|  | 
 
	| 
		
	
								
			
								| Markovian parallax denigrate 
 |  
				
			| Markovian Parallax Denigrate refers to a series of articles posted to Usenet on August 5, 1996. Most of them consist of what appear to be random words, sometimes numbering in the thousands in a single posting. The name is taken from the subject line of many of the articles. Judging by this subject line, it seems possible that the method used to generate the articles in some way employs Markov chains, a processing method used by some language parsing and generation techniques in the natural language processing field of artificial intelligence. Despite the random appearance of the words in the message, there are many theories that propose meanings for the messages:
 * The messages are an open cipher.
 * The messages are a code or the result of a method of steganography.
 * The messages are an Internet equivalent of numbers stations.
 A sample of one of the messages is below:
 <pre>From: Susan_Lindauer@WORF.UWSP.EDU (Chris Brokerage)
 Subject: Markovian parallax denigrate
 Date: 1996/08/05
 Message-ID: <t9zhVoF-00006f@WORF.UWSP.EDU>#1/1
 organization: Eke
 content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII
 mime-version: 1.0
 newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
 jitterbugging McKinley Abe break Newtonian inferring
 caw update Cohen air collaborate rue
 sportswriting rococo invocate tousle shadflower
 Debby Stirling pathogenesis escritoire adventitious novo
 ITT most chairperson Dwight Hertzog different
 pinpoint dunk McKinley pendant firelight Uranus
 episodic medicine ditty craggy flogging variac
 brotherhood Webb impromptu file countenance inheritance
 cohesion refrigerate morphine napkin inland Janeiro
 nameable yearbook hark</pre>
 One of the names listed in the From: line of the messages is "Susan Lindauer", the same name as a woman who was arrested on charges of espionage on March 11, 2004.  To some theorists, this lends credence to the idea that the messages were a form of encoded information.
 Beyond the name connection, there has been no compelling information introduced to suggest that these messages had any sort of meaning.
 
 |  |  |