If We Can Trus NASA Why Do They Alter Their Photos Before Releasing Them To The Public?

Originally posted by whaaa

You do realize that coming into a thread, with a sarcastic comment, no trackrecord on ATS, with a driveby post, brings up suspicion of your motives. Here's a thought, read this.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

On a side note, apologist and defenders of lieing bureaucracies also brings up a myriad of questions. The main question being WHY?
And does little to enhance your credibility.

So get snarky, we're used to it.

Used to be when you googled sites proving the moon hoax you'd be able to find a lot of them. Now they are buried in tons and tons of government debunking sites. I have to go back to my old e-mails and pull the links out from there because I can't find them buried in all the paid govt. debunking sites.

reply to post by Majorion


I didn't said that it was red because of a sand storm, I said that it looks like photos taken on Earth during a sand storm.

Something like we can see on this photo.

reply to post by ArMaP


True, when the strong winds kick up on Mars, they kick up that red dirt and fill the sky with that red dirt, just like it does here on Earth in a heavy dust storm.

In the first two images I posted, and in the Viking image, does it look like there is a huge dust storm going on to kick up red dust to make the pictures all red???

I dont see any evidnece of a dust storm going on in any of them.



Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


There is no need of a huge sandstorm to see things like that.

Some years ago (maybe seven or eight), here in Portugal we were affected by the "outskirts" of a North African sand storm, and everything looked reddish and the sky was almost like what we see on those reddish Mars photos.

reply to post by ArMaP


So you are suggesting that we are seeing exact conditions to what happens here on Earth that justifies a red saturated image to where even the rocks, dirt, sky, and white parts of the rover are all going to have that same shade of red across the board???

That is a 1 in 1 billion chance. But if we were to apply that analogy, then the same can be true for those nice pretty images showing a blue sky when there is no dust storm happening on Mars.

It works both ways.

Cheers!!!!

reply to post by RFBurns


The problem is not that the filters are narrowband filters (and yes, I have seen their characteristics), the problem is that the camera is an automatic camera, so it chooses its settings like any automatic camera, creating the best image for that band instead of creating the best overall image.

Also, the calibration data is what is used to create the radiometrically corrected images, if you use those images on ENVI I suppose you are going to get different results. (I know ENVI, but only some of its characteristics, I am limited to freeware for financial reasons ).

I will try to see if I can get some filters to make an experiment.

Just from the images I have seen with corrected mars pics makes me wonder about their 'cold, dead planet' stuff. I read "Scientists believe water existed on mars millions of years ago" showing pics of runoff gullies in dirt and sand that shifts and blows away in an atmosphere. There's water droplets on the lander- and these same scientists bent over double to disprove it was water! They finally compromised with "oh... it's a saline water of some sort'. It took them years- literally- to admit the rovers were kicking up mud. They were trying hard to say it was some chemical process of some sort that mimicked mud.

The rovers getting cleaned off? I will bet anyone $$$ That what cleaned the solar panels was a good solid RAINSTORM. I am also starting to get some betting cash up for the fact that Mars is warm, wet, and there's life all over that rock- they are hiding it as best they can with airbrushing, possibly 3d effects, all sorts of fun stuff. The evidence for this is there- cameras that can take pics so detailed and good, it amazes- then those same cameras- when faced with an actual anomaly, like that 'coin' on a rock, suddenly go fuzzy, and lousy. And this happens so much with actual items of interest.... blurriness, convenient pixel errors, no pic at all... the list is very long.

I have gone thru Hoagland's site... and while there's some interesting pics... a lot, and I mean a LOT of it is junk. Pixellated hash, over brightened and over sharpened items, small stuff that if it was left at the original size or made even 25 % larger would be see able, blown up to ridiculous proportions... and the list goes on ad exaustium- just like Nasa's indiscretions.

What is needed is a site that takes the good pictures- where things are easily seen, enhanced in a professional and sane way- and leave the interpretations up to the viewer. Also- NOT stating outright it's a 'building' 'base' ect goes a long way in letting the VIEWER decide what's up. Labelling things like that- with absolute sureity doesn't appeal to me and honestly just shows the author to be a strutting, self important peacock. "It looks like a _______" goes a long way to proving your point and showing the person on the other end it is something odd, and here's what it looks like- but you'd like their opinion, too.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by wylekat]

As we have established that NASA has and does alter most of the Mars images they release to the public - it is important now, to explore more fully those motivations and intents which drive them to perpetrate these actions.

For example, Noel Gorelick from the NASA/ASU THEMIS mission made the following statements about the sorts of rights he reserves when it come to manipulating data before releasing it to the public:


"If I feel like degrading the data before I post it, I'm certainly free to do so."
- Noel Gorelick

"The daily images web site is a service I provide and support entirely because I'm a nice guy. There is no NASA mandate or contractual requirement for me to provide these images to anyone before they're delivered to the PDS. I do so because the public is interested in what's going on with the mission, and it's good for public relations.

Accordingly, if I feel like degrading the data before I post it, I'm certainly free to do so. If I want to scribble on the images with a crayon before posting them to my web site, I'm probably free to do that too. The "government data" that the public paid for is being well cared for while it's being prepared for delivery to the PDS."
- Noel Gorelick AKA 'Bamf'

*Aren't you glad you have men like this in charge of releasing to you those images which you paid for with your tax-dollars....

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by Phage


No, you will find that in a Book titled, Dark Mission: The Secret History of NASA, at least I think that is where I read it.

Also, this website claims it offers shooped photos:
www.marsanomalyresearch.com...

I have been coming to this site just recently and have noticed one thing from the "believers". When someone disagrees with them they tend to call them people who are "sheeple", "do not live outside of the box"...etc. When it goes both ways..I have noticed...the "believers" tend to not want to accept the fact that maybe just maybe they are wrong about certain issues. I see that hardcore "believers" and "skeptics" both will not accept anything but thier own beliefs. They both seem to have been programmed to believe what they do. By the way..my favourite poster by far is Phage...he seems logical and is offers alternative answers to questions. He does not seem to be a follower like so many of these believers and skeptics I see.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by onslaught]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by RFBurns

 

The problem is not that the filters are narrowband filters (and yes, I have seen their characteristics), the problem is that the camera is an automatic camera, so it chooses its settings like any automatic camera, creating the best image for that band instead of creating the best overall image.

Also, the calibration data is what is used to create the radiometrically corrected images, if you use those images on ENVI I suppose you are going to get different results. (I know ENVI, but only some of its characteristics, I am limited to freeware for financial reasons

).

I will try to see if I can get some filters to make an experiment.

Its indeed a financial heavyweight that Envi program. I had to save for a few years to be able to get it. It is the high performance BMW of imaging programs!

Yes I did use the radiometic data within Envi, and bounced back and forth between that result and the sundial results to get the best approximate representation.

I also referenced the white balance to the correct sundial image so that the RGB balance would be as close as possible to being correct. Its not true, but the balance is correct for the narrow filters being used.

The Envi program can supplement the missing bandwidths for each filter by using something called spectral harmonic balancing. Its quite a process where the program takes the raw input data, the radiometric data, everything, and then makes a best guess spectral strech to each principle RGB filters. But I did not use that process in the image I posted. It takes the program some time to crunch out the results for each filter.

But in the other thread with all those color images I posted, some of them did use the spectral harmonic balancing feature to each filter set, resulting in some very impressive images.

Cool deal about finding some filters! Cant wait to see the results!!

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 21-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by onslaught
I have been coming to this site just recently and have noticed one thing from the "believers". When someone disagrees with them they tend to call them people who are "sheeple", "do not live outside of the box"...etc.

Really...

I haven't noticed any such comments being made on this thread, perhaps you could post some quotes taken from those posts wherein the 'believer/sheeple' insults were used - I have been unable to locate such posts.

I await your reply.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by onslaught
I have been coming to this site just recently and have noticed one thing from the "believers". When someone disagrees with them they tend to call them people who are "sheeple", "do not live outside of the box"...etc. When it goes both ways..I have noticed...the "believers" tend to not want to accept the fact that maybe just maybe they are wrong about certain issues. I see that hardcore "believers" and "skeptics" both will not accept anything but thier own beliefs. They both seem to have been programmed to believe what they do. By the way..my favourite poster by far is Phage...he seems logical and is offers alternative answers to questions. He does not seem to be a follower like so many of these believers and skeptics I see.

Rest assured, IM no follower of anything. I choose for myself.

Welcome to ATS btw. Nice new first post.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Exuberant1
As we have established that NASA has and does alter most of the Mars images they release to the public - it is important now, to explore more fully those motivations and intents which drive them to perpetrate these actions.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

William Cooper said the government wants us to believe in interplanetary travel, that they are deliberately fostering the idea that they are hiding evidence of visits by aliens to their own operatives.

The government wants people to believe that aliens are visiting us and that the government is hiding this information.

They are planning a fake alien invasion. Operation Blue Beam, Serge Monast, Google it.

President Reagan said it was what we needed to unite the world. We know the Zionists are working to make a world government tyranny and it is thoroughly Satanic, that the Bible even says the world dictator, phony Jewish Messiah antichrist, will be indwelt by Satan.

The fake alien invasion will accomplish two things:

It will allow demons to manifest themselves without disguising their ugliness and pass themselves off as "aliens."

It will unite the planet into a world government, and cause people to submit themselves willingly to demons.

It will provide an excuse to form a world military to fight an "unfriendly alien army" -- as the Bible says will happen at Armageddon to fight Jesus when he comes at the Second Coming.

You guys can believe in aliens if you want to, but I already know Jesus was here and that he's coming again, so my beliefs are in the realm of reality, proven reality. If you guys want to go with the alien stuff, you are making a huge mistake. The Bible says: What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul.

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


That is an interesting prospective. Do you think the creator of all things, which includes the vast universe, would only have one tiny tiny blue pebble to represent the pinacle of said creation, swimming all alone and so isolated amongst that vastness of...nothing????

Isnt that a bit overkill, to make such a huge box and only put one tiny blue pebble in that box that could hold a 500 ton boulder?

Ok. Doesnt mean I buy that..but ok.


Cheers!!!!

Originally posted by Phage
The photos in the video are not from NASA. They are from a guy who has taken some prints, scanned them, and then "cleaned" them up.

The images which are available online of the same photographs do not show the same evidence of "tampering" that the images from Davide.

Cute

Agreed (I do not think it's cute though).

I looked into this "issue" long time ago, and I have never, ever found any problem with ANY NASA photographs...

I have few enhancement plug-ins which cost more than software this rookie used, lol.

He looks like one of those who see spaceships in 4x4 dots matrix, but, hey, if it rocks his boat

Guys, believe me, there is NOTHING there. Some of the original photos this self proclaimed "expert" used can be found in NASA archives, like this one, for example:

NASA server

Check it for yourself. Deny ignorance

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by Salt of the Earth

 

That is an interesting prospective. Do you think the creator of all things, which includes the vast universe, would only have one tiny tiny blue pebble to represent the pinacle of said creation, swimming all alone and so isolated amongst that vastness of...nothing????

Cheers!!!!

Not nothing. A vast array of stars that declare the glory of God. God is limitless in his power, his creative power, and it is displayed for our benefit, that we might be humble and realize the kind of God who made us. The Bible says there is no excuse for anyone not to believe in God because he reveals himself in his Creation.

And so he does.

But people reject this almighty, magnificent God in favor of greys and slimy vampires and lieing demons.

They think ET is going to save them, something out of a Zionist Hollywood movie. They don't believe history that God walked this earth, controlled the weather, fed multitudes with a few loaves and fishes, raised the dead and healed the sick, and finally gave himself in our place to die for our sins that we might not be estranged from God.

They believe that matter is God, prefer to worship dirt, that somehow dirt can create itself out of nohting and then clump together to form all the life forms we see. Even if they could orgnaize themselves to form, say, a cell, where does the life force come from? Something that is dead stays dead. You can freeze and preserve it, but once the life has left it, it's gone forever.

Yet they believe in humanoids from another planet that they will save us, mortals such as we, with all our own faults, and reject God who has no fault, who is the Creator of all, who keeps the atoms from going poof, who gives us the life in our bodies -- our Creator they reject in favor of an ET.

I don't get it at all. But idols do have a way of turning around and biting and devouring people.

Originally posted by RFBurns
So you are suggesting that we are seeing exact conditions to what happens here on Earth that justifies a red saturated image to where even the rocks, dirt, sky, and white parts of the rover are all going to have that same shade of red across the board???

No, that is why I said that the most probable situation is something in between the "red sky" and the "blue sky" images.

Considering that there is very little rain on Mars I find it very likely that the atmosphere has always a somewhat high percentage of dust (when compared to what happens on Earth) and so the light is filtered through the dust like through an orange filter (have you ever thought why the RGB images we make with those Rovers' images are made with the orange filter instead of the red filter?)

Originally posted by RFBurns
Yes I did use the radiometic data within Envi, and bounced back and forth between that result and the sundial results to get the best approximate representation.

Does that mean that what you posted was not the original ENVI output?

If it does, can you post it?