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

Originally posted by ArMaP

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.

It's a bit unclear and put me in the wrong place aswell

Long '30'. should be centre long. '30'.


here's the settings i've use to get the picture for my closer look in photoshop:

lat box: 16, lon box: 16;
center lat: -54, center lon: 30

I still don't see what's fake about the images.

Originally posted by MrPenny

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?

Did you check Danx links? the same images, direclty from nasa, hosted by nasa.

guess nasa might be that one off dumb crook with the skimask and a nametag after all jk

I still don't see what's fake about the images.

Which ones? the topview landscape or the ones from on the ground..? seems obvious one camera is missing a pretty large chunk.. no place not even mars has a white sky without any color or luminoscity variations at all.

I do agree on the point made earlier.. if those camera's are synchronized then what could possibly be visible on the left "eye" an not on the right?

so far it doesn't seem to make much sense but you can find the photographs on the nasa site.

and like I said some quick checking on the landscape from orbit hasn't shown me anything inexplicable yet.

[edit]I quickly mapped the mayor stitches in this image. To make them clearer. I copied the image into a new layer, increased the contrast and used the find edges filter, in another layer I drew the lines over the stitches. and to clean up removed the contrast/find edge enhanced copy. so the lines are now overlayed on the original (resized since I figured you didn't want to look at a 2k x 4k image just for an overview of the major stitches)




Some creative stitching but not inexplicable. perspective correction and simply layering the latest on top everytime would possible yield this same result. check google earth for examples on "creative stitching"

still no alarm bells ringing

[edit on 1-4-2007 by David2012]

Originally posted by David2012
lat box: 16, lon box: 16;
center lat: -54, center lon: 30

Thanks, that did work as expected.

As for the blurry areas on that "Map-a-planet" site, it looks like the image is made from images with different resolutions, the same that happens for the Moon when using the Clementine data.

The different resolutions make the image look blurry when the data as to be stretched to a resolution bigger than its real resolution.

At least that is what I think, based on what I see and on what I have seen in other occasions.



As for the "sky" on the photos that started this thread, nobody except the people from the site where Mikesingh got the pictures called that area where there is no data "sky".

NASA does not called it sky and it even shows the other images from the same camera and the other camera, they are not hiding nothing, at least this time.

Originally posted by David2012
Did you check Danx links? the same images, direclty from nasa, hosted by nasa.

I went back and double-checked. There is a corresponding file for the image referred to as " This R1 image has a time code of 143098049". However, the image referred to as " This L7 image has a time code of 143098049", does not. I think that is the important image in this thread as it is the one that allegedly shows 'editing'. Some of the other linked images are close, but sadly, not cigar-worthy.

Originally posted by MrPenny
I went back and double-checked. There is a corresponding file for the image referred to as " This R1 image has a time code of 143098049". However, the image referred to as " This L7 image has a time code of 143098049", does not.

They have the images mixed up.

The image posted on the site is "1P143097697ESF3221P2595L7M1.JPG" altough the link points to "1P143098049ESF3221P2596L7M1.JPG"

Check out the two upper craters in the image below. A discerning eye can easily see the difference in texture of the craters. The one on the top right is clearly 'airbrushed' and therefore looks smudged compared to the bottom of the bigger crater on the left. Also note the difference of texture in the crater bottom and its walls/rim.



If all's well with this image, then why the difference? I agree that probably different pictures taken at different times have been stitched together to form a large mosaic and so the difference in resolutions. But how come the bottom of this crater (and another small one on the bottom right of this image) have a different resolution?

OK. I've been into (Terrestrial) air photo recognition for a number of years, picking out viable targets from satellite and aerial recon photographs. A trained eye can easily pick out such 'anomalies'/inconsistencies.

Cheers!

And how about this...?

And this...?

And this...?

Accidental smudges? Blots? Or more likely, image tampering?

Cheers!

Photographs copyrighted. Reproduced with permission of JP Skipper

Didn't you post those images in another thread?

As I said before, the images made using the first version of the Clementine image browser created those blurry areas when they did not have data. The new version does not have that behaviour, if there is no data then there is no image, it appears as a black area.

Originally posted by MrPenny
What could be in the left hand photo that is not completely revealed in the right hand photo?

I think the point being made (at least what I got from it) was that one image has been added to, revealing a false sky. In the other photo, there is no horizon and has something missing, which has been edited from the first photo.

For example, pic 1 shows the fake skyline which obscures whatever it was that we're not allowed to see. pic 2, just doesnt have that data in it, so thats not doctored.

I think that is whats being put forward.

One of thee days someone like richard branson's gunna have to build us some ships and take us to these places, beyond the scopes of those who hide things from us, so we can either wear red clown faces and go OOPS or point the fat finger at the sods and say OH REALLY?!?

Coz it's frustrating....



woops I just relooked at the images... errr... didnt realise they were not at different angles... ahhuh, ok... weird... carry on..


[edit on 2/4/2007 by badw0lf]

Someone at NASA/JPL uploaded the images before they were done editing them

And just because people are checking these with Photoshop and not finding anything doesn't mean nothing's being hidden. So some people need to stop coming into threads saying "I'll check this in Photoshop and tell you what I find....I found nothing" that doesn't prove anything and it's actually pretty annoying. People think having some Photoshop knowledge makes them experts in finding fake images.

Those images above showing the large blurs. Those are talked about in the Disclosure video by a guy that used to work at NASA where he said they looked like cooling towers you see at power plants and they were about a mile tall. He then went on to say how people were excited because a large base was found and he saw images of what looked like a very large city lit up.

[edit on 2-4-2007 by nightmare_david]

Originally posted by ArMaP
As I said before, the images made using the first version of the Clementine image browser created those blurry areas when they did not have data. The new version does not have that behaviour, if there is no data then there is no image, it appears as a black area.

Just making my point here. Ok, so where is the new version of the same area that you claim has no tampering? Can you post these images here? If what you're saying is true, then I'll eat my big cowboy hat which I bought at a discount at a rummage sale in Texas!!

Cheers!

Nasa has been involved with the cover-ups of everything from exsistance of other intelligence to bases on the celestial bodies. They cover it up because they have been infiltrated by the "elites" (human/non-human) ever since its forming.

After seeing the latest pics of the face of mars, i was convinced that NASA was editing its photos. Those new pics looked nothing like the original face of mars pics

Now take a look at two images of the Gusev crater, the one on the left using the Mars Global Surveyor, and the more recent Odyssey mission using the Themis Camera. The images taken show a dark mass on a brown background.

The image on the right has been taken by the ESA Mars Express.


Images courtesy:xfacts

Are the green areas algae mats within the crater? Clear signs of life that NASA wants to hide? Why didn't NASA show this area in color?

In other words, NASA is blatantly hiding the true colors of Mars!

Cheers!




[edit on 3-4-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by OnTheDeck
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 ....

..and I have nothing to add Well spoken!

Originally posted by badw0lf
one image has been added to, revealing a false sky. In the other photo, there is no horizon and has something missing, which has been edited from the first photo.

For example, pic 1 shows the fake skyline which obscures whatever it was that we're not allowed to see. pic 2, just doesnt have that data in it, so thats not doctored.

I've tried to figure out these sentences for an entire day. ??

So, pic 1 has been edited. Pic 2 didn't need editing because it doesn't have the same information? But they were taken at virtually identical scenes, from minutely different positions, and at the same time. How can the un-edited pic not show what is allegedly edited from the other pic?

And in keeping with the theme....the OP just throws more photos up.

"How 'bout this?"

"Look at this"

"What do you think of this?"

I'm impressed. Someone has a tremendous library of space images.

Why don't we just consolidate the images into one thread or site.

Originally posted by mikesingh
Just making my point here. Ok, so where is the new version of the same area that you claim has no tampering? Can you post these images here? If what you're saying is true, then I'll eat my big cowboy hat which I bought at a discount at a rummage sale in Texas!!

I did not claimed that the new version does not have tampering, as you know. I could only make a claim like that if I was one of the people responsible for the images and/or the Clementine image browser.

The new version is available here.

Your first image was from this area, as you can see below, using version 1.5 of the image browser.

This is the same area viewed with version 2.0 (Beta) of the image browser.

This is the image from version 1.5 from where your second and third images were taken.

This is from version 2.0 (Beta)

Armap, hats off for the images you posted here That's what one can call as building up a cogent and analytical debate unlike a poster here who just babbles away, wasting everyone's time with nothing to contribute but hay!

Having said that, ver 2.0 was made specifically for removing these air brush marks from the images and telling the world, 'Hey! See? We told you so. There was nothing up there for all to get exicited about! Those were just flaws which have been corrected.'

Yeah! Could this be another conspiracy to cover up what they've tried to cover up?

Cheers!

[edit on 3-4-2007 by mikesingh]

I just emailed NASA asking about this. Hopefully I will get a response and this can all be cleared up very soon.