It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If one has a reasonably modern software browser like Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) in conjunction with a reasonably modern home computer with for example the Windows operating system and a decent size hard drive for storage space, one has the most basic tools necessary to download a number of science data images and view them, at least in basic. Sometimes this is all that is needed for basic examination enough to verify the reported evidence. Before this report is over, you will see how this can be effectively done and with some of the strongest and most important of all evidence. However, it is true that more frequently the science data is heavily obfuscated using many different obscuring tactics and below are just a very few examples.
One tactic that is almost always done is the distancing technique. The tampering work is done in an image at much closer resolutions than officially admitted to and then the whole scene is drawn back to a more distant view presented for public consumption making any evidence left out of the tampering distant and very tiny in scale. However this technique also requires that any otherwise harmless familiar scale geology also be the subject of tampering to prevent anything coming through to researcher's eyes that may tip them off as to the true size scale and that this distancing work has been done in the image.
Pixelation itself is also used as an obfuscation tactic in other ways than the distancing technique. For example, a scene is subjected to offset pixels where essentially one scene or pixel set is overlaid over another identical scene but ever so slightly off center. This very quickly degrades resolution as well as creating pixelation down at the most base pixel level. The net result is that the scene cannot then be zoomed in on and examined closer without quickly encountering too much pixel distortion.
Now smudge is smooth or grainy but otherwise featureless and so too much of it draws attention to itself since geological terrain is never that smooth or that featureless. The old 1970s Viking images of Mars are examples of lesser camera resolution combined with blanketing smudge applications very obvious over wide areas of terrain covering just about everything in a scene. The much later Clementine Moon imaging brings developing higher camera resolution and more object specific mapping and object recognition smudge and blur applications in preparation for the future Mars missions following Clementine.
Can any of you out there justify in your own minds why such high drama evidence as the lakes of liquid surface water, forests and giant trees, colossal tubes, and colossal civilization monuments, etc. can be simply ignored in this manner while some "could be" simple ancient microbial evidence in a Mars meteorite located here on Earth can get tons of attention from the world of science, academics and the media? Does this sound logical and reasonable to you that these communities would get excited about the one thing and not these other much higher drama things? If you were them, wouldn't you be excited about surface water and life on Mars and jump on the bandwagon to determine if there is really any merit to it or not or at least disprove it?
As you can see by such a side by side comparison, there isn't a lot of difference between them except for a bit more detail clarity in the one on the right and absolutely no real change in the evidence as confirmed in the official image on the left. This is some of the most important evidence of surface water in a liquid state on Mars and discovered very early on. So Schade, even though this strip is long and a time consuming download in the higher detail .GIF version, this particular evidence can be downloaded and viewed in your computer operating system without the need of advanced systems or graphics software for verification to make sure that what I present is exactly what is in the official science data, nothing more and nothing less.
Originally posted by fleabit
I'm still not convinced that NASA has tampered with anything. Of course, it's terribly ironic that on these very boards, we have one group that claims that NASA is tampering with photos, and another that claims that they are putting stuff in plain site in their photos (homes, bones, heck, even cars!). Which are they doing? Tampering or showing us obvious evidence?
I think neither, personally. There are obviously a slew of photos with no "evidence" of tampering, they seem on the up and up. Now, if you an organization and were trying to avoid putting pictures of things you don't want folks to know about, out in the public, why in the world would you go through all the effort of tampering with photos? Why not just NOT POST THEM AT ALL? Doesn't that make a LOT more sense? "Hey, Joe.. I have 55 photos this month. Two of them have these alien condominiums on them. I am going to go photoshop those out ok?" "Um.. how about you just NOT put them up, duh?"
Why would you risk putting up photos that could be discovered? You'd just not post them, and you certainly wouldn't take the time to edit them so you could post them. If I have 100 pictures of rocks, I don't think the public is going to care if they don't see 3 others with more rocks.
Originally posted by alienesque
frankly i feel totally let down and insulted..we pay for these missions and we are not being told the full truth..these people maybe think we would all freak out if we knew the truth..but they themselves go to work every day..shop in supermarkets..bring up children and deal with it all just fine...they live normal lives..what makes them believe..so arrogantly..that we couldnt deal with the truth as maturely and as soberly as they?