[Discussion] Semiotics Contents: Image/Symbols

theresascraps · Post by **theresascraps** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:47 am

So are we thinking that these numbers could be coordinates for star systems and constellations. that would tie in nicely with the star references that are all over. I just don't get what she is trying to tell us. we need a new vid huh??

theresa

theresascraps · Post by **theresascraps** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:50 am

Oh my gosh! I just had a thought. If these are star charts and constellations, perhaps they are a map. If we could find a time when all these constellations are visible in the night sky, we might have a date...Does that make sense???

theresa

impulse · Post by **impulse** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:02 pm

theresascraps wrote:Oh my gosh! I just had a thought. If these are star charts and constellations, perhaps they are a map. If we could find a time when all these constellations are visible in the night sky, we might have a date...Does that make sense???

Hell! If you're right, That drop's gonna be a bitch to recover! Hey Ladron, are you up to a space trip?

iamcool · Post by **iamcool** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:05 pm

u can win a trip into space with richard branson with audi, i saw the advert this morning

i can get the drop for u if i win

lol

Ziola · Post by **Ziola** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:11 pm

heh...drop's gonna be a real pain in the butt if there is one this weekend...Lad, his Operator and some others have decided to have a life this weekend...

raindown · Post by **raindown** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:59 pm

I scrolled through all 18 pages but seen no one mention it,
and it's just a pretty wild guess, but when I looked at the pictures' background ALL I COULD SEE was a screenshot from Gemma's video, 'Bad Desicions', in which there was a dying rose on the left corner of the screen.
Well looked at it, and it's just the thing on the left that looks like a dying rose. as for the rest, I dunno.

theresascraps · Post by **theresascraps** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:13 pm

what i meant is that on certain dates, special constellations are visible on those dates only....Not a trip to space.
also they could be map coordinates as to where the drop is.
theresa

Luminous · Post by **Luminous** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:58 pm

deagol wrote: I guess my only problem with that image is that, well, I'm guessing you flipped amalgamation and superimposed it over ligatures... is that it? Well I can imagine a whole bunch of markings would show up that weren't there. If you slide the overlaid image a bit, I bet you'd get different markins, so I think this is just noise.

That bothered me as well, Deagol. However here is something I'm hard pressed to deny.

This first image comes from the bottom right hand corner of ligatures:

This next image comes from exactly the same position in amalgamation:

This final image is an overlay of amalgamation over ligatures. Amalgamation is at 50% transparency. I have made no change in contrast, levels or hue in either image.

There is definitely a ghost of the ligatures image on amalgamation, in exactly the same position. It's also pretty clear to me, although I'm sure there will be debate, that there is a 76 underneath the symbol. To me it looks like its at the edge of a piece of paper. Previously in this thread people have speculated that it is a page number. This is what absolutely convinces me that there are hidden messages in this image, and that we would do well to examine for micro-writing. It also convinces me to examine the similarities and the differences between the two images, and to pay particular attention to any elements that are made stronger by combining the two images.

Killthesmiley · Post by **Killthesmiley** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:06 pm

the 76 is interesting because, as I mentioned earler a zodiac sign that seems to be seen the picture is also refrenced as "Seventy-six"

Luminous · Post by **Luminous** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:57 pm

Here is a link I posted previously to a page where I have uploaded enlargements of the AMALGAMATION and LIGATURES images.

http://www.secretumgaudi.be/semiotics.htm

I have added a third image which is an enlargement of the composite of the two images.

To me, the shadow symbol that appears on amalgamation is a register mark that is giving us a heads up to "Amalgamate" the images so we can examine the background for hidden clues.

deagol · Post by **deagol** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:29 pm

Oh I agree about overlaying in exactly the same position, precisely because there are clearly elements that can be found in both images in the same exact places.

What I was questioning was the image that showed a capricorn sign and the figure 8 laid on its side and a bunch of other things, because it was derived by superimposing a horizontally-flipped image over the other. That's where you would obviously get random things from superimposing the patterns with the images at different orientations and alignments.

Can you do an overlay with the negative of one of the images? No enhancements or anything, just invert one. I posted something like that yesterday but I changed the levels to enhance some of the colors, which maybe I shouldn't have done. Right now I don't have access to Photoshop.

Luminous · Post by **Luminous** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:15 pm

deagol wrote: What I was questioning was the image that showed a capricorn sign and the figure 8 laid on its side and a bunch of other things, because it was derived by superimposing a horizontally-flipped image over the other. That's where you would obviously get random things from superimposing the patterns with the images at different orientations and alignments.

I was able to recreate this with a simple horizontal flip of the AMALGAMATION image, so I can confirm there was no jimmying of the images. That's the only reason I paid any attention to it, and also the reason I'm not ready to write it off completely yet.

deagol wrote: Can you do an overlay with the negative of one of the images? No enhancements or anything, just invert one. I posted something like that yesterday but I changed the levels to enhance some of the colors, which maybe I shouldn't have done. Right now I don't have access to Photoshop.

Yes, I'd be happy to. Do you have any preferences for which image you would like to have positive, and which negative? Also, which one you would like on top

janesalteredstates · Post by **janesalteredstates** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:33 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma
"Gamma is often used to denote a variable in mathematics and physics. In certain areas it has specific meaning."

I am not wading through pages of photoshopped images and dead doggies. So, sorry if this was said already.

deagol · Post by **deagol** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:06 pm

Ok sorry but I guess I'll have to state the obvious: merely flipping an image can't explain the appearance of new marks (or changes in the original marks). It may allow for a reinterpretation of something, just like the glyph 'n' is exactly the same as the glyph 'u' rotated 180 degrees. But the pixels don't change.

Here, I'll show you how none of said symbols are there. Maybe there are other marks, but any interpretation about a capricorn symbol or a laid down figure 8 or any of the others mentioned are misleading. There may be other marks, but the ones being mentioned are just plain wrong:

This is the image where someone annotated quite a few markings they saw.

This is exactly the same part of Amalgamation shown there, without any modification other than a horizontal flip and zoomed to 200%

See? Those symbols aren't there at all.

Oh about that negative, top/bottom thing, I don't have a preference. If you'd put a gun to my head I'd say Amalgamation with the negative of Ligatures on top would be fine.

Luminous · Post by **Luminous** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:13 pm

Deagol,

Here's a link to the image you asked for:

http://www.secretumgaudi.be/semiotics4.htm

AMALGAMATION is negative, 50% and the top layer. LIGATURES is positive, 100% and the bottom layer.