Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

BREAKING: Proof NASA/JPL Copy & Pasted Images at Gale Crater Curiosity Landing Site on Mars!

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by thetiler
 


You may want to come back and edit your post after reading the thread.




posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




HiRISE photos are usually 30 cm per pixel, isn't that enough?


Enough, if not manipulate.



that's why they always choose flat areas clear of large boulders.


Exact. But you must know if there are boulders large one meter if you don't want crash and loose several billion dollars, and for this you need a detailed map of the landing site till to centimeter.



PS: this talk about centimetres/metres made me think, are you from the US?

My poor english say No.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by thetiler
 





Your posting to me are truly some of the best on the net and ATS !


That forth one is a killer video showing the truth of posting duplicate imagery, I think that I've ever seen. What a great FIND!

I terrible thing about the whole thing is it seems to be a diversion from the real artifacts, structures, buildings on mars. Are maybe if they muddy the waters enough that will make all the structures go away.

I always thought that if your on to something interesting like obvious unnatural -artifacts - That you would do everything you can to magnify and bring it out to the public.

But it seems with these photos that there is more side-stepping- juking, elusiveness than the best running back in NFL history.

Great original post indeed ! THANKS !


Thank you very much for your kind words.
But the merit of this is not mine but the YouTubers that have found these anomalies and the incredible Photoshopped work made by NASA/JPL.

Before this, the majority of the "public" thought that these were the best images provided by NASA.

edit on 22-9-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
At this point a question comes spontaneous: Are WE sure that NASA has not already used Photoshop on other official images?
(hard irony hide).



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   


Before this, the majority of the "public" thought that these were the best images provided by NASA.

edit on 22-9-2012 by Arken because: (no reason given)


No, Arken, they didn't.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
No. The NASA/JPL photoshop work is fine and very well done.

If it was nobody would be able to notice a thing.


It looks like this image was made just by using one of the tools Photoshop has to make it easier to do some repetitive work, I think this one is called "content aware fill". When using it, you select an area and get that area filled with something Photoshop gets from a different area of the image. It's the same as using the clone tool, only automated, and it does a good job.

PS: the above may be wrong, as I do not usually use Photoshop.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 


Photoshop or not, I have seen some cases where images published on NASA sites were clearly manipulated. When that was pointed to them the images were replaced.


Those images were in "public relations" (non-scientific) areas, I have never seen suspicious images on NASA (or related) scientific sites or pages.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arken
Exact. But you must know if there are boulders large one meter if you don't want crash and loose several billion dollars, and for this you need a detailed map of the landing site till to centimeter.

With a resolution of 30 cm per pixel objects with 1 metre (more or less a 3x3 pixel area) will be clearly defined in those photos, so they will know if there are any 1 metre rocks there or not (unless they are camouflaged).



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
Even if there is a reasonable and innocent explanation for the copy and pasting there is no excuse for how sloppy it was done. These guys get paid good money for photoshopping the images and yet it looks like a 10 year old did it.Doesn`t anyone take pride in their work anymore?


I guess there is someone who wants us to know the truth. The people working with these pictures are not stupid. Unless the process is automated.

I also notice that no matter how close they get to the ground or what photos they take, they are always just enough out of focus on the pictures we can look at that you cannot be sure of anything you may see.
edit on 22-9-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Arken
No. The NASA/JPL photoshop work is fine and very well done.


If it was nobody would be able to notice a thing.


It looks like this image was made just by using one of the tools Photoshop has to make it easier to do some repetitive work, I think this one is called "content aware fill". When using it, you select an area and get that area filled with something Photoshop gets from a different area of the image. It's the same as using the clone tool, only automated, and it does a good job.

PS: the above may be wrong, as I do not usually use Photoshop.






If it was nobody would be able to notice a thing.


The PERFECT MURDER do not exist.


The Photoshop Tool "content aware fill" work at full power at NASA/NRO/JPL Office.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
For the benefit of people landing on this page without reading the entire thread, the YouTube videos are simply wrong when they claim these images are from Curiosity. They are not. They are clearly labeled as a CGI simulation of the landing site, put online months before the probe reached Mars. Several links have been posted to both raw and processed imagery of the landing site taken from orbit, despite the OP's claim that they are not available. Given that the claims made n the videos are false, this thread should have been moved to [HOAX].



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 




Photoshop or not, I have seen some cases where images published on NASA sites were clearly manipulated. When that was pointed to them the images were replaced.


Hmmm....So, every time you find (when you are so luky to find him) a robber in your shop, you say: HEY!! I see you!! Leave the bananas on the desk!
And the story repeat?

What kind of Agency is this? Billions of dollars for CGI, Cartoons and photoshopped images to feed the public entertainment?



I have never seen suspicious images on NASA (or related) scientific sites or pages.


I have seen many suspicious images on NASA (or related) scientific sites or pages, heavily manipulated.

Can I ask to replaced the images and see the "no" manipulated?



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I think that most of the posters have a point here. People want to see the real deal, not pretty pictures. NASA should have learned a lesson from mucking about with pictures way back. They should also stand by every picture they produce, even pictures they may contract out for these educational tools, if that is what they do. I don't think it is any more than some lazy bugger's work, but it's a bad show if these things are not supervised properly. NASA is shooting itself in the foot here.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Rather than explain, once again, how and why NASA processes the digital information from space probes the way it does, I suggest the curious reader start here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Directly relevant to this thread:

www.informationweek.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
I had a feeling this topic would turn out this way after this post:


Originally posted by Arken
reply to post by Rubicant13
 


Do your homeworks, and express your personal opinion first.

Don't call the foxes to the henhouse...


And of course it did, when someone calls in an expert and you object, clearly even the person making the objection knows how wrong they are. Why else would you not want Phage to chime in on this?


Honestly this topic is exactly why NASA does lie to us, and keep information classified. Why would they release information to the public when most of the public is just going to take said information and run with it? And when knowledgeable people step in to say "Well, no, not exactly..." the general masses just refuse to accept it, or they change what they meant so what you said doesn't apply anymore.

Its a joke. We're better off without the information because with it people are just going to make a joke of it.

TC is obviously looking for something and nothing is going to prevent him from seeing it, not facts, not data, he's going to see manipulation in anything NASA does, which seems to be pretty common on the Internet these days.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Hi there. I have read those links, but I have a question about the image that this person is using. It is definitely from a simulation, but its meant to appear as the real image.
With that being said how are these hirise.lpl.arizona.edu..., kind images are processed.

Are these images processed from Satellite orbiting Mars? Or from the algorithms within the land rover's programming and tools?

I saw the links that you gave and while they were helpful, I still wonder if there is any other information available. How does Google Earth process its imaging for that matter. I always thought that it was done by orbiting and land based Satellites.
edit on 22-9-2012 by iamusic because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-9-2012 by iamusic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by iamusic
 



Hi there. I have read those links, but I have a question about the image that this person is using.
I've never really understood how these, hirise.lpl.arizona.edu..., kind images are processed.


Most of these appear to be "raw data," ie; they are what the cameras on the orbiters send back in whatever part of the spectrum they are imaging in. Raw images taken through several filters can then be combined to create a "color" image, that is, something that approximates what the human eye can see.


Are these images processed from Satellite orbiting Mars? Or from the algorithms within the land rover's programming and tools?


The 3D images in the videos in the OP were generated using a variety of data sets. There were raw visual images, of course. Trigonometric programs were used to determine relative elevations based on shadows, etc. Measurement of the probes' speed would reveal local gravimetric variations to determine "sea level," and so forth. These were then put together into a 3D model which used randomly repeated sections of "gravel" for texture.


I saw the links that you gave and while they were helpful, I still wonder if there is any other information available. How does Google Earth process its imaging for that matter. I always thought that it was done by orbiting and land based Satellites.


Google Earth uses conventional aerial photography and land based cameras as well as commercially available satellite imagery.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Question:

How do we know that it's not the person(s) making the video who is manipulating the pics themselves in order to get attention? Just like they got here.

Peace



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by iamusic
 


I think I can answer that.


The images are taken from the MRO (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) satellite, by it's HiRise camera. A team from the University of Arizona, then analyse the images and release them to the public.

The MRO has many other scientific instruments on board, but it is primarily the HiRise team that maps the surface of Mars, through images.

Basically the image is long and rectangular because, as the satellite orbits Mars, it uses it's camera to take many pictures along its path. So the width of the image is the maximum range, of the field of view, the lens can handle, with such a high resolution shot.

It is however, a bit more complex than that, and you can read how they take these images here: hirise.lpl.arizona.edu...





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join