NASA Mars Rover Picture... Questionable

Hey everyone,

I have a "NASA image of the day" gadget for my Google home page.

Well, I just got back from skiing and when I got back, a new image taken from NASA'S Mars Exploration Rover Spirit was the image of the day...

anyway, the picture contains a few interesting subjects...

the first, is that Mars does indeed look a little "blueish" in the distance...
I know these are just the way the rocks look against the red sand, but either way, it could back up a few points made by Astral Projectors and Remote Viewers...

But that is not the subject of this thread...

To me, the Image looks distorted... as if NASA may have cropped certain images or added a layer to it, like many questionable pictures from the moon landing...

Here is the picture:

Source
so, I understand how the imaging works... the camera takes multiple shots and stacks them etc...

This view combines separate images taken through Pancam filters centered on wavelengths of 753 nanometers, 535 nanometers and 432 nanometers and is presented in a false-color stretch to bring out subtle color differences in the scene.

anyway, i still don't see why the pole on the rover would be shaped like that in the picture... only one side is skewed and not the other...
If the camera is a panoramic, then the images are taken horizontally, so i would assume that both sides of the pole would be skewed and not just one.
Also, in case the pictures were taken with vertical shots, then the curve on the pole also would not make sense...

I have photoshoped the images to make the pole in question more obvious:

and here is a picture of the rover so you can see where the pole rests in comparison to the rest of the rover:


so, while there might be a reasonable explanation for the weird image, I can't think of one, so I would love to hear some other explanations for this.

but as of now, it does seem a questionable...

Ah, my first post. Long time reader, first time poster!

Anywho, my guess would be that it's a composite image. I've seen lots of NASA stuff that looks like that. As for the blueish tinge, false colour image perhaps?

lol thats true...

But I've also seen lots of crappy NASA cover up images too...
like the moon shots i mentioned earlier:


and even more crappy airbrushed shots:


now, I'm not saying thats what this is... but it did make me think about it...

reply to post by Odessy



That's not a "NASA cover up." You need to understand how Reseau plates work in film cameras. When you have a Reseau grid in front of a bright white overexposed object, the white is going to bleed over the black of the grid on the film, reducing its appearance or covering it up altogether. But you're also using a much lower resolution version of the picture and if there's anything left of that grid you would have lost it in the resize/recompression. Since you haven't cited which photo from which apollo mission that is I can't examine the original. As for the mars rover picture, you have to understand that that is a mosaic, not the original pictures. That's a combination of two or more pictures, and when the camera rotates to take the second shot, the mast on the rover will not be in the same place in the second image due to parallax. When you lay one photo "on top of" the other in the stitching process the end result is a kind of "stitching error" like the one you showed there.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 8-1-2008 by Jbird]

yeah, i understand how the rotating picture images are captured, its just wierd to me that only one side is skewed, not the other. if the pole were moving, then i would assume that both sides would be skewed and not just the one.

reply to post by Odessy

Hi, odessy
If you take a look at this hi res version of the photo in question, you will notice that is actually the result of the "cut" of the images: ngchunter
has already well covered it.
www.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by ngchunter
....But you're also using a much lower resolution version of the picture and if there's anything left of that grid you would have lost it in the resize/recompression. Since you haven't cited which photo from which apollo mission that is I can't examine the original.

Hi, ngchunter, That image comes from Clementine mission:
the "triangle" appeared only in Clementine image browser 1.5

and is no longer visible in Clementine Lunar Map 2.0

(tools/lunar features/craters/ select "seidel")

The two versions of the browser uses the same data set.
The alleged triangle is located on Seidel crater, near Mare Ingenii.

The coordinates are Longitude: 152.78 Latitude: -33.84 .

The triangle is also visible in some composite images of the far side, for example in this one (look at S.S.W), which have been created with the same dataset.

Since the dataset is the same, and since the 1.5 version of Clementine i.b had many other issues like pixelated/darkened areas, the triangular feature should be the result of some trouble encountered during the processing of the original "strips" from Clementine, and not an actual formation on Seidel crater.
This is its appearance on a shot from Clementine UVVIS Multispectral Mosaic


[edit on 7/1/2008 by internos]

Thanks Internos

but in regards to the triangle pic, i have a few questions.
what about the pillars right next to it that have been blurred out?
are you indicating that all of the blurred out structures on the moon arent there and are simply a result of the camera placing the photos together?
or do you think that on the new pics without the triangle formation were perhaps cut out with a better program?

just curious as to what your opinion is on the subject of the moon photos, I give a lot of consideration to all of your posts.

Originally posted by Odessy
Thanks Internos

but in regards to the triangle pic, i have a few questions.
what about the pillars right next to it that have been blurred out?
are you indicating that all of the blurred out structures on the moon arent there and are simply a result of the camera placing the photos together?
or do you think that on the new pics without the triangle formation were perhaps cut out with a better program?

just curious as to what your opinion is on the subject of the moon photos, I give a lot of consideration to all of your posts.

Thank you
Basically, the images have never been blurred (at least, so we concluded after the assestments on the source images) . They appeared to be blurred after the first processing which has been made in order to compose the first mosaics and maps.
The first time that these issues have been brought to our attention, we looked at the original "stripes" from Clementine, and in no one of thempixellation or other such issues were found. Just to make clear the point, what we see in the browsers, is the result of the manipulation of the original images which can be found here:

pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

The set in question is this one (cl_4038)
pdsimage2.wr.usgs.gov...

There's also a visual locator for the images here
pdsimage2.wr.usgs.gov...
Once you know exactly which is the area in question, you can visually identify the
volume id and the quadrant in question simply by moving over the areas with the mouse.
Well, is not much user friendly, but since thres the lunar map browser available online ...

Anyway, in this case ID: cl_4038 Quad Name: UI 31S153

From here
pdsimage2.wr.usgs.gov...
you would have to download
This file pdsimage2.wr.usgs.gov...
and this one, pdsimage2.wr.usgs.gov...
..but keep in mind that the file size is 37 megs

You would need a software in order to be able to view correctly the images:
from here pds.nasa.gov...
you can download NasaView.

So, unless you have particular needs, it would be way better to chose the browse version, from here
pdsimage2.wr.usgs.gov...

and, finally, here's the .jpg image of the area:

Large Enhanced Color Browse image for UI31S153.IMG
pdsimage2.wr.usgs.gov...

ArMap did a great work in order to track back this stuff.

So basically, we have the original images which doesn't show the pixellation no other issues, and the pixellation, the triangle and other stuff which appeared only after the manipulation made in order to compose the mosaics.
At this point, the only conspiracy theory possible would be that they faked even the source images... But i don't think so.

Now, looking at the details of the triangle:
notice the circled detail: it's a kind of flat rectangle @ 1:1, and it becomes a cylinder @ 1:2 -
the yellow arrows shows the "pattern" of the anomaly: this pattern is repeated to almost all the area.
And the corners of the triangle (red arrows) shifts to a different shape once are displayed at different resolution.



An actual object would at least keep unaltered its shape.
So, is very very hard for me, to think that there there's actually a triangle.
But of course, i may be wrong. I would like to know how exactly they processed the images the first time.

About all the images from the Moon, in general, is very hard to say what really happened to the images: the are many speculations about the hypotesys that they have been photoshopped.
Well, i haven't seen a real smoking gun so far: certain images are fishy, there have been statements from people who worked for NASA about this, but what it seems to be missing is a strong evidence which proves conclusively it (about this specific case, keep in mind that Clementine was jointly sponsored by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and NASA. But my take is that yes, is possible that some or many of them have been altered, who knows with which purpose. This matter is really controversial, and frankly i don't think that we will find a conclusive solution for it: in one hand, we have basically zero evidences that the images have been retouched; in the other hand, we have (hypotetically) retouched images and in this case is clear that there would be zero evidences. This recalls me the cat who chases his tail endlessly.
Unless there's a big woldwide conspiracy, JAXA is going to provide 10 meters resolution images and Chang'e1 20 meters ones which should tell us much more about the Moon surface, and next year we should look at the first submeter resolution images from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Who knows, maybe we will have some surprises! Of course, i cant' rule it out


[edit on 8/1/2008 by internos]

thanks man, that was very informative.

The thing that made me start to wonder about the whole moon bases was the Disclosure Project statement and the guy from Langley Air Force Base in VA. I live about 3 miles away and the AFB is directly next to NASA... Perhaps it was just hopeful thinking.

As far as the JAXA images are concerned, I've done some research on them and I too can't wait for the release of the images. However, I'm sure that if there really are structures on the moon, They still wouldn't expose them to the general population.
Either way, only time will tell I suppose.

Thanks again for all the info.

To answer the original question about why the pole looks the way it does:

There is a splice in the image right at the pole, which is why the left edge is cut off. As for the curve, it's because the pictures covers 90 degrees from right to left and is squashing that down into a such smaller field of view. That's going to distort the image. Click here for the full-size original image, and the locations of the splices are obvious, as is the distortion:

www.nasa.gov...

Thanks Nataylor

such a cool picture as well.
I love the bluish tint in it. Don't see that much on Mars pics

Thanks for answering my questions guys. I had no idea there is also an ongoing discussion about the same picture HERE

so if anyone is new to this thread, refer to the other thread as there are much more participants

Is not Questionable. Is Not Falsifying The Truth. Artistic renderings is not the actual image to discuss if it is not within a artistic prognosis defineable as being abstract or physchodelic. When a artist has a picture of what to render then there is a unique bond between the artist and the photo, the bond does not have to be with the subject matter as long as the subject matter is fully rendered as the artist perceives it, in some cases a artist may perceive a object as having been through some event and which changes the appearance of a object, like a fire, or entry into atmosphere in all likelyhood for a Rover or just plain dirty and uncleanable, this is a rendering regardless how inaccurate it could become so if something is broken it could be conceived as having a quality of broken by a artist where in reality nothing is broken. On the otherside of the coin are those whom wish to render a photo as being something otherthan what has been depicted in the photo, retouching a surface of a photo as they see fit, this is a childish behavior and leads everyone to think that a member is trying to break into becoming cartoonist on the forum.



Image Archives

Besides that has anyone read how to understand what the images are that NASA has posted in a Gallery?
Image of the Day Gallery

How to decode the image filenames

FeistyFawn
posted on 5-1-2008 @ 03:46 AM
Hi, my first post here. i found this: www.goroadachi.com...
www.goroadachi.com...
it shows different photo comparison of Mars.

The Etemenanki website views reality from such an angle and offers transcontextual interpretations of world phenomena. It is an attempt to hack and decode the ultimate 'game' we call reality. The website does not claim to give you the truth necessarily, but it at least strives to do what the 'system' does not want done. The hope is that this will provoke some new thinking and new mentality out there.
Goro
May 9, '02

The Mineral Moon
Even if the moon really were made of green cheese it probably wouldn't look this bizarre. Still, this mosaic of 53 images was recorded by the Jupiter-bound Galileo spacecraft as it passed near our own large natural satellite in 1992. The pictures were recorded through three spectral filters and combined in an exaggerated false-color scheme to explore the composition of the lunar surface as changes in mineral content produce subtle color differences in reflected light.
Image: 161
Range Extents: 161-170



How bizzare could posters get with their claims of something they have not understood straight from NASA it is defined, it is readable, it can be copy/pasted and it can be linked to, what else is there to the mystery. Candid images come from anywhere, you will not see candid galleries on NASA. You can find NASA artwork, most is as closely rendered as possible, the Rover has three perfect pictures depicted on Mars and some more which Rover is doing tasks. All I found missing from pictures of Mars is Longitude & Latitude and I also do not find Longitude & Latitude on images that are being questionable or otherwise depicting something else otherthan what it is MARS. NASA provides the truth, it may have _javascript problems and it may need special MACOSX attention for those users but for Windows Vista it works OK for me and I highly recommend it over ABOVETOPSECRET.COM and day, if you really want the truth to be revealed to you then surf NASA and watch the videos they present you with the truth.

wow, sorry this topic upset you so much.

I just figured:
hmmm surf NASA's website for hours and read jargin i can;t understand, or make a post on here and have someone spell it out for me, fast, such as internos did...

and there obviously is a topic to discuss about this picture because there is quite a large ongoing thread about it as my last post indicates.

But as far as what you say on surfing nasa to find the truth... well, i would rather not because i tend not to believe everything someone tells me... but thats just me. you can do your thing, ill do mine, no hard feelings.
thanks for your post

*EDITED TO ADD*

and I actually received all the answers I wanted from this thread so I probably won't be revisiting it anytime soon.
I think further discussion would be more suitable in the already ongoing thread.

If any Mods read this, please close this thread as I believe the subject matter has been talked about. Thanks

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Odessy]

Originally posted by Odessy


If any Mods read this, please close this thread as I believe the subject matter has been talked about. Thanks

[edit on 9-1-2008 by Odessy]

NO, wait!
I was aware there was an ongoing thread about it, but my purpose was to give you the same chance i had: to know as much as possible about what happened to those images. When someone, as you, poses questions in order to understand, HE DESERVES to receive the better answer possible. No matter how long it takes to me to answer to you. The only thing that makes sense, is that now you know what basically happened to Clementine images: a post is a post. You decide what to take and what to deny.
Look at what happened to my thread
The next missions to the Moon

Do you think that i can keep posting there before this post will be deleted? We put efforts here mate, what we want to do is to DENY IGNORANCE, and THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING with this thread. and BTW, not only with this thread. So keep on doing what you're doing here on ATS, please .


[edit on 9/1/2008 by internos]

Thanks Internos,

And you DID give me a ton of info on those pics that I had no idea about before!

lol I suppose your right about not closing the thread.
any information is still information.

Thanks again buddy

nevermind, my reply was already covered.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by ngchunter]