smee,
Folks, on a different tack than Rangler, you really need to remember that digital pictures have what are called "aspecting". When the picture is taken with a digital camera, or scanned into the computer, some data is always corrupted --- unlike old style photography. Also, each edit increases that aspecting . . . especially in JPG files. How is that and how does it affect what you see?
yes smee, very good observation, a case of electronic pareidolia in a sense.
Confirmation is the key, always has been...the codemakers had to have a saving grace...they buried the codes deep in the back ground camo, all kinds of graffiti could be thought of as a real sign, but it is not, what seperates it is the context and confirmation of the other signs...
The real reason that these signs are found at all is that the very act of photographing them "compresses" the image, I have the idea, that the codemakers used this idea of compression to hide the signs in another realm... by making the signs..loosely compressed..ie vague, they could hide it from the naked eye...they however used various lens and telescopes...and mirrors...high tech tools of the time...when the signs were carved in an uncompressed style, the sign is all but invisible, but when viewed thru a telescope or magnifying lens, the images is compressed and is made visible to the eye!
the codemakers had no way of knowing,that centuries later that cameras and computers would come along and inadvertently 'compress' these images- and make them visible to our eye...
the proof of course is that most signs are found AFTER they have been photographed and downloaded to our computers.
So while we have physics working against us[pareidololia] uncompressed images cut into stone...and the electronic 'aspecting' hiding or throwing us off on our pics...however, the power of confirmation is the saving grace...built in and in my two and half decades of the search, the confirmation has kept me on the correct path..which lead to the decoding of the monuments...
Shortie, my ill informed friend ...someone sent me your comment..
In other words; rangler's opinion is no better or worse, than anyone else's.
incorrect again Bill, it is so sad that even when confronted with the exact solutions to the monument encoding, you refuse to learn, to step out of your armchair role, and step in to the world of solutions not disparaging remarks and sniping those that do know the answers to the code....such a shame really but that is on you..you have the choice to understand, and learn , or continue to mark graffiti crap and hassle the ones who know...silly really and very very sad. I thought that those with half a brain, could grasp the solutions but I see I am wrong.
springfield....et al ....The proof of this is in the mark up them selves, simple solutions only require simple mark ups with all the confirmation marks followed...learn these and you will see the code for what it is..simple deduction, plain lines, drawn using the anchored points, going thru the symbols, pointing out the distance and direction
if you cant see the proof that is marked on all the monuments that I have marked so far, then you need to go over them one at a time, ask any questions, ponder the evidence, and if you still cant see the solutions, I suggest you find a different hobby, as this one is beyond you. Perhaps you join the graffiti - ites as they find graffiti in every rock and boulder on the planet, even in creek beds...yea that same creek that you once found yourself up - without a paddle!
hopes this helps saves a few of you.
rangler
