Proof Of NASA Editing Images! What Do They Want To Hide?

A number of members here have refused to entertain the idea that NASA is literally screwing around with the images of Mars and the Moon. It’s impossible to fudge images as according to them, there are thousands of photographs which are pored over by so many scientists etc, that it would be impossible to do so. The images are available to the public soon after they are received by NASA and therefore it’s not possible to tamper with the images.

Nothing can be farther from the truth. For one, few know the security procedures and channels through which the photographs are processed. But the moot question is why should they do it? What are they trying to hide? Is it alien life forms? Remnants of ancient civilizations that they don’t want you to know about? Artificial structures? There sure IS something going on which is not entirely above board.

Having said that, take a look at these images:


This L7 image has a time code of 143098049. It was made in conjunction with the
second camera at the same exact instant. The two cameras are one physical unit and
cannot possibly aim at two different altitude angles at the same time.


This R1 image has a time code of 143098049 also. It proves that the left camera
image (top) has been edited to remove some portion of the image. The fake sky edge
is a ragged artifact produced by somebody in NASA with a photo editor program.


Now, can we rely on the credibility of the other images? How reliable are they? What might have been edited out or covered? Can they be trusted?

The link below provides compelling evidence. Read it and decide whether or not we are being taken for a ride.

Source

Images Courtesy: Xenotech Research

omy now even a 4 yea old will see that that sky aint real...i mean look at the rocks before the sky there should be some perspective it look laughable.
great find but i dont know who are they triyng to fool...
for the untrained eye the real "sky" area has only rocks but i dont know whats really there

The manipulation of the raw images is so crude and blatant you wonder how and why NASA thought it wouldn't be noticed.

Are they so incredibly paranoid that anything other than an image of an absolutely "dead" planet is acceptable for release?

Really, if there are geyser on Mars, is this going to rock our world? Why do they insist on tricking the data?

First there was no water--well, the planet has huge polar ice caps, for Chrissake. Then the first color panoramas were released, with deep red landscapes so they could have a dirty ochre sky. Well, it turned out that part of Mars looks like parts of Arizona, ochre landscape and pale blue sky. Now they hack up photos of craters with impunity and call the result "raw" data.

My only explanation is, NASA JPL is so far down the slippery slope, after all the Moon manipulations, that a culture of paranoia has set in and they erase any evidence that might indicate Mars is anything other than a huge cold rock.

Sad, and fundamentally against their own interests, if they really do want to stir up interest and support for the proposed manned missions to Mars.

Are we certain NASA were the ones to actually edit these images, and not some amateur trying to get his share of the fame? Because these pics are soo crappy. I think NASA with all its technology would be able to do better than that... Mike, could you post the place on NASA's website were you got these? The Source you gave us leads us directly in a debunking website. If you could give us a link to the original images on NASA, then I would be sold. But for now, I am on the edge.

-Jimmy-

LOL, the bad science and major assumptions made on that Website are just too funny. If that is the so called "evidence" there is nothing to consider. Too bad the author of that site, doesn't understand what he is looking at.

I'll need better proof than that please.

As for the comment that perhaps someone other than NASA edited the image, while that is a possibility, I do consider it probable that the missing data is indeed also missing on NASA's site as well. That being said, it doesn't in any way indicate deliberate nefarious editing. The sites claim that every data drop is indicated by a "halo" effect is completely false. One should look to the fact that the data drop occurred in different filters.


More later, I gotta jet....

maybe nasa wants to get our attention knowing that we will see the horible work on the pic and get our attentcion of the real deal but thats like so imposible 0%
they probably think were so stupid to know that the pic is edited cmon nasa we do image editing liek everyday!
so i guess nasa edites so we dont know the planet hase places that are good to live at...so we dont suspect that they are planing to colonize mars

I'm wiling to bet someone took images from NASA and did the editing
themselves, if there was editing done.
The photos don't even look like they came from NASAin my opinion.


gottago,
NASA as well as scientists have concluded, and released information
on this, that there is a great deal of water ice in the south pole, and
that they think that there are occurences where subterranian liquid
water shoots out for a short time before it freezes or evaporates,
however since they have never actually seen the event, simply
because they don't have enough cameras to actually capture one.

All the images presented on that site are effectively taken from the JPL website.
So if anyone edited them, it was NASA.

Anyone have any idea in what format is that time code of the photos though?

Because if it's a unix timestamp, then 143098049 = Monday July 15 06:27:29 1974.


edit:
For Jimmy910130:

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov... ESF3221P2593L4M1.JPG
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov... ESF3221P2593L5M1.JPG
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov... ESF3221P2593L6M1.JPG
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov... EFF3221P1556L0M1.JPG
marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov... ESF3221P2596R1M1.JPG

I think the index is marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov....


edit2:
I might have found the answer for the time code format. It's a unix timestamp, but it's epoch is January 1, 2000 11:58:55.816 UTC.

3 to 11 Spacecraft clock
This is the number of seconds since January 1, 2000
at 11:58:55.816 UTC.

source

[edit on 31-3-2007 by danx]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Having said that, take a look at these images:

O.K. So we have two photos with allegedly identical time codes and apparently aimed at the identical scene. One of them, presumably from the camera on the left, hence L7, has some areas that seem to have been filtered or edited from it. Looks that way to me. Seems pretty clear cut.

First, in the links provided by your source and later by poster danx, I cannot find correlating images. Nothing from those sources that look like your examples. Makes their provenance suspect. Hmmm, your source seems to be pretty confident in its photo manipulations also.

Second, if this is, as you imply, an attempt to hide something....why does the photo from the right hand camera appear to not be filtered or edited? What aspect of NASA's incredibly effective 'cover up machine' can explain such comic bungling? That's like a bank robber using a ski mask to cover his identity, then wearing his work shirt with his name on the name tag.

What could be in the left hand photo that is not completely revealed in the right hand photo?

Originally posted by Mr Penny

If this is an attempt to hide something....why does the photo from the right hand camera appear to not be filtered or edited? What aspect of NASA's incredibly effective 'cover up machine' can explain such comic bungling?
What could be in the left hand photo that is not completely revealed in the right hand photo?

Heck! I wish I knew what the devil is happening! But something is!! Whether it's bungling or on purpose, who knows?

Anyways, here's another image which I think is deliberate tampering. Why has it been done? What is NASA trying to hide? I don't see anything mind boggling that needs to be airbrushed. But what do I know? Or is it just the proverbial 'data loss'? Take a look and decide...



Check out the arrows which point to the areas apparently tampered. The original? Here it is. But just follow these instructions:

1. Click on the link below.
2 In the Data Set menu, select 'mars_viking_bw'.
3. Enter '16' in Lat box.
4. In Centre Lat, enter '-54' and Long '30'.

That does it.

Cheers!

Link

Image copyrighted. Reproduced with express permission of JP Skipper



[edit on 1-4-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by mikesingh

Having said that, take a look at these images:

xenotechresearch.com..." border=0>

This L7 image has a time code of 143098049. It was made in conjunction with the
second camera at the same exact instant. The two cameras are one physical unit and
cannot possibly aim at two different altitude angles at the same time.

This R1 image has a time code of 143098049 also. It proves that the left camera
image (top) has been edited to remove some portion of the image. The fake sky edge
is a ragged artifact produced by somebody in NASA with a photo editor program.


Now, can we rely on the credibility of the other images? How reliable are they? What might have been edited out or covered? Can they be trusted?

The link below provides compelling evidence. Read it and decide whether or not we are being taken for a ride.

Source

Images Courtesy: Xenotech Research

omg, How can anyone say that they are not fake.
I would certainly like to know what they are hideing.

-fm

white "sky" error maybe?

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Mr Penny

If this is an attempt to hide something....why does the photo from the right hand camera appear to not be filtered or edited? What aspect of NASA's incredibly effective 'cover up machine' can explain such comic bungling?
What could be in the left hand photo that is not completely revealed in the right hand photo?

Heck! I wish I knew what the devil is happening! But something is!! Whether it's bugling or on purpose, who knows?

Anyways, here's another image which I think is deliberate tampering. Why has it been done? What is NASA trying to hide? I don't see anything mind boggling that needs to be airbrushed. But what do I know? Or is it just the proverbial 'data loss'? Take a look and decide...

Check out the arrows which point to the areas apparently tampered. The original? Here it is. But just follow these instructions:

1. Click on the link below.
2 In the Data Set menu, select 'mars_viking_bw'.
3. Enter '16' in Lat box.
4. In Centre Lat, enter '-54' and Long '30'.

That does it.

Cheers!

Link

Image copyrighted. Reproduced with express permission of JP Skipper

[edit on 1-4-2007 by mikesingh]

I've downloaded a 1024 pixel/degree detailed image of that place and did some quick checking in photoshop

If you look closer you'll see the "cover upped" pieces still continue to show the features appearing to be cut by the alleged editing just blurryer. also the lines cutting these sections are dead straight. It looks like the way they take lot's of pictures with scanning and then stitching them together. there are several reasons outside of covering something up that some scans came out blurry.

I'll see if I can find something else.

I don't see anything that makes my pulse increase at the moment

[edit on 1-4-2007 by David2012]

Lol my first zoom on the pic in photoshop and found a little info.
The blurrish parts are actually not blurred.

It's noise.. which makes me lean toward simply bad scans/pics

ow well looking onwards!

God im dumb when im tired. The map o' mars on there is stitched together from photographs and it wasn't scanning as such. this means one part of the landscape could have been photographed days or weeks after the photograph stitched next to it. it's basicly inconsistent quality.. it's not blurring.. whole photographs are blurred in this example. (follow the stitchmarks to cut it up into the original photographs)

Unless you found something else within 1 photograph I'm quitting looking into this pic for now
[edit on 1-4-2007 by David2012]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by David2012
The map o' mars on there is stitched together from photographs and it wasn't scanning as such. this means one part of the landscape could have been photographed days or weeks after the photograph stitched next to it. it's basicly inconsistent quality.. it's not blurring.. whole photographs are blurred in this example. (follow the stitchmarks to cut it up into the original photographs).

Stitch marks are fine if they're more or less straight. But heck, I didn't know these guys stitch the bottoms of craters following their curvatures too!!

Now why should they do that??

You're always posting stuff that makes people ask questions. That's why sites like this are critical.

I haven't investigated the NASA photo tampering accusations, but given what I see as a global contact program unfolding, much of which has been documented by NASA's own cameras, it boggles the mind how NASA appears to be looking the other way when another several hours of videos and stack of photos of ufos are released - including their own(?).

To believe that NASA has no idea what's going on on our, and other planets right now is tantamount to believing Superman and Clark Kent are two different people.

There has been a lot of exposure with regard to NASA's "probable" tampering with their photos. There was an employee who came forward, a woman, who said she had personal inside knowledge of this. Her character was immediately attacked and, unfortunately, this tried and true tactic threw some people off of the trail.

It wasn't important to put all your eggs in one basket with her case, however, as it should more be a call to truly take a closer look at what NASA is doing.

To me, it's clear that NASA is denying the obvious, both at home and abroad. I hate to be a defeatist, but NASA, which was originally created by the U.S. Air Force back in the late 1950's to serve a specific purpose, still answers to a master that doesn't have our best interests at heart.

I've lost respect for that organization long ago. In particular, when I wondered at the awesome hours of NASA video that was unearthed by a small television studio. Would NASA have ever released that if it hadn't been documented by such an aware citizen? No!

I was glued to my television watching the STS-115 mission events unfold, and then the staid, chubby ne'er-do-wells write off what were clearly ufos as "space garbage". They even chuckled and said, "We're sorry. Sometimes we're messy," or something to that effect. You're messy AND you're liars.

Ever feel like you're in the Truman Show, and NASA keeps telling you there's nothing out there? No reason to leave home?

Welcome to the Truman Show.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by OnTheDeck]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by OnTheDeck]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Stitch marks are fine if they're more or less straight. But heck, I didn't know these guys stitch the bottoms of craters following their curvatures too!!

Now why should they do that??

Where do they follow the craters curvature?

In the picture I see clear and straight lines where the double arrows is (why double arrows? Its just one line across the entire image). This would indicate stitching.

By the regular arrows I see nothing out of the ordinary. Care to enlighten me what those arrows are supposed to point at?

[edit on 1-4-2007 by merka]

Originally posted by mikesingh
Anyways, here's another image which I think is deliberate tampering. Why has it been done? What is NASA trying to hide?

looks like a mozaic frim individual pics, they do it often to picture large landscape pictures.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Check out the arrows which point to the areas apparently tampered. The original? Here it is. But just follow these instructions:

1. Click on the link below.
2 In the Data Set menu, select 'mars_viking_bw'.
3. Enter '16' in Lat box.
4. In Centre Lat, enter '-54' and Long '30'.

That does it.

I followed your instructions but I did not see anything like that image you posted. The area was the same, with the same blurry areas, but it did not look like the one you posted.

Originally posted by Terapin
That being said, it doesn't in any way indicate deliberate nefarious editing.

Did you go to the second page? It's not nefarious at all. In fact, due to the small, invisible watermark I would guess that a young computer tech did this and was a little annoyed at his superiors. People born after the 60s don't understand this whole humanity is the pinnacle of life in the universe, and smoke Lucky Strikes crap.

These techs, much like me, don't understand these walking corpses at NASA whom are terrified of the possibility that earth isn't unique in its ability to harbor life. The upper management at NASA should be euthanized to make room for individuals with no bias, but then again, maybe this goes all the way to the top and fixing NASA would only be the tip of the iceberg.

This dishonest science has caused an entire generation to realize that everything they thought they knew about Sol system is probably at least a little bit wrong.

My guess is that this is why space exploration has stalled and technology hasn't been advancing the way we thought it would.
Look at it this way, if you tell a girl that you live in a mansion, and you really live in a hood crib, you can't just bring her to that hood crib and say, "oh, my bad." You have to hold on to that lie, stall, make excuses, bring her to motels, while you slowly make it seem like you've been losing all of your money in bad investments. After enough time has passed, living in a hood shack makes sense. And if she really loves you, it won't matter.

Well, NASA will slowly talk about its "bad investments." That is, there will be many reasons why all of the older data about mars is incorrect. Bad equipment, bad interpretations, malfunctions, and whateverelse they can think of will be used as excuses.

Over time as the fog evaporates, the truth will be sitting right in front of our faces, and it will make sense. NASA will act like nothing has changed, and much of the public may not even notice. Will we love NASA enough to overlook the ghetto crib, and if not, will there be enough of us to really get noticed? Considering the way the MSM works, I'm guessing NASA will be fine.
xenotechresearch.com...
So anyway, yeah, there's page two with the watermark in the sky,
check that out.

Originally posted by Jimmy910130
Mike, could you post the place on NASA's website were you got these?

Mike's not here right now, but I can help. Xenotech, the site in the original post, links directly to the NASA/JPL site with the original images.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Did you go to the second page? It's not nefarious at all. In fact, due to the small, invisible watermark I would guess that a young computer tech did this and was a little annoyed at his superiors.

Are you referring to the image that "appears" when he mapped different shades of white to Red, Green and Blue?

If you are, let me tell you that this trick only works with the JPG version of the images, if you use the real raw images the result is different.

that's perspective. the stitchmarks to me seem to make sense if you concider the spherical shape of mars and the distance these pics were taken at. If that makes sense at all

someone with more expertise might be able to shed better light on this.

for now i'm too tired so too likely to see things that aren't there or miss things that are etc etc..

I just wanted to give you an honest unbiased comment on what I've seen so far in the pic.

Maybe check again later.

ps. as to editing pictures. it's a fact (and stated by nasa) that they colorize the pics with a simple hue filter.
it's more visually interesting then black and white I guess. though a hue filter would not remove any data or obscure anything.. just saying.
same goes for hubble pics. they aren't that colorfull. with the light they can receive from such distant objects it's all a brownish beige.. not very usefull to analyze the structures with or the use a promotional material, so they colorize it. using different colors to denote the composition of e.g. a nebula.
again that would not necessarily mean obscuring anything.
so the real question isn't if they edit them. they do.. admitted by themselves but that extents to colorizing only, but do they purposefully edit out information? (not quite the same as keeping the information intact and just adding color values or a simple hue filter)