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

Originally posted by Pinke

... 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 ...

Now that's what I call a detailed and comprehensive (yet technically sophisticated) reply!

Thanks for that, Pinke. Just to sum it up again from my - not so technical - point of view: I also think we are being presented non-faked, unedited imagery by NASA/JPL. Though I fear that they may not be showing all they really have, but that's where conspiracy theorizing sets in and perhaps that's something for a whole new thread.

My rationale for believing that we actually see unaltered images (except for filters being applied) is simply the fact that a lot of stuff at Rocknest really looks distinctive and unusual compared to the rest of the surroundings. But then again, the resolution provided (though impressive) is just good enough to guess at what it could be, if it were something else than 'rocks' ... for me, personally, the question remains: why do we not have any MAHLI close-ups of rock-features that look so intriguing and out-of-place while, on the other hand, getting literally thousands of close-ups that actually don't show anything of interest (at least to the normal guy like me!) ...

Originally posted by SideWynder

Nice post Jeep, forgive me for not reading the whole post, just the first page
(...)

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?

Don't worry, SideWynder, you're forgiven!!

Also, thanks for actually referring to the experiment and posting some ideas on that. To me, the cauldron also looks rather natural (if it weren't for that hole, in combination(!) with other features in the Rocknest area). As for the 'Ornament', I have absolutely no idea what that could be, though it does look somewhat artifical in a way, but who knows.

As for you theories, I certainly tend to rather believe in the first one. There's just too much stuff out there, in such a small area, with so many common geometrical features ... reminds me of a junkyard, really! Of course, I'm not a geologist, but it's just so compelling and exciting. Especially if you compare that with previous NASA/JPL missions.

Your second approach is also interesting and nobody can prove you wrong, I guess. But imagine the public interest (and funding?) they would get in case they really stumble across something artifical! OK, now we could again argue with the Brookings Report that prevents them from coming out, and so on and so on etc. etc.

... isn't that a frustrating situation we're in?!?!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

 

 

Seems that if you make a comment that up to now seems to be the TRUTH it gets removed

Originally posted by ArMaP

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.

Can you post your second image in the thread

reply to post by wmd_2008


I already did, but here it is.



Edit: It was on this post.

Originally posted by jeep3r
P.S.: Would you mind telling us how exactly you went about to achieve that result? Which tools did you use? Thanks in advance ... !

Check your messages.

Originally posted by jeep3r
OK, now we could again argue with the Brookings Report that prevents them from coming out, and so on and so on etc. etc.

... isn't that a frustrating situation we're in?!?!

Does it really?

Originally posted by ArMaP
/analysis.php?id=092243f195cc082130227a6af32b7b95a4bf85cd.92221]here[/url], my second attempt above doesn't trigger any alarm bells on the fotoforensics.com site.

I was referring to this I didn't know you change the image in the post!.

Originally posted by ArMaP

Does it really?

Well, I wrote we 'could argue' ... it's 'conditional'!

But I could have made it even more 'conditional' by adding that it 'might prevent them from coming out', which would certainly be more correct, as we don't know for sure.

ArMaP, you really draw a very strict line between fact and speculation, which is good for the overall quality of posts here on ATS. So I'd say: keep up the good work!!

P.S.: And thanks again for your answer concerning the other question I had!

Originally posted by jeep3r
Thanks for that, Pinke.

No probs!

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by jeep3r
P.S.: Would you mind telling us how exactly you went about to achieve that result? Which tools did you use? Thanks in advance ... !

Check your messages.

Why the secrecy Armap? There is quite a few real obvious ways to fool these types of things and not even hard or super secret.

I suppose it is one of my frustrations sometimes ... often persons want to treat these things like secret pixie magic or some such. Like it is back to the 80s when these things were arcane arts in case the criminals caught on.

Is nothing particularly against you Armap, you're normally very nice and awfully helpful ... but this kind of stuff isn't a big secret! And persons shouldn't be afraid of sharing those things.

With signal / image processing, ultimately if persons don't understand it, it simply loses credibility as a method. Yes, persons can learn ways to hide from the techniques but ultimately they do not know if what they've done has left more evidence behind. Is better that persons understand a methods failings at the very least so they don't create false positives.

To give an idea, it is quite common in VFX to perform operations such as grain / noise matching as a final step, since all elements in the scene will require it to look similar. It also tends to screw up ELA as a sole method of finding fake imagery and these are persons who aren't even trying.

Original image from OP as thumbnail.


Me being a dork with clone stamp:


Results of ELA with clone stamp:

Fotoforensics link

Results of 'counter forensic' attacks using Median filter and also additive Gaussian noise. You can find both these things in photoshop to play with.

Figure 2
Figure 3

Essentially this is making the compression harder to quantify. Even if you're suspicious that the image has been altered, it is harder to tell where and may even look like a color alteration rather than something sinister on first glance. Median and adding noise together is quite effective and breaking up block based compressions.

Using two methods that have synergy in counter-forensics is often called a dual-path attack. Median and noise are often used together or alone to conceal things like resampling and dequantization. There can be a trade off sometimes, since the attack it self can leave behind evidence or clues. Generally speaking the stronger the attack, the more likely it is to produce another statistical anomaly.

It's why I suppose it's good to use multiple techniques when investigating ... and it makes it especially dangerous to alter high profile photography like Curiosity since multiple techniques used at the same time can result in the counter technique tripping over itself since new techniques are always forming. Is why I suggest perhaps that purely CGI based off survey data or something claiming a modified camera sensor or some such might be safer since it will at least be internally consistent.

And blah ... sorry if I sound cranky, but this sort of thing as technique for investigation is a total waste of time if persons hide it under carpets or are afraid of what persons will say about their techniques. Without helping persons understand why X or Y works its just magic and we may as well just pull rabbits out of hats whilst screaming 'this rabbit says I am right! Now back off!'

I'm not a very competitive person I guess, and nor am I mega smart. I do like learning tho. In my aweso non-existent fantasy world we all work together at this stuff, ask questions fearlessly but with humble egos and don't have to watch boyish chest bump sessions to see who is the bestest.

In reality we will be debating lens flares again next week, there will be at least a dozen 'magic image' persons on ATS this year, and I maybe give it perhaps a few weeks before I get called a name or ten haha

Disclaimer: Pinke is not seriously trying to fake images in this post. Pinke is not intending offensive in this post. Post may or may not be representative of all Pinke's knowledge. Post should not be consumed. If post contacts with eyes, rinse with cold water. Pinke is an amateur. Pinke likes leopards and hair dye.

Originally posted by Pinke
Why the secrecy Armap? There is quite a few real obvious ways to fool these types of things and not even hard or super secret.

You're right, I shouldn't keep things secret, even if that makes it harder for those that want to get closer to the truth when looking at digital photos.

Is nothing particularly against you Armap, you're normally very nice and awfully helpful ... but this kind of stuff isn't a big secret! And persons shouldn't be afraid of sharing those things.

My only problem with this is that it's something that I don't see as helpful for those trying to identify altered images, only helpful for those that want to alter images and present them as real.

But, as I hate hidden knowledge, I will post how I did it.

It was very simple: I applied a slight blur to the whole image before doing any alterations, then I copied and pasted some areas to remove the bigger rocks, trying to match the colours and, if they didn't match that well, I applied some transparency. Then I applied more blur to the edges of the pasted areas, so they would blend with the rest of the photo.

No secrets.

Originally posted by ArMaP
You're right, I shouldn't keep things secret, even if that makes it harder for those that want to get closer to the truth when looking at digital photos.

My only problem with this is that it's something that I don't see as helpful for those trying to identify altered images, only helpful for those that want to alter images and present them as real.

I wouldn't worry about it.

Its been the same in areas of hacking and cryptography. Transparency in research has allowed better, more credible, and reliable techniques. It reduces false positives, allows experts to discuss information in court, and allows manufacturers of hardware and software to build to accommodate the new areas of research.

Several camera manufacturers have now been implementing water marks within their images which are destroyed or damaged with editing, the same way software and hardware vendors change to secure against hacking.

Transparent research raises awareness etc ... no person engaging in counter forensics can be 100% they've thought of everything / haven't made a mistake that can be measured in their efforts.

It was very simple: I applied a slight blur to the whole image before doing any alterations

You probably already know all this stuff Armap, but is just helpful to persons reading.

Median filter does cause some blurring, but it is also difficult for forensics since it is non-linear and removes patterns. It also has some legitimate processing purposes in being used. Some blur techniques are linear so may even leave unnatural patterns themselves.

Anyway is doing right thing just telling persons. Yes, one or two persons might learn to hide from the method but many more would assume it is reliable when large numbers of legitimate post processing techniques would throw it off entirely by accident.

reply to post by wmd_2008


Dude! That Fotoforensics website is amazing to know about!

Hi all new here

Jst been looking around on ATS for info on the viking 1 and 2 missions to mars in the 70,s, and i'm just wondering where are they now ?

Still on mars ?

reply to post by thinkbig


Welcome on ATS, thinkbig ... although this is not MSL-related, you may want to check the Viking landing sites here and here. You'll need to download HiView to view the HiRISE images at the highest available resolution.

Some additional information on the exact location of the Viking 2 lander (incl. images) is available here. Enjoy your time here and I very much look forward to all your posts & threads.

reply to post by jeep3r


Thanks much Just digging for info at the min will be posting soon cheers again

ArMaP

The clouds we sometimes see are also different from the clouds we see on Earth, specially on the deserts that look like Mars.

There are some good pictures of clouds on Mars. Some in the phoenix images I believe too.

Mayson

I can't imagine wanting to cover up genuine artifacts on mars. Can you imagine the amount of funding and public support they'd get if they uncovered alien artifacts?

Why would they get more money to investigate a planet when it would freak out so many people who could not handle it? Like you have saved one person and killed 1000's more.(although it is not that bad, but the ramifications for 'them' ARE probably that bad with riots and suicides) As soon as you expose aliens to the scutiny of the population we get all kinds of complications. Imagine how many people are deeply religious, How many people believe in evolution, that revelation of aliens would affect probably 90% of the population in some way or another and may cause destabilisation of the populus.


wmd_2008

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

This possibly works of the JPEG compression blocks and when a section of the photo has been added, then the compression blocks of 8x8 do not align. Now, if the image was compressed after the changes, then the compression blocks would align perfectly.

I would assume that NASA have a pipeline which all photos go through. That pipeline probably accounts for this and compresses the image for public consumption as the last stage.

It is ridiculous to say the images have not been altered. For a start they are compressed fairly heavily for the web and anything else is just more altering. So, in fact you are arguing over a matter of degree NOT whether they alter them at all or not. NOTHING is acceptable when it comes to altering the original image and we (and scientists) should have access to the original in its original condition.

wmd_2008 - Are you maintaining that we have access to the original quality images? (somehow I dont think you will answer this)

====================
Actually, I think there is an artificial Intelligence program of sorts which searches for patterns within the images and adds black 'shadow' or coloured 'smudge' to areas where these patterns are found. This is why you get loss of detail(smudge) and why you get areas where it appears as if there is something behind or poking through the "shadow".

I also believe that there are holes in rocks which are like gun barrels and are a defence by the Martians against attack. These black circular 'holes' in rocks are numerous and often appear in an area which has other features indicating it is occupied by a community. Anyway, I dont really care if you believe these beliefs/opinions of mine, but they are something to consider perhaps when you see these features next time.

I also think that there are many images which are triggered by movement. I have heard it said that the rovers are programmed to snap images when they detect movement nearby (trying to catch what has moved on film) and so when an image does not seem as if it should be interesting to the scientists, I often see a blurr or black area which I believe is a movement being covered up.

They should be taking many close ups of any anomalous rock or geological formation. I realize that they are on a time frame and these aren't part of the mission, so to speak, but you never know when there is going to be a catastrophic failure. The rover is there, it's good science to investigate all of this stuff when you see it, because you may not be operational the next day. Do they even have a geologist on the team or someone interested in rocks? I wonder. lol I'm being a little harsh there, but you know. Certainly they don't have any biologists or archeologists...

Thank you for this thread, I think you really have me interested in these pics, I have seen a few of them already but they were ambiguous, these really do look like something from another planet - literally. I wonder though if they are sticking to course, so much so that they are not actually investigating anything, how would that look to say a native martian who was alive there? They would see a ghostly creature seemingly unaware of its surroundings, as though it is on a charted course not at all meant to interact with the locals. Makes me think maybe that is why ufos today don't communicate with us, maybe they are on a timeline and course. Just a thought.

It would be one thing if say there was one ambiguous picture on the whole mission, but it seems as though in a relative small space, you are finding things everywhere if you just look, as though it is a post apocalyptic society. It makes me think if our world just was burnt to ashes, you would find all kinds of random items lying around like that. I really want to entertain the thought of it being either a lost alien race, or maybe that was us. Maybe Mars was where we are from and it killed its ozone layer and the planet was to be destroyed so only a select few made it to earth. I don't know but personally I like the alien idea. Suppose that Mars was alive and kicking and they all live underground, but their "surface" is like our version of the ocean. Say if you explored the bottom of the ocean you would find random trash, and if all you knew of Earth was the ocean, you would think there was a lost civilization there, when really they are on land. Maybe its the other way around on Mars, maybe the surface of Mars is a place few of them can go without aid from a ship we would call ufos.

My question about this is why are we seeing them? Why are they not covered up? Clearly something is there, I just don't buy that it is a natural cause. Maybe it is just natural, it is another planet after all. Maybe nasa is conditioning us to realize something is or was there, maybe nasa drew them in there to inspired funding, when it really is just a desert. Wow you really got me thinking with those pictures thank you! One last scenario I promise; What if that is where the "watchers" lived, the angels that looked after the humans in the heavenly realms who bred with humans and created the nephilim? I mean I figured they'd live on the moon but who knows, maybe they were wiped out by God for tampering with His creation hmm.

qmantoo
Why would they get more money to investigate a planet when it would freak out so many people who could not handle it?

Would it really?

I think that most people today (and not in the 50s or 60s, when some studies about this were made) would simply ignore it and keep on watching their favourite TV shows.