Demonstration of the Phenomenon through Code Categories

The main issue about codes' validity always boils down to "proper accounting". With enough attempts, anyone can win the lottery. Have the researchers run many thousands of experiments and lost track of all of the failures? Or perhaps they have supercomputers running night and day searching through millions of possibilities until a one-in-a-million code is found?

But one can see from the very nature of each code category, that each one answers this question of accounting by having built-in rules that specifically restrict what is done. Each one takes a particular kind of unbiased and narrow "survey" of all possible codes - as follows:

• Top news items: these are by definition rare events. If the researchers were trying thousands of large and small news items from all over the world we would not expect to see such significant results for September 11, of all days, and for top news stories in Israel, of all places.
     In addition, the methods used for finding news items have few subjective elements; and the probabilities for each individual success are very impressive, despite their being calculated conservatively.
• Important themes (and serendipity - on a personal basis): again, if thousands of possible themes were being explored, we would not expect to see such basic ideas among those that succeed (words connected to G-d for example).
     Unlike codes reflecting the news, the purpose of these codes may be to serve more as a "watermark": they may offer little information outside of the Torah itself, but they are collectively so unlikely that they indicate that the document itself is encoded in an extremely non-random way not seen in ordinary texts - that the document is therefore "authentic".
• Patterns: when the set of possibilities are even further restricted - to basic patterns, and to a small lexicon of words to be searched - unexpected significant successes are again observed.
• Lists formed a foundation for all of the other work. These tend to be more complex when one tries to verify them. But for those willing to study them in detail, the several list experiments that have been completed at this point not only stand up to scrutiny but also provide ample cross-verification. For example, the same appellations (Rabbi names) that were used in the original WRR work were re-used years later in other successful experiments. If these appellations had been "cooked" to fit the initial experiment, the follow-up experiments could not have succeeded.
     In addition, with all the other categories being validated, this is itself strong validation for the list category.
     And it is rather extraordinary that we can have lists encoded in the midst of news items, in the midst of patterns, etc, let alone that the underlying text still makes sense.
• Talmud References: this is yet another way of taking a targeted survey of codes in the Torah, by yet another independent researcher.

Compared to lists, the newer categories are much simpler for an outside observer to judge. For lists, one needs to follow several logical arguments, and it can also help to have bibliographic and historical knowledge (though the arguments are solid enough without this). In contrast, for many of the newer examples, such as the twin towers code, the observer only has to judge a few issues, such as how many reasonable alternative ways there are to express "twin towers".

The newer categories are similar to the list category in that we do not see any evidence for them in non-Torah texts when the identical proper protocols are followed.

Back to Home Page