part (i.e. to ignore temporarily the source of the pattern and its "lunatic" interpretation).

So we have a 51x51-sized grid with 12 items in it (the exact coordinates of the items can be found here):

And the question would be: how special is this layout, and what information could be contained within it?

(Additionally, we also have a hint that we should rotate the pattern three times as a first decoding step.)

[Strange]

The problem is that it's really hard to define mathematically, what makes a "well-arranged" pattern, and so intuition is still necessary to examine a layout...

 

Then you are not doing science. You are just indulging your science fiction fantasies.

[TheGeckomancer]

 

Then you are not doing science. You are just indulging your science fiction fantasies.

 

 

No. On this one thing he has a point. Computers SUCK at complex pattern recognition. Even ones meant to just do that. But again, like I said, I can literally show you dozens of images you can do this with. And many more that actually HAVE messages, they are just meaningless, or put there for funzies, or require context.

 

So you have eaten a lot of flack here about this topic and have stayed completely focused on coming up with what you think is an answer. I am not being insulting I am genuinely trying to understand. What do you think this will accomplish? Do you have a specific expectation for this message? What will you do if there isn't one? Look forever? And if there is and you decode it to find out it says "1337 h@x0r 4 L1F3" or something? Or what if the message is even more mundane than that and requires context. What if it says "Wear the red hat" or something?

 

I like to step back and look at potential outcomes before even starting problems. It seems like a good way to manage my time and focus. I don't see a lot of potential gratification to this problem.

 

Even if you happened to stumble across some secret super important message it will almost certainly not matter. If I KNEW beyond any shadow of a doubt that the US Government was responsible for 9/11 nothing actually changes. There are an INFINITUDE of meaningless messages for every single one that has meaning, and of those there are an INFINITUDE that you couldn't do anything with even if you decoded and it was useful.

Edited December 4, 2015 by TheGeckomancer

[atbsphotography]

Look how many of you have even bothered to look into this yourselves? Instead of flaming Akusius on his supposed "lunacy" atleast try and see if you can come to the same conclusion. A theory would be that this imagery could be interpreted as something for another person from that culture to read, they were highly intelligent before their time after all. If that would be true then nobody else could possibly interpret what it means correctly, you could have a go but it would almost certainly be a stab in the dark. If we were to justify that this does mean the distances of a star system from us then they would almost certainly use Proxima Centauri to establish a unit of distance, same as we sometimes use the moon as a way of working out distance.

 

See we could nether know for sure whether this is what it means cause they are long gone, but yet like all intelligent beings they were very could with symmetry, look at the Egyptians, they couldn't possibly have had a way of seeing their mega structures without aerial imagery or something similar. But yet they accomplished it and they did it with perfect symmetrical correctness, their structures and where they were placed meant something to them, but yet it doesn't mean anything to anyone else cause we have no idea why it was their. I fully support what Akusius is proposing because he is explaining it in the most logical way he can. After all who would have gone with the Darwinist theory if he didn't explain it so well...

Edited December 4, 2015 by atbsphotography

[Strange]

No. On this one thing he has a point. Computers SUCK at complex pattern recognition.

 

On the other hand, people are too good at it. See also: Pareidolia.

Look how many of you have even bothered to look into this yourselves? Instead of flaming Akusius on his supposed "lunacy" atleast try and see if you can come to the same conclusion.

 

I could come up with an alternative explanation of the diagram he ends up with every day for the rest of the year. Every one of them would be based on things we know exist. And would be therefore infinitely more probably than science fiction ideas about alien overlords.

 

After all, as they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one is going to accept such outlandish claims based on some arbitrary manipulations and an ad-hoc interpretation of the results.

[TheGeckomancer]

And this is really the crux of my argument. The odds the message is entirely mundane are literally infinity to 1. Even assuming you get a message of exotic nature, the odds of you being able to comprehend and USE the message are again approaching infinity to 1.

[Akusius]

What do you think this will accomplish? Do you have a specific expectation for this message? What will you do if there isn't one? Look forever?

 

There was already a message revealed (you can find it at the end of the overview page, it apparently identifies another solar system).

[Strange]

 

There was already a message revealed (you can find it at the end of the overview page, it apparently identifies another solar system).

 

That is your pareidolia talking. There is no objective evidence that it represents that (if it represents anything). It could be an image of people comparing hats.

 

Note: hats exist. We have no evidence that your Alien Overlords exist. Therefore, which explanation do you think is more likely?

[Akusius]

I fully support what Akusius is proposing ...

 

Thanks! Unfortunately I had to realize, that this hypothesis obviously falls between two stools: it is too complicated for a popular ancient alien theory, and at the same time too fantastical for the scientific world. So nobody is really interested in it (although IMHO a very interesting topic and also a truly impressive encoding method)...

After all, as they say: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one is going to accept such outlandish claims based on some arbitrary manipulations and an ad-hoc interpretation of the results.

 

But then what would be the scientifically correct way to prove this (or a similar) hypothesis?

Now each step is documented thoroughly with the help of several animations and images. I also tried to justify carefully each operation, why was it the chosen one to be performed, etc. The only really missing part is an in-depth review of the process, but obviously I cannot do that myself.

It's OK, if somebody is not interested in this (or similar) topic, but how on earth could it be presented in a (much) more scientific way?

I would be really curious, what kind of demonstration would convince you (and other "official" scientists) about the seriousness of such a hypothesis? (aside from being published in the Nature...)

[Strange]

But then what would be the scientifically correct way to prove this (or a similar) hypothesis?

 

You have been given many pointers to the right way to do this. You have chosen to ignore them. <shrug>

 

 

it is too complicated for a popular ancient alien theory

 

It is just another ludicrous "ancient alien" theory. The same as all the others: based on made up interpretations and zero facts.