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

Originally posted by ArMaP
Why do you say that this is the original? Both images are originals.

NASA says they are original.... They also alter images.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Did NASA said that this was supposed to be a skyline? Or was it someone outside NASA?

Irrelevant.

The images were altered - NASA did not provide a reason why, and when they do it is often 'less-than-hones,' or it is delivered as an excuse after their alterations have been pointed out by independent researchers.

NASA has no valid excuse not to release the full, undegraded/unaltered image data to the taxpayers.

Originally posted by ArMaP
The fact that the images do not look the same does not mean that they were altered.

Incorrect.

Data was removed from the second image; This hypothesis is corroborated and is readily apparent from even a momentary glance at the first image (which I used the term 'original' to describe).

Almost 1/3 of the image data has been removed, and is not present in the second image. In this second image; the boundary separating the missing data from the present data is clearly demarcated by a jagged line - above which, the alteration is quite obvious.

(Especially when compared to the first image I posted of the same area; where an artificial skyline is not present, as the rock surface has clearly not been removed. As such, no boundary between missing and present data is to be found in the first image - as it is in the second image; which has clearly been altered to exclude data...)

*As I stated to the dragonrider: The images are already posted and have been correctly sourced; the members can now conclude for themselves whether or not your statements are disingenuous - and to what extent.

The members can then use your behaviour and statements to aid in determining the veracity and credibility of any claims you may make in the future.


Cheers!

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by dragonridr


No, both photos were taken from the same point, as you can see on the composite image I made with the three different images with different amounts of data missing, the centre of the three images aligns perfectly, showing that they were taken from the same point.

Also, the metadata from the IMG files (available here, shows that the two photos were taken at the same time and with the same orientation of the rover and of the PanCam mast. The filenames also show that the photos were taken at the same time, the "143098049" part is the number of seconds since January 1, 2000 at 11:58:55.816 UTC, and it's common to both photos.

someone posted this comment on youtube "For the record, every single one of these people who has raved over this stupid video is utterly ignorant of even the most basic principles of photography. You arrogantly believe that you, with your utter lack of education or experience in any field which would qualify you to judge these things, somehow know more than all the REAL experts all over the world for the last 40 years. Your gullibility, arrogance, and conceit are impressive. Time for me to post a video response and for you to LEARN."
Ive just graduated from university studying in the field of computer games and CGI animation and so use software like Photoshop all the time. I dont get this guys comment because he seems to think he can easily debunk all this with his god like photography skills yet all the photographs in this video are clearly 100% tampered with. Does anyone else have experience with photoshop that they can shed light onto what this guy is talking about?

Originally posted by franspeakfree
Heres one for your, if what we have heard on the other threads is true and that is NASA does have the general publics interest at heart

Why does NASA deem it necessary to heavily censor their photographs? sems odd to me???

Take a look at this video and see for yourself.

In these pictures we see that NASA are clearly hiding something, my guess is that they are domes that have been built by the beings before us. Its a guess I have no proof just a gut feeling.

I will post some more videos I have found if anyone elses is interested. Alternatively if you have any that you think people would like to see please add to them to this thread.

The important thing here is to recognise that not everything is what it seems and just because someone tells you something it doesn't necessarily mean its the truth.

Look for yourself.

Quick couple of things the Earth is lit by the Sun if the photograph is taken at correct exposure to show the Earth, as that stars would require a longer exposure to show THEY DONT.
If any pics are posted on the net most will have had some kind of compression system applied to them if they are jpg ,gif etc this will introdduce artifacts and problems you really need to see the actual picture or negative. That video is just another attempt the make the landings look a hoax.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by wmd_2008]

Originally posted by whaaa
Do you know what NASA stands for??

N.........never
A.........a
S.........straight
A.........Answer

Or IT COULD BE

N....not
A....as
S....stupid
A....as

YOU

Originally posted by Exuberant1
NASA says they are original.... They also alter images.

I asked because you wrote "This is the original", and that may be interpreted as "this is the original, the other is an altered version", I just wanted to understand if you were implying that or not.

Originally posted by ArMaP
Did NASA said that this was supposed to be a skyline? Or was it someone outside NASA?

Irrelevant.

I don't think it's irrelevant, calling that a skyline may make people think that NASA altered the image to hide what was there, and presented it as a skyline to avoid questions. But if it was someone else that called it a skyline then it was that person that implied that NASA's intentions were to make people think of that as a skyline.

The images were altered - NASA did not provide a reason why, and when they do it is often 'less-than-hones,' or it is delivered as an excuse after their alterations have been pointed out by independent researchers.

Not necessarily, we can only say that the images were altered if we know that the images came from the Rover in a different state from what we can see now (apart from being converted from the format used to transfer them), and we do not have any way of knowing that.

NASA has no valid excuse not to release the full, undegraded/unaltered image data to the taxpayers.

No, and I think it's a big mistake from NASA to publish one type of data to the general public and to publish better data to the scientific community, publishing the same data would be the best way.

Data was removed from the second image; This hypothesis is corroborated and is readily apparent from even a momentary glance at the first image (which I used the term 'original' to describe).

Almost 1/3 of the image data has been removed, and is not present in the second image. In this second image; the boundary separating the missing data from the present data is clearly demarcated by a jagged line - above which, the alteration is quite obvious.

We can not say for sure that the image was altered because we have not seen the hypothetical original image. Yes, there is missing data, but how can we be sure that the missing data was not the result of some sensor malfunction? As I said before, yes, it would be a strange malfunction, but it's not impossible that for some reason the sensor reached its limits on that area and all the pixels had the highest possible value, that is one of the things programs like ISIS analyse (unfortunately I haven't been able yet to use ISIS with the Rover's data).

And why is the same jagged line cutting the images from the same filters and from an area to the right of this one on the previous Sol?

And if they wanted to hide something, why did they did it on just those filters (L5, L6 and L7) and published all the other images?

*As I stated to the dragonrider: The images are already posted and have been correctly sourced; the members can now conclude for themselves whether or not your statements are disingenuous - and to what extent.

Yes, like they always could, I don't think any member needs to be reminded of that.

The members can then use your behaviour and statements to aid in determining the veracity and credibility of any claims you may make in the future.

Yes, like they always could, since my first post somewhere in 2004. All of our actions, once made, cannot be "unmade", and what we wrote is here for all people to see and interpret in the way they want.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by whaaa
Do you know what NASA stands for??

N.........never
A.........a
S.........straight
A.........Answer

Or IT COULD BE

N....not
A....as
S....stupid
A....as

YOU

Ah yes, another new guy that needs to read.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...


and perhaps

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Welcome to ATS wmd_2008

Topic......IMO NASA alters their photos because they are hiding something. What it is, I have no idea. But for people to come and be
so passionate about defending NASA, [ex. calling people stupid] only adds to my suspicion.

According to the official NASA/JPL site, the images I am about to post are "raw" - This implies that they are not altered/edited or "processed" more than which is necessary to render them usable (for research, public viewing, etc).

The following images that were taken from Endurance crater and are currently hosted on the NASA/JPL website indicate that this is not the case; these images prove that NASA does alter and edit images beyond that which is required to make them viable/visible without further processing and thus accessible to all..

However, as other members and myself have shown in past posts - NASA sometimes does more than 'process' those images; they often go so far as actually remove data from the images which they have altered (which is dishonesty at best and criminality at worst).

Here is an excellent example of NASA altering their images - in this case they have elected to remove data, but neglect to mention that this was done or provide an explanation for doing it. These images are taken from NASA/JPL's own servers:

The altered image is from the Opportunity, Sol 167, panoramic cameras - both images are from inside Endurance Crater

1)This image shows a mound of rock and debris located against the crater wall.

*Note the height to which the rock stretches above this slope and mass of tumbled rock and sand (you will see that some of this slope is missing in the second image - the image data removed...)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6912ddec87f.jpg[/atsimg]
(source: marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...)(

2) Here is the second image - this image has clearly been altered.

The Camera has not even been moved and yet the top of the image is missing. In this second image, the boundary separating the missing data from the present data is clearly demarcated by a jagged line - above which, the alteration is quite obvious; data has been removed:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ddedc0d91fba.jpg[/atsimg]
(source: marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...)


*Remember what Noel Gorelick of NASA/ASU - the man in charge of releasing the Mars THEMIS images - said about altering/degrading images before he releases them to the public:

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

"...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."

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Exuberant1]

We can't trust NASA.
Tell me how you can trust any body that can classify/alter any piece of information. The moment secrecy comes knocking at the door of a governmental or any body, trust leaves the backdoor.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by mortje]

Originally posted by ArMaP

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?

The 2nd image is from Envi. It does not have the process of the "spectral harmonic strech" applied to it, but it does have the radiometric calculations applied.

The spectral harmonic strech is a lengthy process even for the Envi program. The process takes the input filter bandwidth, then using the standards color formulas for that given filter color, it creates an extended bandwidth for each color filter as if it were a filter with a wide bandwidth range. In other words, it takes that narrow filter of red, green and blue and widens their bandwidth mathematically. Its a pretty darned close representation, which the result can be compared with actual wide bandwidth filter specs.

However as I noted, in the thread where I have been posting all those color images from the raw datasets, most of those do in fact use the spectral harmonic strech process from the Envi program.

Cheers!!!!

[edit on 22-3-2009 by RFBurns]

Originally posted by ArMaP

That looks like a camera problem, a strange problem but a camera problem, because from 30 different photos of that area only four have that problem, from filters 5, 6 and 7. Also, the image from filter 5 is different from the filter 6 image, and both are different from the image from filter 7, all images have that ragged line on different positions, while the line has the shape shape but looks a little curved (while keeping its overall shape), as you can see on this composite image.

Also, the same thing happened on the previous Sol, with the same filters being affected, as you can see.

Quite strange for "camera error" when the camera has nothing to do with the filter placed in front of the lens on the filter wheel. If it were a filter problem, then that "jagged line" at the top would appear in every single image thereafter, and that "jagged line" would NOT follow the terrain accurately across the span of scenes photographed by the camera. The jagged line would be so obvious.

This jagged line on these particular frames follow the geography of the crater wall, very unusual for some random or even static filter error, or even a camera error. For an error to be so precise in following the geography of that crater wall..well thats a bit of a strech of imagination in of iteself for that to happen.

It would be a 1 in a billion chance that some error like that would crop up suddenly in a dataset from 3 specific filters when those same filters were used on previous and post datasets that do not show that jagged line that follows the geography of the wall of the crater.

And it would be 1 in a billion chance that such an error would follow precisely the curves and dips of the geography along the entire length of the upper portion of that scene, and do that across 3 filters? Surely 3 seperate filters would not suddenly develop such an error to be exactly the same. If it were a camera error, why does that same jagged line not show up in the next dataset or within different pictures contained in the same dataset?


Cheers!!!!

[edit on 22-3-2009 by RFBurns]

reply to post by Exuberant1


I see that we are saying more or less the same thing, the biggest difference is that you consider those white areas on photos the result of NASA's direct action(s), while I consider that they are probably just the result of missing data, or more accurately, bad data.

And as I have said before, I know NASA has altered images, I have seen it, as I have seen high resolution TIFF images being deleted from a server while I was downloading them, to be replaced by lower resolution JPEG versions, but that does not mean that the images you posted are the result of any alteration of the original data.

And what Noel Gorelick (that I haven't yet found as ever being a NASA employee) said is just that, what he said, he is not the responsible for the Rover's images.

Originally posted by whaaa

Topic......IMO NASA alters their photos because they are hiding something. What it is, I have no idea. But for people to come and be
so passionate about defending NASA, [ex. calling people stupid] only adds to my suspicion.

I really don't understand why NASA would go to the trouble to alter images to "hide" things, then release the altered images. It simply doesn't make sense.

If they really wanted to hide something, they wouldn't release the images AT ALL.

An analogy would be:
Let's say a thief were to break into a house. The thief wouldn't bring along a bunch of spotlights to light his way as it would increase the chances of getting caught.

Let's think about this logically before jumping on the moon hoax bandwagon. The moon landings happened, get over it.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

And what Noel Gorelick .... he is not the responsible for the Rover's images.

No one ever said he was - even context and sources purposely indicated otherwise. . . ;-)

*For more information on the subversive actions of Noel Gorelick from NASA/ASU/THEMIS with regards to the Mars THEMIS images, see the following link - which describes the incidents he was involved with:

www.marsnews.com...

reply to post by Exuberant1


I know nobody said he was responsible for the Rover's images, but why did you posted what he said in a post where the subject was the Rover's images?

And why do you keep on presenting him as someone from NASA/ASU/THEMIS, I have never seen any reference that he worked at NASA (only ASU and Google), do you have any reference of him being a NASA employee?

Originally posted by ArMaP

And why do you keep on presenting him as someone from NASA/ASU/THEMIS, I have never seen any reference that he worked at NASA (only ASU and Google), do you have any reference of him being a NASA employee?

*It's questions like these that let me know when you aren't reading the information in the links I post....

No matter.

In any case, I have been quite specific in providing both context and affiliation when commenting on this particular individual.

Nice Try!

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

And what Noel Gorelick .... he is not the responsible for the Rover's images.

No one ever said he was - even context and sources purposely indicated otherwise. . . ;-)

*For more information on the subversive actions of Noel Gorelick from NASA/ASU/THEMIS with regards to the Mars THEMIS images, see the following link - which describes the incidents he was involved with:

www.marsnews.com...

Right here, right now, this great forum as a first hand witness to all that "BAMF" incident.

I have the "backdoor slipped" IR strip downloaded on the same evening and about 5 minutes after Keith Laney downloaded that good data. I too processed that data with Envi 3.5 and follwed Noel Gorelick's instructions as well as the tutorials in Envi to process those IR strips.

I came up with the exact same results that Keith did.

I later took ASU's "official" posted IR strips, which was downloaded the next day, and got nothing but garbage out of it, using the exact same instructions and steps to process the slipped good data strips.

Something definately was "rotten" in Tempe that night.


Cheers!!!!

As Art Bell pointed out on his show while interviewing Mike Bara the night following the interview with Richard C Hoagland and Keith Laney..."I wonder who "BAMFED" the Russians?".


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65b87af58556.jpg[/atsimg]


Cheers!!!!

About the Mars jagged boundary I have no idea how it could happen. About the "painted" black sky issue at the beginning of the thread, here is a new theory: it could happen because a denoise filter was used. Scanner software usually includes this as an option.

Perfect black sky in panorama:


It's interesting that some individual frames in this panoramic assembly are denoised and some aren't.

Compare:
(noisy shadows and sky)
and
(almost perfect black sky)

reply to post by nablator


What is the point in creating a perfect black sky? Makes no sense whatsoever to insert a perfect black sky to try to improve on the lighted area of interest.

BTW, nice pick choosing the "data's head" pit image! Its in there if you look closely.

To be inserting this "perfect black sky" only raises the suspicion to further hide any reminants of the painting out done in the darkroom.

I can see why they would do that...but not to improve upon the scenery.


Cheers!!!!