Looking at that 828/ 826/ 816 I see that that 1 is a different than the one in 014, so it could be a 2, just not as clear as the one in 029.
But what this comes down to for me, is if these numbers are this hard to decipher, maybe they are not that relevant, like some of the map elevations. If we need a magnifying glass or close-up photography, are they really what we are looking for?
I think if we are supposed to use numbers, they should be ones everyone can agree on, ie: the signs.
I do like your idea of applying the letters for 'c masquerade in' backwards to fit the corresponding numbers. 0/19= C, 1/18 = M etc. Have you tried applying this idea to other numbers in the book? Don't give up yet!
I've gone back and forth on the "if they're that hard to decipher". I can see both ways.its the same thing with the 18 old lady magic square the 8 actually being green. You just dont notice at first. Intentional clue or herring I have no idea.
I'm a painter myself and when you photograph and downsize to print sometimes those things with the 6 vs 8 just happen...they may have been clear as day in the original. Noticing the ambiguity, but clarity under scrutiny, could have just been unintentional added bonus to either a real clue or a red herring. Either way, even slightly enlarged (as the original most likely was) it doesnt appear to me to have been painted ambiguously in the first place. Just my guess though.
Last Edit: Sept 15, 2018 20:47:20 GMT -5 by jonsey1
** another anomaly that drives me nuts is the 1927614...I mean if one were playing the lottery with that and this isbn came up they'd hit five numbers. I'm not a math/code person so maybe this is common.
Math/Code people- any insight?
(Personally it looks 014 029 826 but thats just me...if anyone thinks those are 1s at the bottom its the same thing but another hit on a one and a miss on the 2)
Last Edit: Sept 15, 2018 20:41:33 GMT -5 by jonsey1