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.

 

Mars image tampering, first step to knowing something is wrong

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

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.






posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 12:42 PM
link   
this is only the begining of understanding image tampering, J.P. Skipper has many many more examples on his site: www.marsanomalyresearch.com...
i honestly believe that this is paramount to our understanding, we paid for these images! i will not spend a lot of time trying to prove things to debunkers, but intelligent criticism will be handled to the best of my ability, which admitingly isn't a lot, i am fairly new, let's just have an intelligent discussion on the topic, no hate replys.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:00 PM
link   
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?



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

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.

some great points, that is the main argument against image tampering. This is my take on it:
In the beginnging, image processing was not as good as it is now(naturally) and when some of the first satelites were sent up the images coming back were so massive in number that automatic software was relied on to cover up large amounts of anomalous evidence. The software was very effective in cooving up most of anything unusual we would see, but the problem was that since it was automatic, there were cases where the software was it's own worse enemy, because all things cannot be accounted for and it would smear or smudge a large area and miss a spot that had eveidence, thus bringing attention to that spot instead of hiding it. And of course by the time the satelite was there we had already advanced past what was possible when we launched the satelite, giving people a better chance of discovering the problems. As to new evidence coming in, i am not convinced that we can believe very much of it at all. They have had plenty of time to perfect these problems, virtually eliminating any chance we have of finding anything interesting. The key to believing image tampering is looking at the older satelite images and seeing the early mistakes before they were masters of the craft.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I was going to comment along the lines as yourself, you are 100% correct bro! Also there are reports of image tampering been done by hand as well and as you said with the vast volumes of pictures, things envitably slip through the net. Star for you.

Another angle at looking at the newer pictures is that they know very few people know much about the ins and outs of image analysis and the vast majority of the world certainly dont come on to ats, to try and find, say Interos, who has come across some strange anomolies in his time! Look at the picture of the "alien walking across mars" it more than likely is a natural formation but the person who found it spent hours upon hours analysising that picture to pick that small figure out of the martian landscape. What Im saying I suppose is that Nasa knows 1. Only a small number of people will analysise their photos to such depths 2. These people will only attract attention from a very small portion of the population and even when something does go public on a large scale its just so easy to dismiss 3. People are too caught up in their own lives to be really and truly bothered about inconclusive pictures or even entertaining the idea unless its a " here's me beside a 7 mile tower on the moon" type picture.

I kinda wandered all over the place on that post apologies.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by kcfusion]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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?


Some of them do believe that we could handle it, that's why there are so many leaks and that's why ATS has it's truth handlers, All those reasons you stated are the reasons they don't come out publicly. They don't want to lose all that freedom by breaking their secrecy oaths and non disclosure agreements.

we don't have long to wait though IMO



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 

thx for that...
you brought up some things i had missed also. sometimes it's difficult for me to stay on topic and still get a point across, an enthuisiastic achiever that's easily discouraged..


any other good examples of image tampering is very welcome, i think people will have to be convinced of that before moving on to other conclusions that are more dramatic.
e.p.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join