Curiosity: "Thought-Experiment", Image Compilation PLUS a few Perhaps 'Disturbing' Questions

Originally posted by Arken

Thanks for this ArMaP!

Imagine what NASA/JPL they can do before the public relase and before the clearance of National Reconnaissance Office....

edit on 5-3-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)

That's why I say that if they "Photoshopped" the images we wouldn't notice a thing, it's very easy for someone like me (without real experience with Photoshop) to do something like this.

Originally posted by jeep3r
But I honestly think, there must be quite a few who are really interested (in principle) but just don't recognize anything out-of-the-ordinary. And with that bunch, we have a really hard time convincing them (if that's possible at all)

Just provide better, unambiguous photos.

And you forgot those that, instead of not recognizing anything out-of-the-ordinary recognize ordinary things, so they waste their time with those.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Arken

Thanks for this ArMaP!

Imagine what NASA/JPL they can do before the public relase and before the clearance of National Reconnaissance Office....

edit on 5-3-2013 by Arken because: (no reason given)

That's why I say that if they "Photoshopped" the images we wouldn't notice a thing, it's very easy for someone like me (without real experience with Photoshop) to do something like this.

Yes, but after all, they are humans, right? Hard to find something interesting but something could slip-out.

The perfect murder do not exist.

Originally posted by Arken
Yes, but after all, they are humans, right? Hard to find something interesting but something could slip-out.

Right, that's why something like that is should not be done without supervision.

Where I work we don't do anything that can be considered as important as "national security" and everything is checked by the person doing the work and, at least, by one more person.

The perfect murder do not exist.

It does exist, but they call it something else.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Just provide better, unambiguous photos.

LOL, yeah ... that's really the hardest part of it (probably even mission impossible?), but I'm really working hard to find that one pic with E.T. waving his hand in front of the camera!

And you forgot those that, instead of not recognizing anything out-of-the-ordinary recognize ordinary things, so they waste their time with those.

Yep, those I forgot ... indeed, but that should make the list complete, I guess!

Originally posted by Arken

Yes, but after all, they are humans, right? Hard to find something interesting but something could slip-out.
The perfect murder do not exist.

Something already slipped out!

You found some of it and we can see so much of it at the Rocknest site. Either the more or less unaltered imagery is available 'on purpose' (so that we start discussing interesting stuff) or it was a mistake, or - last option - they don't blur or stamp out everything because they assume that people like us won't ever get a listening among the 'it's just rocks' crowd.

Oh yes, there's of course also the possibility that WE are wrong, and all those things are indeed just boring rocks!! But you'll certainly agree when I say that such a scenario rather belongs to the realms of fantasy, not!?

Originally posted by Mayson

If someone is sitting there watching all the footage he's probably so tired of looking at rocks that everything just starts looking the same. I know there are "interesting" rock formations, but what may be interesting to us is probably not as interesting to a geologist.

That's a good pointer, Mayson!

And while talking about things that can easily be overseen but may still be worth investigating: I recently came across another peculiar 'rock formation' imaged on Sol 64. I didn't post it up to now, because it takes a bit of imagination to actually see what I see there and any interpretation is certainly 'debatable'.

But first, take a look for yourself:




Click here for the original NASA/JPL image.

At least to me, this too, is a very special formation and it also lies within the Rocknest area (not far away from 'The Ornament', by the way). I'm not saying it's anything else than a rock. Yet, it features an interesting variety of geometrical details that actually surprise me when thinking of it being just a 'natural rock' ...

Well, whether it's that or indeed something else, we'll probably never find out. But it's definitely one of those features I'd have chosen for Curiosity to investigate a bit more in detail (of course, only if there's no quicksand around and only after having inspected 'the boat', 'hugo', 'the ornament', etc. etc.) ...

Originally posted by Arken
Not so sure... "eraser tool" work at full power in NASA/JPL laboratories.

Really glad you did that now we can see how valid your comments are, your image on Fotoforensics website



Now you claim NASA altered it below ArMap's which we know was altered.



Can you see the difference I am sure ArMap will be able to confirm if the image is accurate representation of the area he altered!!!

If it is will you give the NASA alters pictures BS a rest

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Can you see the difference I am sure ArMap will be able to confirm if the image is accurate representation of the area he altered!!!

Yes, those are the affected areas.

reply to post by wmd_2008


But, as I always say, if done by a professional, nobody would notice it.

This is what I could do without an automated tool like the content-aware fill, just with good old copy/paste (and a little post-processing). It took me some 20 minutes.



PS: some years ago I did a test; I presented two photos and asked people if they could tell which photo had been altered and if they could say what had been altered in that photo. Nobody could say what was altered. I will look for that thread.

reply to post by ArMaP


Have you seen this way of spotting altered pictures

www.cs.albany.edu...

reply to post by wmd_2008


Yes, I remember seeing it some months ago.

As it says in the text, this is easier applied to a situation where the copied image comes from a different file, not from a different part of the same image, as in that case the compression (if any) and noise are all the same.

reply to post by ArMaP


If my interpretation or understanding is correct, the method detects the natural noise variance by applying band-pass filters to different channels and measuring the correlation of noise distribution within certain sections (local windows) of the image, and within these channels.

If this is the case, then that particular correlation would no longer be 'constant' after using editing-tools (eg. stamp, smudge, eraser etc.), which would also be true for the NASA/JPL images we get from Curiosity ... even taking into account the level of compression they applied. I'm not sure what level the authors exactly meant when referring to heavy JPEG compression causing their method to become (potentially) less reliable.

Whether I got it right or not: I certainly ask myself whether there's no way to preserve the natural noise variance (in different color channels of an image) during the process of manipulation? Any experts out there!?

P.S.: By the way, this is my 100th post ... hooray

Originally posted by jeep3r
reply to post by ArMaP

 

If my interpretation or understanding is correct ...

Error level analysis at its base level is difference / comparative process.

You can mimick what that website does to an extent by taking the image, saving a more compressed copy and then subtracting it from the original. Basically it's using the properties of JPEG compression since applications such as Adobe or spliced images handle block based compression uniquely.

the authors exactly meant when referring to heavy JPEG compression causing their method to become (potentially) less reliable.

If an image is saved multiple times over and over again or saved at very low quality, this technique does become less reliable and on the opposing side covering your image in noise will alter every compression block and make it harder to interpret. That would get you caught out in other ways though.

Whether I got it right or not: I certainly ask myself whether there's no way to preserve the natural noise variance

It's called counter-forensics. (I wouldn't call it noise variance exactly maybe but yus its valid question anyway>.

reply to post by jeep3r


Woops!

ahaha sorry jeep3r ... I thought you were referring to ELA when I wrote rambles above regarding noise!

Annnnnnnnnyway ... I'm not an expert. I'm an unimportant amateur person that lives in a card board box perhaps ... but short answer in my completely pointless opinion is that images can be faked incredibly well with time, effort, and science.

I don't believe it's easy to make a large dataset like Curiousity though that will stand the test of time. Replicating all the properties of a camera in a single image isn't so hard, or making a fire and forget youtube video or internet image ... but a well documented and large photo record with multiple cameras ... I doubt NASA would be using photoshop style tools to do this.

In my completely unqualified opinion they would be safer artificially generating the entire record of images than trying to perfect dozens and dozens of composites. If they comping they have an aweso workflow and a lot of workers.

Note: I can't be bothered editing above post ... mistakes are likely ... but it is nap time. Stupid insomnias.

Originally posted by jeep3r
If this is the case, then that particular correlation would no longer be 'constant' after using editing-tools (eg. stamp, smudge, eraser etc.), which would also be true for the NASA/JPL images we get from Curiosity ... even taking into account the level of compression they applied. I'm not sure what level the authors exactly meant when referring to heavy JPEG compression causing their method to become (potentially) less reliable.

Yes, but as you can see here, my second attempt above doesn't trigger any alarm bells on the fotoforensics.com site.

reply to post by Pinke


You're right, the camera/lens characteristics also have to be taken into account, that's why those characteristics are published by NASA (or who makes the cameras), but, in my defence, I said (say) "nobody would notice", I didn't say it would be undetectable.

reply to post by jeep3r


Nice post Jeep, forgive me for not reading the whole post, just the first page, but I would like to answer you question in regards to if I saw anything worth a closer look,

The answer is yes, 2. the first being what is called "the cauldren" To my untrained eye it does look like a "rock" but one that has been shaped and weathered by water. this on earth would be mundane, But on mars, it might be interesting to note how liquid water acted on such a "rock" and what if anything did the water leave behind? IE. fossils, shells, etc..

The second one I would be interested in taking a closer look at would be what is called "the ornament" again to my untrained eye it appears to be at least two very differant types of "rock" in very close proximity, the more abundant rock seems to be a type of rough weathered sandstone, the other seems to be several large chunks of a smoother harder stone with either some very interesting "weathering" patterns that look almost like cables, or possibly "roots" on the back of one of the smooth hard stones. many questions on what that may be..

I think that there may be several reasons that theese "curiousities" have not been (at least publicly) explored further. But my two pet theories are...

1, They have been scrutinized closely and have been found to be "artificial" or other than naturaly occuring.. So therefore we have the "conspiracy" cover up thing going on... Or.....

2. They have been scrutinized closely, and have been dertermined to be of natural origins and are so mundane under close inspection, that it was thought it would be better to just keep the original fuzzy/blurry pics available to the public in order to keep up the "intrest" IE, "Hey, that looks just like my grandads old edsel!!" Well it did from a distance, but up close I can see its just a rock..

If you wanted to keep public intrest and support in something, Would you want to expose all those "edsels" as just "rocks" or would you rather keep the interest going???

Originally posted by ArMaP

Yes, but as you can see here, my second attempt above doesn't trigger any alarm bells on the fotoforensics.com site.

I fear that you now belong to a very suspicious breed of people capable of advanced image manipulation! From now on we'll have to doublecheck every image of yours and compare with the originals from NASA/JPL ...

P.S.: Would you mind telling us how exactly you went about to achieve that result? Which tools did you use? Thanks in advance ... !