Hidden Mysteries Of The Queens Chamber

This film was 2 years in the making. We restored the faded colors of the paintings on the wall and ceiling of the Queens Chamber.
If you or anyone you know recognize or can translate the symbols please leave a comment below.

a reply to: A51Watcher
I'm afraid you won't get any answers to the question you're asking, because no one will be able to decipher the symbols (of course not :-) By the way, I see ... nothing ... hopefully others will see ...
I think the pyramids were built in a time when there was no need for symbols ... A time before 12.600 years ago .... A time when people 'the gods' lived in a paranormal world. A world where we will return to ... step by step.

www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: A51Watcher

I’m not seeing any symbols or anything other than abstract patterns?

Oh well I suppose eighteen minutes wasted is better than two years wasted.

I see the symbols that are being highlighted.
Is there a way you could post snap shots of the symbols, by themselves?
It may help with focusing on the symbols.
I found I am being distracted by the colors and camera movements.

a reply to: A51Watcher

Pareidolia (seeing things in shapes that aren't there.)

Okay... so why would I say this (other than "being a close-minded skeptic")?

Ancient people used certain pigments in creating art - and yes, it's valid to find the original colors using different types of enhancement techniques. I've done it with rock art as well as some of the panels in the Karnak Temple, and it's been done by a number of researchers on Egyptian and Sumerian art. It's what they use to find missing and old writing in books and on other surfaces.

So why do I discount this?

The wrong part of the spectrum is enhanced.

Get some images of the crew marks in Lady Arbuthnot's chamber and tweak your image processor until you see the crew marks clearly and THEN use that setting to look at the Queen's Chamber. If there's something there, you'll see it more clearly.

(so... I hear you say "but what if the Egyptians didn't make those marks. What if some super-advanced civilization made them?" More sophisticated dyes would use different materials (they didn't have oil paint, for example, or acrylic paint in ancient Egypt) and would be applied with different tools (like a paint brush instead of a reed pen). These paints are more durable than ancient paint *and* the tools produce a sharper image (not blurry stuff.)

ALWAYS test your video tweaking first on some known things (like faded writing) AND test it on a blank textured surface (like a styrofoam cooler.) These two adjustments will help you separate pareidolia from a real finding.

a reply to: Byrd



Please tell me which parts of the light spectrum we used, the specific frequency range for each color, how much gamma, how much red, how much green, how much blue, how much yellow and violet, how much brightness, how much contrast and how much saturation.

And how many different color channels we have stacked for each frame.

a reply to: A51Watcher
All i see is nothing, a pixelated mess, of nothing. maybe you should try again.

originally posted by: zandra
a reply to: A51Watcher
I'm afraid you won't get any answers to the question you're asking, because no one will be able to decipher the symbols (of course not :-) By the way, I see ... nothing ... hopefully others will see ...
I think the pyramids were built in a time when there was no need for symbols ... A time before 12.600 years ago .... A time when people 'the gods' lived in a paranormal world. A world where we will return to ... step by step.

www.evawaseerst.be...

The team tends to agree with most of the points you made.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
I see the symbols that are being highlighted.
Is there a way you could post snap shots of the symbols, by themselves?
It may help with focusing on the symbols.
I found I am being distracted by the colors and camera movements.

You can download the entire video online and then pause the video wherever you like and take screenshots.

a reply to: midicon

Oh well I suppose eighteen minutes wasted is better than two years wasted.

The reason it took 2 years is because we work on these project in our spare time and provide the results to the public for free and always have.

So I guess your only option is to ask for your money back.

a reply to: A51Watcher

I would agree with what Byrd had said about attempting to sample some known extremely faint script, impressions or other art that are already discovered, and have been at least partially deciphered.

By sampling things like that first, you can tweak your thresholds so that you can get the best possible registration and then use that as a baseline for the Queens Chamber analysis. I could also not see any real benefit from using all those filtrations that you did, because nothing really stood out.

Not trying to insult your effort, but why publish unless you have some discernable results?

originally posted by: A51Watcher
a reply to: Byrd



Please tell me which parts of the light spectrum we used, the specific frequency range for each color, how much gamma, how much red, how much green, how much blue, how much yellow and violet, how much brightness, how much contrast and how much saturation.

And how many different color channels we have stacked for each frame.

I have no idea what software you were using or what setting - or what computer and monitor. Each of those makes a difference. The work I did was over 10 years ago, but I do know how much of a difference it made if I set up on a known image. I'd get some interesting results that turned out to be simply the end result of overprocessing a photo of a rough surface. The software would create all sorts of things that were't there.

So I found (as others I talked with found) that it's a balancing act. You want to be sure you're getting something real instead of hyperprocessing artifacts.

Now, you might have done this; run tests on known faded images and then set your software up along those lines. This is what the museums and academic researchers do when they're doing those videos on "what ancient statue colors really were" or "how ancient Egyptian art really looked." I do know that blue was very uncommon in ancient art (because the materials that made a blue color were rare and expensive) and that a pure yellow was also hard to get (though a gold-ish color was more common with ochre.) So you almost never see blue and gold in the oldest works -- red and black are the two most common with an ochre-yellow being the third.

Anyway, that's my experience with working on rock art and ancient art processing and talking with scientists who do this kind of thing.


Also, the walls in the Queen's chamber (and other chambers, actually) aren't really prepped for art. In spite of the legends, they're actually a textured surface, which means that any paint applied there won't make nice clear lines (even if you were using something like a magic marker.) If you're going to leave symbols in an important space (instead of graffiti) then you really need to start with the smoothest surface possible.

(and in this case, I'm speaking as a professional artist.)

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: A51Watcher

I would agree with what Byrd had said about attempting to sample some known extremely faint script, impressions or other art that are already discovered, and have been at least partially deciphered.

By sampling things like that first, you can tweak your thresholds so that you can get the best possible registration and then use that as a baseline for the Queens Chamber analysis. I could also not see any real benefit from using all those filtrations that you did, because nothing really stood out.

Not trying to insult your effort, but why publish unless you have some discernable results?

I think that should be fairly obvious.

For example everyone can see a gold circle at the top of the first wall connected by some other shapes. We have circulated these images to some knowledgeable people in the Egyptian world and they are unfamiliar with them as well.
So the only way to move forward is to show them to as many as possible, with the hope that someone with more education and experience in the matter can shed some light on the subject.

Since that is apparently not you, your opinion does not move the discussion forward.

As far as your advice on tweaking thresholds and getting the best possible registration, are you saying you have experience with professional Forensic Image Analysis?

Pictures, people. Im not using cell data for streaming or downloading jack # with said data.

Presentation is poorly thought out here. Always offer low-KB viewing options, otherwise you're not being clear & truthful & honestly, that's transparent as hell already.

And clarifying your software & version, plus the settings & steps AND test controls used also adds heavily to veracity.

Put up, or you just cement suspicion.

a reply to: charlyv

Well then I will take your lack of response as a no, and move on to the next person in line.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: A51Watcher

I would agree with what Byrd had said about attempting to sample some known extremely faint script, impressions or other art that are already discovered, and have been at least partially deciphered.

By sampling things like that first, you can tweak your thresholds so that you can get the best possible registration and then use that as a baseline for the Queens Chamber analysis. I could also not see any real benefit from using all those filtrations that you did, because nothing really stood out.

Not trying to insult your effort, but why publish unless you have some discernable results?

Hey Charly,

Just wanted to add that we do appreciate your suggestions, but all Forensic Image Analysts are well aware of the concerns you raised and take the appropriate steps to deal with them.

Perhaps you could process the original video with your tools and share the results with us here.

Again many thanks for trying to help.

Cheers

originally posted by: [post=27004553]Byrd

Please tell me which parts of the light spectrum we used, the specific frequency range for each color, how much gamma, how much red, how much green, how much blue, how much yellow and violet, how much brightness, how much contrast and how much saturation.

I have no idea what software you were using or what setting - or what computer and monitor. Each of those makes a difference. The work I did was over 10 years ago, but I do know how much of a difference it made if I set up on a known image. I'd get some interesting results that turned out to be simply the end result of overprocessing a photo of a rough surface. The software would create all sorts of things that were't there.

So I found (as others I talked with found) that it's a balancing act. You want to be sure you're getting something real instead of hyperprocessing artifacts.

Now, you might have done this; run tests on known faded images and then set your software up along those lines. This is what the museums and academic researchers do when they're doing those videos on "what ancient statue colors really were" or "how ancient Egyptian art really looked." I do know that blue was very uncommon in ancient art (because the materials that made a blue color were rare and expensive) and that a pure yellow was also hard to get (though a gold-ish color was more common with ochre.) So you almost never see blue and gold in the oldest works -- red and black are the two most common with an ochre-yellow being the third.

Anyway, that's my experience with working on rock art and ancient art processing and talking with scientists who do this kind of thing.


Also, the walls in the Queen's chamber (and other chambers, actually) aren't really prepped for art. In spite of the legends, they're actually a textured surface, which means that any paint applied there won't make nice clear lines (even if you were using something like a magic marker.) If you're going to leave symbols in an important space (instead of graffiti) then you really need to start with the smoothest surface possible.

(and in this case, I'm speaking as a professional artist.)

As I mentioned to charlyv, we do appreciate your your attempts to assist in our efforts to clarify and enhance the footage provided to us.

It is clearly stated on our website that we provide professional Forensic Image Analysis to the public for free, and have done so for over a decade now.

Our chief analyst has 30+ years experience in the field and his software and skill in using said software is certified by the court as binding legal evidence.

All the concerns you raised are certainly valid ones, and are addressed before any analysis is begun.

We appreciate your honesty in stating you have no idea what software we were using because without being a certified Forensic Image Analyst yourself there is no way you could know.

As shown in the video much of the software used is listed as NDA.

I'm sure you must know what that means and as such we cannot provide any settings used in this software.

In addition all settings used in court approved software is provided in case any hapless defense attorney wishes to challenge the analysis.

I will provide one example for you. It is clearly stated in the video that the first step in analyzing this footage was to detect and remove any noise present in the film.

In this case the camera sensor created noise due to poor lighting conditions -



We do appreciate your suggestions, but all Forensic Image Analysts are well aware of the concerns you raised and take the appropriate steps to deal with them.

Perhaps you could process the original video with your tools and share the results with us here.

Again many thanks for trying to help.



ETA: Here is a list of software you can acquire that is not NDA that will assist in your efforts to analyze images and footage -

BAS REDFIELD
GEN2
ELC
FIVE
FOCMAC
FOREVID
FUSION
(Astro) ImageJ
LCSA
MC Lightworks
LUCIS PRO Edition
PICOLAY
QESR
REINDEER
RETINEX
ROBUST MD


Cheers

originally posted by: A51Watcher
I will provide one example for you. It is clearly stated in the video that the first step in analyzing this footage was to detect and remove any noise present in the film.

In this case the camera sensor created noise due to poor lighting conditions -

We do appreciate your suggestions, but all Forensic Image Analysts are well aware of the concerns you raised and take the appropriate steps to deal with them.

Perhaps you could process the original video with your tools and share the results with us here.

Again many thanks for trying to help.

Frankly, I don't have the time to do video image processing (which, as you know, takes quite a bit of time for even a few seconds of video.) I do know that if you're processing an uneven surface (like the walls of the pyramids themselves) you're going to get a lot of weird noise images. What did you do to eliminate that error, out of curiosity? Noise smoothing won't do it for the QC surface (not to mention the staining and so forth).

Not asking for proprietary things, just simple curiosity.

originally posted by: Byrd

Frankly, I don't have the time to do video image processing (which, as you know, takes quite a bit of time for even a few seconds of video.) I do know that if you're processing an uneven surface (like the walls of the pyramids themselves) you're going to get a lot of weird noise images. What did you do to eliminate that error, out of curiosity? Noise smoothing won't do it for the QC surface (not to mention the staining and so forth).

Not asking for proprietary things, just simple curiosity.

Each digital camera sensor (brand) has its own specific noise pattern. The program has a database of all known camera types and it recognizes the pattern.
After that the sensor noise is patched (digital patch work) by overwriting the RGB noise pixels with an average value of the surrounding or found nearby pixels.
It is able to distinguish between camera noise and the original RGB colors in the video / image.

The second part of the program automatically detects the compression artifacts (rectangular / square blocks) and removes the horizontal and vertical lines through interpolating with an average value of the surrounding or found nearby pixels.