I just read an article by a “mathematician” that brought me here. As Ken B and others have observed, it seems like rather selective reasoning to ignore half of all the “information” in this formation and base a conclusion of “hoax” on the remaining information. With that kind of thinking the “mathematician” would make a better “politician.”

]]>As ASCII, it makes no sense. Every byte on the “other half” is extended ASCII. It comes out with the following gibberish:

¡×ÖÖÎÂÏ”Ï”

]]>…and there is the whole other half of the circle.

]]>I imagine how you arrived at the binary code using the left hand edge of each radii in the circle. (or another way of saying it the left edge of each wedge of the pie.) I noticed that there may be more binary code if you use the inside of the next radii or the right hand edge of each wedge of the pie. What is the additional message if there is one? I am neither a mathematician or familiar enough with binary code to attempt it. It just seems logical that since you only used the information on the left hand side of each wedge that the right hand side may say something more. (Eager to hear your conclusion)

]]>