John,

I'll start by assuming that you are serious. I thought you were just yanking our chain on the musical-whistleblowers thing; maybe not.

The one thing you are guaranteed to get if you start searching for "hidden messages" in texts by searching for every x letters, arranged in y-size blocks, etc., is a lot of hits. However, all this proves is that you can get legible words, sometimes, by scanning written material accoroding to various rules. You also get a lot of gibberish, and a lot of meaningless words.

Human brains are very good at finding patterns. But this means that we find a lot of patterns which don't really mean anything.

I suggest you take a look at some sites which explain the limitations on Bible-code type searches, e.g.,
http://www.skepdic.com/bibcode.html.

This kind of pattern-finding can be used to "prove" anything by selectively searching for and discarding data. In other words, it not only proves nothing, it demonstrates nothing, except some fun with statistics.

Are you claiming your letter search is actually evidence that Bart Sibrel is correct? Can you first counter all the examples that have been given on this forum which have already debunked all his arguments?

There's more fun in figuring out how things really work than in trying to ferret out "hidden messages", if ya ask me.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-07-10 15:32 ]</font>