It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is The Mars Rover Cam Life-Blind?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
"The red signal could be any integer from 0 to 255 inclusive, for 256 total red values. Likewise for the green frame, and the blue one. "

PDS is 12bit format, not 8 bit. The 24bit Jpegs from the rover site may only have 256 potential values for each pixel, but the cam transmitts data already in PDS. It must be downsampled to covert to jpeg.


A distinction without a difference.

Which 36-bit value would uniquely identify any form of chlorophyll?

You've got 64 billion to choose from... that must mean that at least one of those identifies chlorophyll, right?

If you're going to provide an actual value, be prepared to justify why that value uniquely identifies chlorophyll as opposed to any other substance that might reflect more green than red or blue.




posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 07:40 PM
link   
"Which 36-bit value would uniquely identify any form of chlorophyll? "

There is none. It would depend on the brightness.

I am not only concerned with chlorophyll. It was one example to begin with.

The cam is color blind.

Many years ago I was forced to edure an episode of "The Benny Hill Show'. In one skit two people were playing ping-pong. It was normal until one point where the ball began jumping around in an impossible way. Was it a digital trick? Not on their budget. There was a man dressed in a black outfit against a black background with a rod that had a ping-pong ball attatched to the tip. The man was invisible because he matched the background in all spectrums that the camera used in its RGB format.

In a similar way things can be hidden against the background. Just like the JPL symbol disappears in some filters, and not in others.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by BarryKearns
The English language is a great tool for conveying information, and a tool for disseminating disinformation.
Which conspiracy caused language to come into existence?


i know this is off topic(kind of), but that is the big question.
phoenetics, phoenicians and the phoenix.
the tower of babel.
newspeak, a language that makes it impossible to even form certain thoughts.
the english language has the most words and is the number one widely used language on earth. it is apocalyptic(revealing).

the african creation myth says that in the beginning there were no clouds and no sunshine. everyday was misty and temperate. if people wanted fruit, they would go and ask(psychicly) the tree for it and the fruit would drop to the ground. there was no language. all communication was psychic.
then came the gods(nefilim, anunakki), and gave man the 'gift' of language. man lost his psychic abilities due to this 'gift'. (read zacharia sitchin's books to learn about these myths)
marshall mcluhan speaks of the importance of moving from an oral tradition(lore passed verbatim through the generations) to a written tradition. also, the signifigance of the different spectral enviroments(acoustic, electric, psychic, tactile, etc.) and the effect of myth and the medium of the myth. this is (one of the things) he means with his famous, 'the medium is the message' catchphrase.


[Edited on 16-2-2004 by billybob]



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Yes... anyway...

Arch: surely you realise just how stupid your example of the JPL logo is?

You are showing a single filter image and saying that is how data is being hidden. That would only be a relevant point if every image was taken on a single filter.

They are NOT, PRECISELY for the that reason. I dont think there has been any images (apart from solar shots perhaps) taken with a single filter. The point of the many filters is the difference in the reflectance of objects at different wavelengths.

Even in your example it is clear to see that if you look at the difference between those filter images, you would see the JPL is obvious and is a different color to the line surrounding it. You can further infer that the line surrounding the JPL logo is most probably white, as it is highly reflective at both ends of the spectrum.

As you seem to be only reading the first and last lines of any post. I'll point it out again. The very point of the bandpass filters is to observe the reflectance of objects at different frequencies of light, this is also the point of regular RGB filters (usually combine as one) in any digital camera, but they are less exact with the regions they let through. The above example of yours would show exactly the same on a regular digital camera. Is my Canon hiding evidence of life on Earth?



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   
After some quick testing, I have discovered that my Canon A70 is not hiding evidence of life. But it is hiding evidence of childrens toys.

From this picture:


All seems normal..

But when we look at the specific channels:
RED

ROMG CANON IS HIDING EVIDENCE OF RED BLOCKS, WHAT DONT THEY WANT US TO KNOW.

GREEN

Phew, this one looks more regular, I'm sure I can see a ufo in the background though if you zoom in close enough.



BLUE

OMG NOW THEY ARE HIDING EVIDENCE OF BLUE BLOCKS, WHEN WILL CANON EVER TELL US THE TRUTH


..and so on.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
"Which 36-bit value would uniquely identify any form of chlorophyll? "

There is none. It would depend on the brightness.
I am not only concerned with chlorophyll. It was one example to begin with.



It goes beyond just the brightness, and you know it. You simply can't tell WHY the pixel in question looks green with basic RGB filters... you just know that it does.

If RGB can't tell the difference between life and a non-living background, then RGB is life-blind.



The cam is color blind.


Yawn. Every CCD camera is color blind. So are humans. Who cares? It's a non-point, so long as you choose to misinterpret what the data actually reveals, instead of what you think it NEEDS to reveal.



Many years ago I was forced to edure an episode of "The Benny Hill Show'. In one skit two people were playing ping-pong. It was normal until one point where the ball began jumping around in an impossible way. Was it a digital trick? Not on their budget. There was a man dressed in a black outfit against a black background with a rod that had a ping-pong ball attatched to the tip. The man was invisible because he matched the background in all spectrums that the camera used in its RGB format.

In a similar way things can be hidden against the background. Just like the JPL symbol disappears in some filters, and not in others.


Yes, the JPL symbol "disappears" (as you call) it on that filter, just like it "disappears" on the red filter of both of the filter sets that you pointed to initially.

Gasp! The RGB filters can be selectively used to make things disappear!

It's actually much, much worse than that. With the RGB filters, it's not hard to come up with scenarios where actual chlorophyll-B laden life scattered over something like an olivine base would "disappear" on EVERY SINGLE RGB IMAGE FRAME, as well as the combined output. No matter what you select, it's always "gone".

There are an infinite number of different response curves that will give IDENTICAL results for each of the R, G, and B filters, precisely because they take an entire "area under the curve" for such a (relatively) wide range of frequencies. You could have an infinite number of combinations that blend perfectly into the background, despite the fact that they are actually different in their individual frequency responses... in a huge number of those cases, radically different responses.

It would be the perfect analog to your "Benny Hill" example. By the standard you have set, we must therefore conclude that RGB filter sets are life blind!

Q.E.D.

Wait, it's even more insidious than I imagined! Human eyes also use a process analogous to RGB camera filtering (three overlapping "totaling" light curves), and the algae in question would disappear for them, too! Oh my God, the alien overlords have engineered our race to be life blind!

The Pancam filters can detect a wealth of information that is utterly hidden from human eyes, and use it to accurately isolate different components that are "invisible against the background" to the human eye.

Simple RGB filters cannot. The multispectral nature of the Pancam is therefore superior for the purposes of IDENTIFYING what is actually present, instead of just making pretty pictures that match what our obviously alien-engineered-life-blind eyes see.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I was not implying that RGB filters would be better for finding life, only for producing color. Different issues.

The cam is color blind. As illustrated by Benny Hill things can be made to disappear where they match the surroundings.

By excluding specific filters for certain shots it is possible to hide signs of life out in the open.

None of your posts have addressed this fact. You are trying to disprove that things can be hidden with the system, and never will. It is true.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   
All CCD's are color blind, thats why they need the filter sets to reproduce color. The PanCam is not blind to life. It is much better at seeing and identifying any life than any normal digital camera you might have on earth.

So your entire point boils down to the fact that it is possible that NASA is hiding some raw images?

What a bloody long waste of a thread if you just wanted to make that point. Of course its possible.
Massively unlikely, but still possible. They might also be not releasing the images that show the alien windscreen wiper guys running out and cleaning the lenses on the pancam. Or the alien pit crews changing the tyres. But hey.



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
IF it is a dual mission there is a system for hiding what they are really looking for without rasing questions. They don't have to hide ALL the images, or even all of the ones where life is. Just certain filters where it stands out against the background.

The gaps between the filters hide half the info. The rest can be hidden by simply not showing the filters where it does stand out.

STARTING from the point of knowing what life is there makes it very simple to do.


Massively unlikely, but still possible.


I think it is very likely. You trust them, I don't. The so-called mistakes they have made were deception, and they are still lying about it all. That it all goes through Malin, and there is a famous spook in charge of it all makes it even more likely.


[Edited on 16-2-2004 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I was not implying that RGB filters would be better for finding life, only for producing color. Different issues.


Have you forgotten what the title of the thread is?

Have you forgotten your original post?

Please re-read both of them, and reconcile this comment with them.



The cam is color blind. As illustrated by Benny Hill things can be made to disappear where they match the surroundings.

By excluding specific filters for certain shots it is possible to hide signs of life out in the open.

None of your posts have addressed this fact. You are trying to disprove that things can be hidden with the system, and never will. It is true.


I'm not trying to disprove anything of the kind! I've pointed out all along that ALL MEANINGFUL SYSTEMS allow this to take place via misuse and misinterpretation, and the Pancam is obviously included in that set.

I've never said otherwise.

It's true, but it is utterly irrelevant, because THE OBSERVATION HAS NO MEANING. That's why I've been pointing out that it applies to all other tools, and the English language too.

If it is no different than anything else, there is no point in making the observation. You might as well be pointing out that none of the missions (not a single one!) has included a 12-pound wheel of Colby cheese as part of the payload.

That's utterly true, and you can never disprove it. It's also meaningless and irrelevant... just like your observation that it is technically POSSIBLE to mis-use the Pancam to create misleading or deceptive images if misrepresented (just like every other meaningful and versatile data-producing tool).

The possibility is self-evident, obvious, and most importantly... NON-DISTINCTIVE. It says nothing of any use about the equipment.

Precisely the same "observation" could be made of ANY useful camera system that they might have sent instead of the Pancam.

Since you can say it about anything they might have sent, it means nothing useful or distinctive when you say it about the Pancam.

None of the NASA mission payloads have ever bought me a steak dinner. It's a categorical fact, and impossible to disprove. All of the NASA missions are Barry-Kearns-steak-dinner-buying-blind.

Shall I alert the media now?



posted on Feb, 16 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   

THE OBSERVATION HAS NO MEANING.


You are missing the point.

What if it is a dual mission?

The system allows for hiding what they are looking for in the open.

[Edited on 16-2-2004 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel
IF it is a dual mission there is a system for hiding what they are really looking for without rasing questions. They don't have to hide ALL the images, or even all of the ones where life is. Just certain filters where it stands out against the background.


This statement proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't understand the power of ratio analysis via hyperspectral imaging. It becomes absurdly HARD to consistently hide ANYTHING from all possible ratios, unless you use only a trivially small fraction of the filter set for EVERY SINGLE PICTURE, and don't ever vary from that set.

The number of filter data combinations and potential ratios grows EXPLOSIVELY with only a few filters... with many posted shots existing using ELEVEN distinctive frequencies, the combinations to be "protected against" is mind-boggling, and the problem of always successfully hiding things becomes intractable.

Hyperspectral analysis allows detection of things that DON'T stand out from the background in the visible spectrum at all... they look "invisible" in the images, yet they are still subject to detection after the fact through data analysis.

If they wanted to make it easy to hide, they would have just sent up simple RGB filters, released every frame, and scrubbed the data as needed. That's a hell of a lot easier to do, and harder to detect, than it would be to rig the filters against any possible ratio analysis for more than a basic and always-consistent three filters (and only ever using three filters when 11 were included would raise plenty of eyebrows on its own).


The gaps between the filters hide half the info. The rest can be hidden by simply not showing the filters where it does stand out.


No, it can't be done that simply, and you would know that if you understood how hyperspectral data is used.

Deception is many, many orders of magnitude easier with RGB than it is with multispectral imaging, even using a filter set as small as that included on the Pancam.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

THE OBSERVATION HAS NO MEANING.


You are missing the point.

What if it is a dual mission?

The system allows for hiding what they are looking for in the open.


The only people that it would be "hidden in the open" from are those too ignorant to understand what the data actually means. The data already released so far makes the problem of successfully and consistently "hiding" life signs from all analysis techniques practically impossible.

Name an alternate system that wouldn't allow for "hiding in the open" if this were a dual mission.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   

unless you use only a trivially small fraction of the filter set for EVERY SINGLE PICTURE


Look though all the images. What is the pattern? There is none. You would not need to hide it in every picture, only the ones where life is present.

This is a conspiracy theory, and I know you don't care for them. There is a method in the system for finding life, and hiding it from everyone else.

FACT!



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Name an alternate system that wouldn't allow for "hiding in the open"


One that was designed to find life.

So they create a mission for geologists so that no one questions why certain filters are missing from certain perspectives.

They can't just send a rover to do what they want. They must use the system from a real mission. In order to hide it they dedicate it to people not looking for life.

You are starting from the wrong position to see, and that is all part of the conspiracy, if there is one.

Not everyone is fooled, but those who understand the most will be the easiest to fool.


[Edited on 17-2-2004 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

unless you use only a trivially small fraction of the filter set for EVERY SINGLE PICTURE


Look though all the images. What is the pattern? There is none. You would not need to hide it in every picture, only the ones where life is present.

This is a conspiracy theory, and I know you don't care for them. There is a method in the system for finding life, and hiding it from everyone else.

FACT!


It's not a fact until you prove it... and without understanding hyperspectral imaging analysis, you can't know whether there is a system for hiding it or not. Your naive approach of simple color image combination as a detection method is NOT what they would have to protect against.

They would have to protect against people who do multispectral analysis for a living, and they can detect incredible things with remarkably little raw filter data, so long as it is implemented as well-defined bandpass data. They would also have to protect against analysis techniques THAT HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN THOUGHT OF YET.

It's all well-and-good to imagine that if you don't see it with your naked eye when looking at the pictures (because it "disappears" into the background), it is safely hidden. It is not safely hidden from a variety of hyperspectral imaging analysis techniques.

"There is a method in the system for finding life, and hiding it from everyone else."

You said that the Rover Cam was life blind. How can it detect life if it is life blind? Your argument hinged on the fact that one of the absorption peaks for chlorophyll B wasn't covered, and alleged it had to be in order to see life.

If the filters are insufficient, how is it that "they" can detect life? Either the cam can see it, or it can't. There's no two ways about it. Which is it, once and for all: In your pretzel logic, can the Pancam be made to see life, or not?



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Your naive approach of simple color image combination as a detection method is NOT what they would have to protect against.


That was only one example with the real results of hiding in the open one form of life with one filter set.

How many other combinations of life -vs- filter sets would hide it in the open?

If you were to try to use this method to hide things, and you knew exactly what to hide, and you got to choose the filters. how hard would it be with this system?

Easy enough?



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Name an alternate system that wouldn't allow for "hiding in the open"


One that was designed to find life.


For a conspiracy theorist, you're certainly awfully trusting (or hopelessly naive) if you think that a mission ostensibly designed to find life couldn't be misused and the data misrepresented to hide life signs "in the open".

Of course a system designed to find life can be mis-used to hide life's existence.

Same player shoot again?

Actually... don't bother. I've heard more than enough. You're obviously working backwards from your conclusion, and are uninterested in learning or accepting anything that might contradict that conclusion, no matter how true it might be.

So long as you assume as a basic tenet that your argument is true, there is no need to actually prove it, after all. Just treat as true anything that supports the conclusion, and ignore the rest. Who needs the truth when you can dream up a scenario to explain anything not directly supported by the evidence?

You should quit now... we've already uncovered the alien overlord eye engineering scam. They'll probably be showing up any minute to steal our eyes entirely as punishment, since we've spilled the beans.

Maybe they'll just do it the fast way, and blind everyone with gamma ray bursts.

Have fun, I'm out.



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:39 AM
link   


Now to advance the conspiracy. Notice the hole dug by the rover. How did this happen? By accident? I believe it was done on purpose. The rover system should not have allowed this to happen in this way.

It should not have allowed the wheel to dig anywhere near this deep without lifting the leg.

Now that they have dug a trench with a white non-rock substance are they going to look at it?

Have they looked at it already, but did not send the images to NASA from Malin?



posted on Feb, 17 2004 @ 12:40 AM
link   

a mission ostensibly designed to find life couldn't be misused and the data misrepresented to hide life signs "in the open".


It would be much easier to do with a 'geology' mission.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join