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.

 

Why did NASA blot out this anomaly?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
About the compression artifacts... I'm not so sure.

Compression artifacts are perfect squares, they line up with the x and y axis of every photo. This is unavoidable.

I have never seen nor will ever see compression artifacts that are slightly tilted at angles... it just doesn't happen like that. It really looks like land that has been partitioned in the same way we partition 'fields' here.

Still, I wouldn't base my theory for Mars life on this photo that's for sure. There has to be more conclusive mess-ups out there. Someday NASA will let a picture slip and will NEVER be able to take it back. Someone will grab it and push it all around the internet.




posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
That image was not from NASA, that image is from ESA.

Try at least to accuse the right organisation.


Yeah but it's easy enough to mix one with the other. NASA, ESA, whatever government organization is involved in space, they are all keeping their secrets.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


[Slightly off-topic) but what are your thoughts to this already circulating vid:



Was this 'doctored up'?

I'm going to retrieve some more pics that co-incide with my OP.

~Ducky~

I thought to include this as this pertains to OOPARTS (out of place....)



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
My theory is that NASA and the ESA purposely leave huge smudges and chunks of missing data in their images just to mess with the minds of the people in this forum.

I mean, it would be relatively simple to do a little cut, paste and blend work to make the image seamless, right? So that means they must be doing it on purpose to simultaneously obfuscate AND draw attention to it! Fools? I don't think so. These dudes are geniuses.


[edit on 14-3-2008 by Nohup]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


Thanks for the thread Duckster,


Have a look at this little baby:




Taken from Youtube, This guy (nyanko02) has some interesting stuff!!

nz.youtube.com...

S & F'd

H

[Mod Edit - resize image]

[edit on 14/3/2008 by Sauron]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 



My theory is that NASA and the ESA purposely leave huge smudges and chunks of missing data in their images just to mess with the minds of the people in this forum.


I quite agree with you on this one Nohup! And.. this tirade is not soley for the people of ATS.

It's aimed at those who don't care to take the initiative to reach beyond one's boundries (comfort zone) and seek to recognize what is really true.

Good point my friend.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Havalon
 


oHHHH I'm liking this one more and more.

Great pics Hav!

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Good point my friend.


Actually, I think you missed my point, but that's okay. Sometimes I'm just too damned subtle.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm sorry but that looks absolutely nothing like a house. It looks far more like a rocky slope or similar. The only thing I have seen that's vaguely interesting is the image of the sink hole. Which looks remarkably like this:





posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 


That is the result of not adjusting your subtlety level to the comprehension level of the target audience.

If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, understanding is on the brain of the (in this case) reader.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Shere Khaan
 


Your 'inserting an earthly' pic was non-productive. It wasn't conducive to the previously pic's explanation, and you didn't lend ANY credence or supplied info to prop your stance NOR backup your claims in a grammatical sense.

Providing 'earth-bound' pics doesn't lead credence.

Providing thoughts regarding and pertaining to the OP et al, I'll acknowledge.

Thankyou kindly.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I can not see the video (I hate videos, why people think videos are more important than text or static images? they are usually just a waste of time) but if what is shown is the image from Hale crater that is used as an avatar by sean1david1ryan then it was the subject of a thread by Mikesingh, in which I tried (and probably failed, given the posts from most people
) to show that this is not a photo, it's a 3D rendering made on a computer using the height data from the stereo camera aboard Mars Express and mapping the real photo over the 3D model.

Doing it stretches the original image (that has less colours than is common) and the areas where the image was too stretched appear blocky.

And those images are from ESA, NASA had nothing to do with it.
How can I trust people's observation powers when they can not even read the title of the video they post?


Mikesingh's thread is Alien City On Mars? Check This Out!


THIS.

Please look at that thread before commenting.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


Then why didn't you commented Interno's post?

Why did you ignored it, twice?

It was not an Earth photo, it was the photo that was the origin of that 3D rendering, but you chose to ignore it.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


The beauty of owning one's own computer is the ability to be able to configure/re-configure? the 'Bright' and 'Contrast' buttons.

It's NOT about what we can't see that makes the grade...but rather the ability to 'see beyond" that has many scratching their heads, as to 'what should have been there?"-

I'm very greatful to the many individuals that have taken the time and effort, to show us the abnormalities of NASA, inasmuch as the abnormalities of the worlds around us.

It reminds me of a poem that I made long ago:

"It wasn't long before we talked....and talked and talked we did
He looked deep into the legend...and did sought...went beyond the surface, and lifted the lid."


~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDuckster
I'm very greatful to the many individuals that have taken the time and effort, to show us the abnormalities of NASA


Too bad your thread isn't about one of those.

But facts have precious little space in the vast Rorschach Test that is "Mars Anomaly Research".

Please address Internos' and ArMaP's first posts.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:37 PM
link   
All the images so far referenced from ESA have looked like what they are: 3D simulations of the Mars surface, with a texture applied. The compression artifacting is in the texture, not the final image. This means that the compression artifacts already present in the texture can easily be rotated through 3D space as shown in the picture with the "slanted" artifacts.

It's also important to realise that JPEG-like compression artifacts aren't the only image artifacts that can occur. The first image that seems to have caused the fuss is simply colour-limited on top of having some compression artifacts, which gives the observed pattern. This can be for any number of reasons related to the 3D software used, histogram enhancement of the image due to low contrast prior to applying the texture.

There's a difference between having a brain and seeing past obvious misinformation, and seeing deception everywhere out of sheer paranoia.

EDIT:
I just thought I'd qualify the above by saying that I'm not a UFO-skeptic - I just believe that in this particular case there really is nothing to see.

[edit on 14-3-2008 by marinedalek]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDuckster
 


I thought that the beauty of owning a computer was the possibility of using it as an extremely useful and powerful tool. Also, the brightness and contrast buttons are part of the monitor, not the computer itself.


I am happy that you at least are grateful to those people that find the supposed anomalies, but I would be happier if you would at least admitted the possibility of being wrong. People that are too sure of themselves are usually the ones that easier deceived.

One thing that you apparently can't see is that the image is not from NASA but from ESA. In case you don't know, ESA is the European space agency and is not directly under the influence of a specific government like NASA is under the US government's influence.

Also, as pointed before, the image where the anomalies can be seen is not a real image, it is a 3D rendering using height data. Don't you think that a computer generated image is not the best source for looking for anomalies, especially when we have access to the uncompressed images that were used to create that 3D image?

Do you really want to work for yourself and get the results yourself instead of just looking at videos made by other people? Then go to this site and download version 2.2 of The Gimp, a free image manipulation program.

Then go to this page and download a plug-in to read IMG files, the file type used by NASA and ESA for the images published on the PDS Imaging Node.

After installing both you can go here, choose the "Browse" folder if you want to see a smaller JPEG version of the image or the "Data" for the original IMG files.

Choose the "0533" folder (the orbit number for that photo) and then you can choose the image you want to see.

The grayscale image that Internos posted is image "h0533_0000_nd3.img", a huge 1.5GByte file.

The colour image used to "paint" the 3D rendering was made with images "h0533_0000_bl3.img" for the blue channel, "h0533_0000_gr3.img" for the green and "h0533_0000_re3.img" for the red channel.

If you can align and resize the images you can create you own colour image, if you want.

That was what I did (I didn't create a colour image, it was too difficult for me to align the images) when I saw the previously pointed Mikesingh thread (apparently you are not enough of a Mikesingh fan to have noticed it), I went looking for explanations for that odd looking area.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


Internos...I'm truely sorry for the lateness of my reply.

You are correct in saying that this is not a Nasa photo, but rather from the 'European ones'. Apologies all around. I am sorry that I didn't acknowledge you post.

What still has me concerned, is the fact that these photos were 'doctored' as well.

The video that I have provided clearly shows evidence of this. The fact that an individual (online) has come forward, to unveil the 'phoney photoshopping doctoring speaks volumns.

~Ducky~



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Here's a highly detailed study of Hale Crater.

marsanomalyresearch.com...



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Aw jeez, ArMaP, why go to all that work to get to the actual truth of matters when all one needs to do is look at BoobTube videos produced by morons who who wouldn't know a JPG compression artifact from their elbow?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join