I have a question. Are we focusing on the wrong picture??

Look in the blue colored area at the top of the second photo (the out of focus one, showing the orbs diving down into the canyon.) There is a small figure in the upper edge of that area.... or am I seeing things??

Not sure about the location of this 'hallucination' of mine--pixel wise, but it's close to the area that I thought someone said was the 417/333 pixel area on photo number one, but they're not exactly framed the same. Would some one check it???

(I also posted this question on the original thread, page 29 at the bottom with the photo, hope that's not a no no?)

[edit on 13-9-2004 by frayed1]

I'll have a closer look at that frayed and let you know if I can see anything.
I too am thinking along the same lines as tjack. I'm getting the same figures at that pixel on the three images.
It's the only way that I can think of that we can get three numbers from those coordinates. I'm going to mess around with those numbers tonight and see if I can make anything of them.

I noticed that in the document it is written "the three members at coordinate 417/333 ". Notice that coordinate is in singular. The coordinate is 417/333. This idea of using the resulting number was also mentioned in the original thread so this could be the one that HA was talking about. So what to do with 1.(252)? A thread number (number of threads could be an axis)? Or a letter number?

Ton, I think it says "Three NUmbers." A few other people noticed that also.

G. FOLLOW UP: IN THE EVENT THERE ARE UNACCOUNTED IMAGES RELEASED IN THE WILD, THE THREE NUMBERS AT COORDINATE 417/333 WILL PROVIDE THE RESOLUTION.

Sorry, I watched the pictures a little more closely could be either N or M, and the second letter isn't E.

But it still has coordinate, not coordinates. A whole letter couldn't disappear.

[edit on 13/9/04 by tontsum]

Ask and you shall recieve:

*sigh*

[edit on 13-9-2004 by Cutwolf]

I believe we are on the right track with what the 417/333 will mean, however I reckon we are thinking about this issue too soon. On the original document (see above) it does say ' in the event there are unaccounted images released in the wild.......'. Since this document came after the three images in this game, maybe these coordinates relate to the next image????

on this page: terraserver.com,
41733-3426, zip code, gets you ,
somewhere next to, Cornettsville,KY
there a sat pic, it's got hills.

I think the 417/333 is indeed pointing us in a general area on the original picture. If you look closely there is the 8 with the light blob next to it, which you can find two peaks to the right also. I think the numbers there are 833 or possible 833. should we use the keyboard relatioinship 4-rfv 1-qaz 7-ujm 3-edc 3-edc 3-edc? Does anyone still have these original files :

41 qaz - 35 tgb
73 edc - 13 edc
33 edc - 43 edc

I see what your getting at Mags...

41 qaz - 35 tgb
73 edc - 13 edc
33 edc - 43 edc

But i have looked at these images and cannot find any relevance.

417/333 i have ALL of the original images zipped(WINrar) at 136kb so i could send it to anyone who requires the images,just U2U me with your email address.

ok last night I had a thought... 417/333 will lead us to three numbers that will provide the resolution. Well the 3 numbers (I'm thinking the RGB values R-105 G-98 B-129) could (I'm not sure how) be leading us to manipulate the resolution of the image...possibly to reveal the hidden numbers in the photo. Just a thought, since this whole thing has centered around pics and manipulation of the pic...

Here are some more numbers you can get from 417/333:
dec: 417
hex: 1a1
oct: 641
bin: 1 1010 0001

dec: 333
hex: 14d
oct: 515
bin: 1 0100 1101

Please note I did not seperate the numbers (4-1-7), but took them as the complete number (417).

Mags,

That had been my thinking earlier. I have tried sharpening, lightening,contrasting, inverting, mirroring, color saturating, grayscale, and even printing the separations, but my software is not cutting edge. The grayscale looked the most promising, but not much better than the originals.

I even get a different set of values for the pixel at 417/333. Once again, my software may make a diff, or my monitor?? ( I tried them all in a multitude of ways---zip)

Someone in the first thread put forth the idea that DrJim's photo #1 was already doctored to remove the shadows that were in the original (the timmerica pic)--hence the pasted in area at 417/333. If that is true, would it make a difference reguarding the value of the pixel???

Just posted this in the 'did you find this yet' thread.....Sorry for the repeat...

Should the pixels be counted along from the left then down or along from the left then up??
If its along then up the rgb values for the three images are as follows....

#1 55 109 195
#2 90 138 212
#3 65 123 204

Sorry if this confuses the issue even more!!!

Just to add, the colour sat these pixels are...........

#1 376dc3
#2 5a8ad4
#3 417dcc

[edit on 15-9-2004 by Irma]