Wires on mars....

page: 17
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 




I say the large rock-looking object is a large tiny structure, but what do you say?

I know you weren't replying to me, but .... "a large tiny structure"?

What does that oxymoron mean?




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by senselessness

Originally posted by arianna
An interesting presentation and I understand everything you have written but most people viewing are not interested in image forensics. Most members and visitors just want to view clearer .jpg images without the compression artefacts showing all over the view.


You simply are not understanding the point.

You are taking original images (already compressed), manipulating them (claiming to make them clearer), and then claiming there are tiny structures and proof of living creatures in said manipulated images. That is like taking an image, adding an alien to it, then claiming the image is proof of aliens.


You must understand that a lot of the things you think you see in the images are compression artifacts. You THINK you are making the image "clearer" but what you really are doing is manipulating the images and completely smudging the original data. So anything you point to in the image after you manipulated it to be "clearer" is FAKE.



Originally posted by arianna
Now perhaps you will be kind enough to show everyone where the artefacts are on the right-hand image that I presented above without resampling the view.


Technically I already did!



The image above is taken from the very top right corner of your image.

I used nearest-neighbor interpolation also known as pixel resize to scale the image. That means ALL THE ORIGINAL PIXEL DATA IS PRESENT. All I did was make each pixel bigger, so you are seeing the original image just larger. So the artifacts you see are present in the original image...

You prove over and over that you don't know what you are talking about.
edit on 8-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



It would appear that you want to continue the discussion about the three-way image I posted above. I am going to ask you two questions and I would hope that you will give a straight and honest answer.

The image below is the larger version so everyone will realize that I am not being deceitful in any way.

1. Does the surface detail appear to be clearer in the right-hand image than in the left-hand image?

2. Can you see any compression artefacts in the right-hand image without using zoom or pixel resize?





posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Do you understand that what you're doing is creating a different image than the source, which adds new details that aren't in the original?

In other words, the things you're finding in your pictures aren't actually there. It's a trick of the software rendering that creates the new image. That's what senselessness is pointing out. The images you're doing your analysis on are fake images, created through your process. You're tampering with your own photos and creating new images that are wrong, through the compression and manipulations.

Senselessness couldn't have made it more clear. I would be interested in you sending him a copy of the program you're using so he can try it himself, since it's very obvious he knows much more about image editing than you (or I).



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I will accept the challenge if you provide me with a valid reference so that I can access and download the image myself then I will know if it is genuine or you are just trying to trick me. I cannot be fairer than that.



It's simple arianna you use your usual process to butcher this image if that image has some thing to be seen you will see it if it has nothing you will see nothing


Now if the image ends up looking like an image from any of your other threads which you claim shows art,cities, buildings and there is proof the image contains nothing then your delusion will have been proved.

That's why your are making EXCUSES!!!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsSeeEye
reply to post by arianna
 


Do you understand that what you're doing is creating a different image than the source, which adds new details that aren't in the original?

In other words, the things you're finding in your pictures aren't actually there. It's a trick of the software rendering that creates the new image. That's what senselessness is pointing out. The images you're doing your analysis on are fake images, created through your process. You're tampering with your own photos and creating new images that are wrong, through the compression and manipulations.

Senselessness couldn't have made it more clear. I would be interested in you sending him a copy of the program you're using so he can try it himself, since it's very obvious he knows much more about image editing than you (or I).


Oh, if only you knew.....

I agree the center and right-hand images are new versions of the left-hand image. They couldn't be anything else but the point I am raising, which no one seems to understand, is that the process has to retain the integrity of the detail whilst removing the viewable compression artefacts.

If comparison is made of the left-hand and right-hand images it can seen that the detail has been retained in the right-hand image but the artefacts are no longer visible. The integrity of the detail is of major importance and improving the quality of an image is necessary to allow for improved observations of surface objects at the published image size.

edit on 8-9-2012 by arianna because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by arianna
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I will accept the challenge if you provide me with a valid reference so that I can access and download the image myself then I will know if it is genuine or you are just trying to trick me. I cannot be fairer than that.



It's simple arianna you use your usual process to butcher this image if that image has some thing to be seen you will see it if it has nothing you will see nothing


Now if the image ends up looking like an image from any of your other threads which you claim shows art,cities, buildings and there is proof the image contains nothing then your delusion will have been proved.

That's why your are making EXCUSES!!!


Oh dear wmd_2008, you're picking again. I'm sure you take pleasure in saying what you have posted above.

I invite you to take a look at the image below if you think I'm full of excuses. I expect you'll say that the group of objects near the center of the image are just a bunch of white rocks on a ledge. If you say that you are being delusional. This very tiny complex (approx 30mm across) is active and emissions are rising the falling from what appears to be a smoke stack.

I would be interested to read your comments about what's showing in this particular image.





edit on 8-9-2012 by arianna because: code



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Simply hogwash...

If you only knew..... what you were talking about.

An image is nothing but an array of bytes that represent RGB color values. (0,0,0) to (255,255,255). There is no possible way for any software algorithm to determine the difference between a compression artifact and a feature on Mars (or any image of any place) based on RGB data alone. So whatever you are doing to your images to "remove" the compression artifacts, it is also "removing" features and details of Mars. You are manipulating the entire image into a completely artificial one.

To answer your questions:

1: NO. I think the left hand image looks 100% more clear and has more detail than the right hand image. That is because the left hand image is closer to the original pixel data from the camera. Even though it contains compression artifacts, the compressed pixels are closest to the original image, meaning it is showing more detail. The right hand image looks completely computer generated. Just because the pixels look smoother, doesn't mean it is clearer. Just because it is more pleasing to the eyes, doesn't mean it shows more detail.

2: Yes, I can clearly see compression artifacts on the right hand image without up scaling the image. I can see the same artifacts even more clearly when I do the proper scaling which retains all pixel data. That is because the image was saved as a .JPG which is a lossy compression. I can also clearly see the smoothing that was done to the pixels...

Anyway... anyone who claims there is an algorithm or program that can remove compression artifacts yet retain detail is delusional.
edit on 8-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by arianna
This very tiny complex (approx 30mm across) is active and emissions are rising the falling from what appears to be a smoke stack.


...are you being serious?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


Obviously the integrity of the detail is not important, if you're altering the images. The simple fact is, if you have to alter the images at all to see something, then what you see isn't detailed enough. Because when you alter the images at all, you change the integrity of the image, and you have loss of detail.

You can't add detail to an original image. Where would the additional detail come from?



(Life imitates CSI)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
What a pathetic thread.Almost as bad as the moon crater structure one that was knocking about a short while ago.

I'm all for truth and the possibility of some real planetary anomalies but a bit of sanity please.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by macdad1
What a pathetic thread.Almost as bad as the moon crater structure one that was knocking about a short while ago.

I'm all for truth and the possibility of some real planetary anomalies but a bit of sanity please.
If you think this is insane, check this thread out:
Latest ATS DOOM thread



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceCowboy78
There is some weird formation (natural or not who knows) but there are NO wires.... non whatsoever,
Oh and I love the "using special software" ... come on, you know you're using Photoshop....


Exactly.

This is yet more of the same people seeing what they want to see.

No doubt these are all the same people who have insisted for years that NASA has been editing photos to hide things, and yet now, when it suits these same people, they're suddenly NOT hiding things?

Which is it guys? Is NASA hiding evidence from us, or are they now letting it all through unmolested?

And, on a planet that huge, where no visible sign of any civilization has ever been witnessed, we just happen to drive past some miraculous piece of evidence alone on the ground?

Absolutely ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 


That is a beautiful example of a meteorite or volcanic rock ejecta.

They form very interesting looking features because of the different melt temps of the different parts of the rock.

Still waiting on my photo.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by arianna
 




I say the large rock-looking object is a large tiny structure, but what do you say?

I know you weren't replying to me, but .... "a large tiny structure"?

What does that oxymoron mean?
If I may. It has to to with relative size. To the tiny martians it is large, very large. To us it is tiny. hence, "large tiny". This relative size factor is key if we are to go to war with these vermin. War is an almost certainty since we have rolled over a good number of them already. They already may have launched a couter attack, but due to their size, we may not have even noticed. This is all just speculation at this point of course until we can determine how inteligent they are.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by senselessness
reply to post by arianna
 


Anyway... anyone who claims there is an algorithm or program that can remove compression artifacts yet retain detail is delusional.
edit on 8-9-2012 by senselessness because: (no reason given)



Then you should make contact with the software people at Adobe,

I'm sure they would like to hear from you about the removal of artefacts is being delusional.

edit on 9-9-2012 by arianna because: text
edit on 9-9-2012 by arianna because: text



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by senselessness

Originally posted by arianna
This very tiny complex (approx 30mm across) is active and emissions are rising the falling from what appears to be a smoke stack.


...are you being serious?


I couldn't be more serious and here is a very close view of the objects.

Anyone who says that the objects are a small group of rocks is either in a state of denial or being delusional.





posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ZetaRediculian
 


You may be right in saying the tiny people may have launched a counter attack. We don't have to look far. Just look at the situation Spirit got itself into. The explanation from NASA stated that 'soft sand' was the reason why the rover was immobilised. It's more likely that it was dampness of the terrain that caused the problem and the same could possibly happen to Opportunity or Curiosity.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


It is a fine example of what could be a meteorite or ejecta but there is more to see on this large rock than meets the eye. The analysis of your photo is still in hand but time is limited at present.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by macdad1
What a pathetic thread.Almost as bad as the moon crater structure one that was knocking about a short while ago.

I'm all for truth and the possibility of some real planetary anomalies but a bit of sanity please.

Without wanting this post removed, I am bound to say arianna's extraordinary opinions are delivered with a spine-chilling certainty that no scientist or bona fide image-analyst worth his or her sodium would support.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by arianna
 




I invite you to take a look at the image below if you think I'm full of excuses. I expect you'll say that the group of objects near the center of the image are just a bunch of white rocks on a ledge. If you say that you are being delusional. This very tiny complex (approx 30mm across) is active and emissions are rising the falling from what appears to be a smoke stack.

Is that an attempt at humor?

Please tell me you are poking fun at yourself here.

Please.


Anyone who says that the objects are a small group of rocks is either in a state of denial or being delusional.

I think your finger is pointing the wrong direction in calling one delusional about that photo.

Do you also walk along rocky bars along rivers and creeks and find millions of "tiny civilizations" on those rocks too? (and no, I'm not talking bacteria, but the smokestack producing kind you talk of.)
edit on 9/9/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
18
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join