There is only so much that can be squeezed into the 3.5 minute video summary added in January 2009. The omissions might appear to be problems with our methods. Therefore we emphasize these additional points:
1) The sentences about Messiah (or son of David or son of Jesse) and about bin Laden, arise from a handful of attempts. For example, the fifth minimal skip of bin Laden is the one that is surrounded by the full sentence. What this means is that these one-in-a-million results are found very easily and directly (for this reason as well as the next one).
2) The surrounding words that form the sentence are in a single ELS, so there is only one column of letters in which to look for a result.
3) It is not nearly enough for a key word to simply appear in a code. What makes all the difference in the world - and this critical point is missed by a great majority of observers - is a repetition of key words under very constrained conditions. When a key word appears in one such very limited code and subsequently re-appears in other codes that are similarly limited to a few possible locations, the resulting significance is typically very high.
4) The comparison texts go through the same methods, with the same freedoms such as varying the skips tried, with the same idiosynchracies of the Hebrew language, as detailed in the protocol descriptions.
5) Initial responses to questions about the text accuracy are reinforced with more recently published points (see "Harold Gans Responds").
6) Other critical points appear in the article by Levitt in the same (second) link of point 5 above.
7) There is a proliferation of unsubstantiated codes on the web that do not follow the above kinds of deeply researched methods. Relying on such codes is worse than flipping coins. We try to show the need for extreme care and accuracy of methods. We hope that readers will understand that unsubstantiated codes reflect poorly only on those who publish them, and not on the careful evidence pointing to an overall codes phenomenon.