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

reply to post by lunarcartographer


Thank you very much for your kind words, and for your clear opinion in your posts that came from a so skilled person.
Stars.

I am not an employee for NASA, I'm retired. However back in the Apollo lunar landing mission years, I did some catographic and photogrammetry contract work for NASA through my employeer, an agency which specialized in cartography and photogrammetry. I was never a NASA employee though.

The poor photo mosaic work comment was based on real past experiences of being in the position of reviewing other cartographers work back then on photo mosaics with similar mistakes - it did happen occasionally with technicians with little experience and is what I based those comments on - real experience of what happened, however these cases were usually caught in quality reviews by qualified professional cartographers with years of experience working with satellite photos.

You posted "I think they hide something that goes beyond our immagination. Something really huge."

You could very well be correct (and I hope that is the case), but since I don't have the photos I cannot make a judgement either way. I am certainly not making excuses for NASA, I thought it was clear that my position was just the opposite in this case, I am critical of what we are looking at here.

Those were good questions, I wish I had the raw data to know what is there for certain. Keep up the good posts and critical thinking, because just accepting the 'official' explanation is not always the full story.

You posted: "Frankly I have not understood why my thread is inserted in HOAX forum."
I agree, this is a real event and deserves critical review and good questions; after all this our tax dollars at work so we all do have a vested interest.

Thank you very much for this.

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by DJW001
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].

It seems you have explained the situation well once again and once again most just
ignore you, me or phage and others, apart from a select few who are willing to actually open the links.


I haven't anything to say that you have not allready said here.

Sorry mate, I must have missed your informative post/s. I will look further. It is a pity that this topic in the nub of it, and if you take just the thread title is pretty accurate, has now been put in the hoax 'bin'

The 'Explore Mars' is an educational tool, with sub menus for tutors and for students, and the Gale crater viewing should be more than good for the purpose, and it is not.

Originally posted by Arken
The problem is not how many dollars to produce this altered images.

Well, that was an answer to openyourmind1262, who looked worried about how much it cost

The real problem is WHY NASA use this kind of behaviour. UNSCIENTIFIC! Why use photoshop (or other imaging program) to show a fake rappresentation of that very important landing site and crater? WHY NASA don't show the real image of Gale Crater taken BEFORE the land?

Probably because they do not have a complete high resolution image of the area, and most people ask for high resolution (even down to a centimetre ) images, even if they do not look at them at that resolution.

Also, most people looking at that site are not really interested in the subject in a scientific way (or at least they should not), as that's not the purpose of the site, only to get people interested in it.

What are we looking at?

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Why are they duplicating parts of the images?

Probably to fill in the missing places, otherwise they would have a nice page with black strips, and people would probably say they were hiding something.

Are we sure that NASA has not already used Photoshop on other official images?

We cannot be sure of that for any photo, not just from NASA, not just digital, photo manipulation is part of photography.

Originally posted by ArMaP
We cannot be sure of that for any photo, not just from NASA, not just digital, photo manipulation is part of photography.

More so the digital event, remember the film taken by Apollo 11 of the Earth globe far out in space, had that not been taken when it was, along with the near Earth, partial satellite picture, with the same scene, there would be still be a huge army of 'no Mooners' rather than the fringe element of today.
That is why I say NASA should be impeccable with what it brings to the table.

Originally posted by smurfy
That is why I say NASA should be impeccable with what it brings to the table.

The problem is that people will cry about anything they publish. They may be publishing everything they find and people keep on telling them to publish the secret stuff.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by smurfy
That is why I say NASA should be impeccable with what it brings to the table.

The problem is that people will cry about anything they publish. They may be publishing everything they find and people keep on telling them to publish the secret stuff.

Yeah, I agree, but not all is the caveat. I was blown away with that 360° panaorama from Curiosity, the best of the best, albeit something from ground level. However, that 'Explore Mars' tool is a cheat sheet. Giovanni Schiaparelli didn't do fill ins, he put down what he thought he saw, rightly or wrongly. That is a mile away from from what is portrayed here. Maybe someone should go around NASA/JPL/UOA, singing Michael Buble's song, 'Hollywood is dead'

Originally posted by smurfy
However, that 'Explore Mars' tool is a cheat sheet. Giovanni Schiaparelli didn't do fill ins, he put down what he thought he saw, rightly or wrongly.

That's the difference between a "public relations" side and a "science" side of things: that NASA page is just for show (as most of their pages from the better known sites), while the science stuff is on different servers.

Schiapparelli was doing scientific work, that's why he didn't draw any flowers or angels around the "canali".

PS: another difference I have found, whenever I try to contact a "public relations" site I don't get an answer, but when I try to contact a scientist I get an answer almost every time. It's like the "public relations" people are there just doing their work, and they get paid regardless of the quality of their work, while the scientists are doing that work because they like it and see it as something that everybody should know about.

reply to post by zatara

This is just a 'little' example of what is going on in the world. You can rub peoples noses in it...hell,.. even invite them to NASA and let them experiance first hand how a graphics artist is altering images...and still they do not belief somebody is messing with the "tax-payer".

No need; I actually know people who create visualizations based on NASA's (and other research organisations' ) data. They do not "alter" the image in the sense you mean. You might argue that they "create" the image, but that would be misleading. Space probes send back streams of zeroes and ones across space. This data encodes all manner of data, much of which reflects things that are imperceptible to the human eye. This data must be turned into information. There are many ways of synthesizing it, but it is extremely naíve simply to think in terms of taking a snapshot with your iPhone.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by smurfy
However, that 'Explore Mars' tool is a cheat sheet. Giovanni Schiaparelli didn't do fill ins, he put down what he thought he saw, rightly or wrongly.

That's the difference between a "public relations" side and a "science" side of things: that NASA page is just for show (as most of their pages from the better known sites), while the science stuff is on different servers.

Schiapparelli was doing scientific work, that's why he didn't draw any flowers or angels around the "canali".

PS: another difference I have found, whenever I try to contact a "public relations" site I don't get an answer, but when I try to contact a scientist I get an answer almost every time. It's like the "public relations" people are there just doing their work, and they get paid regardless of the quality of their work, while the scientists are doing that work because they like it and see it as something that everybody should know about.

Exactly my point and in agreement, Schiaparelli did not elaborate on his findings, Lowell did, Barnard saw no such thing.

The title of this tread is correct. The images and the copy & paste are proved deliberately manipulate.

To Mod: [HOAX] Bin confirmed for this thread?
Let me know.

reply to post by ArMaP

Probably because they do not have a complete high resolution image of the area,

What??
NASA decide and planned to LAND its Several Billions Dollar Rovers Curiosity in that Area and, in your opinion, do not have a complete high resolution image of the Area?

This is absolutely absurd, out of logic and unscientific.

Do You really believe that The NASA Guys they are a bunch of idiots in vacation?

reply to post by Arken

The title of this tread is correct. The images and the copy & paste are proved deliberately manipulate.

The title of this thread is deliberately misleading. A better title might be: "NASA uses CGI on Mars Landing Simulator." That would get no stars or flags.

Originally posted by Arken
What??
NASA decide and planned to LAND its Several Billions Dollar Rovers Curiosity in that Area and, in your opinion, do not have a complete high resolution image of the Area?

I say that base on this link, posted on page 3 by wildespace, that shows the area that has HiRISE photos (the ones that have the highest resolution).

This is absolutely absurd, out of logic and unscientific.

If they didn't had the time to take photos of all the area, what would they do, risk landing on it or postpone the mission, waiting for more photos? An orbiting satellite is limited in it's movements, it cannot stop over an area to take more photos, it has to keep on orbiting and, with some luck, they will get another photo on the next pass that will cover a little of what they already have and a part of what they have not, hoping that the same happens in the next orbits.

Do You really believe that The NASA Guys they are a bunch of idiots in vacation?

Obviously not. Do you think they would need full coverage of that area (including an area outside the expected landing ellipse, like the area with the copy and paste job) before landing?

On the other hand, if they want to show "pretty pictures" to the masses they would avoid posting an image with missing areas.

Another example of a thread that has truth, and is hoaxed. This is making me furious.

If I could I would be starring and flagging this one.

NASA is all about photoshop and hoaxing, but pointing it out isn't.

Originally posted by Unity_99
Another example of a thread that has truth, and is hoaxed. This is making me furious.

If I could I would be starring and flagging this one.

NASA is all about photoshop and hoaxing, but pointing it out isn't.

Yes, my friend this is so sad and this let me think to avoid to post other threads or news here.

Seems ATS really have left the foxes to guard the henhouse... And Then There Were None.

Die here or fly away?

reply to post by Unity_99

Another example of a thread that has truth, and is hoaxed. This is making me furious.

If I could I would be starring and flagging this one.

NASA is all about photoshop and hoaxing, but pointing it out isn't.

Wrong. No-one is saying that the interactive landing site simulator does not use CGI. That is 100% true. Claiming that the interactive landing site simulator are actual photos from Curiosity is a deliberate misrepresentation. That is what makes the title of this thread and the videos in the OP a hoax. How would you feel if someone lied about you? If you have actual evidence that NASA is falsifying scientific data, by all means, bring it on. Just don't make things up. Remember the boy who cried wolf.

reply to post by DJW001


Actually, I believe all the photos of Curiosity are FAKE. From the first black and white crapola photo that emerged. They fake it all. Doesn't mean they didnt send the probe to mars, but it does mean they aren't going to share the real photos. And mars is only one of many black operations.

Considering that I believe black ops are mining on mars and they can jumpgate there.

And I don't see how the title is hoax in any way.

Also, what I do see is a certain group who want to suppress info for some reason being able to do so on nitpicking. Its like the law, the letter of the law, or the heart of the law.

Common sense applies. And I sure didn't read them publishing that they filled in the gaps in their photos in their Curiosity aritcles.

The gaps are things you should be questioning. What was edited out?

And this thread is not a hoax!!!!

ATS Mods and STAFF and Super Moderators: are you listening the lies e the misinterpretations of the guy DJWOO1 ? This is absolutely untrue, but the guys like this one have reached their goal! Derail the Thread and HOAX bin.

Excellent work

reply to post by Arken

ATS Mods and STAFF and Super Moderators: are you listening the lies e the misinterpretations of the guy DJWOO1 ? This is absolutely untrue, but the guys like this one have reached their goal! Derail the Thread and HOAX bin.

The title of this thread is: BREAKING: Proof NASA/JPL Copy & Pasted Images at Gale Crater Curiosity Landing Site on Mars!. Do the videos explain that they are showing what NASA itself says is an interactive CGI environment, or do they imply that NASA is falsifying the actual data from the mission?

reply to post by DJW001


NASA is all about Falsifying the data. PERIOD.