Photo Tampering - Victoria Crater - Cape St. Vincent

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
We often mention suspicion of photo tampering by NASA et.al., and one of the most obvious places for that having been done on Mars, is on Cape St, Vincent. When we look at the “face wall" of Cape St. Vincent, we can still see the ancient Egyptian looking statue, and several other obvious anomalies, but still, the entire wall of this cape appears to have been tampered with.

For the most part, it has been done in a way that makes the wall look as if it has been “textured”. The “texture” is lined to make it appear somewhat natural, but in my opinion, that is what shows it to be so “unnatural”. I am no photo expert, nor am I a geologist, but to me this just does not look right.

So, I am making this OP for the purpose of bringing to light what is the reality, or lack thereof, in these Mars Rover photos.

I am going to start with a piece that I believe to be evidence of such tampering, and all are invited to add any such items and thoughts you have relative to the tampering here. I do have other pieces that I will post separately too.

This first item is something I just saw recently, while looking at this cape again. In a magnification of a high quality photo of the forward cliff, in a particular place, I saw for the first time, texturing lines above/unattached to a rock face. It seems that however this tampering is applied, in this instant, it went a little awry. The texturing is formed over the leading edge of a vertical drop, but we can see the vertical edge under the texturing as it goes downward. The vertical, edge is white, and it is obvious. And the texturing lines “above/unattached” to the vertical edge are also obvious.

It is also interesting to note that the other two capes that can also be seen in the photo, just to the backside of Cape St. Vincent, have no similar "texturing lines" covering their rock faces.. ?

So all of you can take a look it too, I will post a link to the full photo of the Cape. In addition, I will post a screenshot of a piece of the full photo to help you find the "tampering evidence" area. And, I will post a screenshot of the “evidence” that I see.

You will need to magnify the "full photo substantially" to see the "evidence. I do identify the specific photo location of the "tampering evidence" on one screenshot, and on the other, I show the actual evidence.

Full Photo: photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

And the screenshots:





edit on 23-4-2013 by rdunk because: correct screenshts
edit on 23-4-2013 by rdunk because: edit




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by rdunk
 


Good find, I guess the topic of image manipulation by NASA pops up frequently, but I also think it deserves regular attention!

My general opinion on this is that the images provided by NASA are unaltered (except for filters being applied) and that we're just getting to see a well selected portion of what arrives in the control centers. Perhaps that's naive, but I also think it's neccessary to 'question' the official stuff every once in a while ...

I hope this thread gets enough flags among all those lively discussions about the 'Sirius' documentary. Concerning your images: I didn't see the irregularities you highlighted at first glance, but perhaps I need to look closer (and at the original image). But I'll certainly get back to this thread again later on ...

Thanks again for sharing ...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


Hello jeep3r! Sometimes not seeing things in these photos is a function of display quality, and also a function of kinda knowing what to look for.

In a post on this elsewhere, one person who did "see it" made a comment that directly describes it in a little different way which might help to understand and visualize it - "it looks like a swirl of wind-swept snow flying around a barn corner as such .. and like the snow is not part of the barn ... neither is the cliff 'snow job' .. a part of the cliff either".

The "texturing" does seem to swirl out and around the nose of the cliff, but is not touching it. And as I said, one can see the white nose of the vertical cliff, through the upper texturing, as it goes down.

Yes, keep looking, and hopefully you can see it too. I will post another piece of "tampering evidence" on this Cape a little later.

edit on 23-4-2013 by rdunk because: correction



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   

You will need to magnify the "full photo substantially" to see the "evidence. I do identify the specific photo location of the "tampering evidence" on one screenshot, and on the other, I show the actual evidence.
Not really sure what you think you're seeing but the trouble is, when you "magnify" a digital image you invoke algorithms which add data which is not contained in the original image. You also might want to note this statement about the image:

This is a Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity Panoramic Camera image acquired on sol 1167 (May 7, 2007), and was constructed from a mathematical combination of 16 different blue filter (480 nm) images.
photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...

Here's a shot with an infrared (753 nm) filter. Makes the shape of the rock face a lot clearer.



Here's the image from the prior Sol taken with slightly different lighting conditions.


edit on 4/23/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Hi Phage! It has been a while since we talked! As always, thanks for the comments. Yes, i did have the information on the Photo Journal image, from their website.




Not really sure what you think you're seeing but the trouble is, when you "magnify" a digital image you invoke algorithms which add data which is not contained in the original image.


Well what I an "seeing" is a separation of the white cliff nose from the texture-looking (tampering) stuff, and one can see the cliff nose through the texturing. I don't think I have seen before pixelation separating an item if it is of one solid piece, as this would have to be, if not tampering.

And yes, there are multiple images of Cape St. Vincent, taken at different times of the day , and at differing angles of perspective. Because of that we can see some considerable differences, especially with some of the "shadowing", which also deserves some open discussion at some point.

As you say Phage, I suppose magnification can do some things to the pics, but, for me, magnification simply gives us a better view of the details. We do not have an input into the way the pics are taken, by Rover, Mars Orbiter, single or collage, so we just have to work with whatever NASA makes available.

Again thanks!!!



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Ok, the next piece of tampering evidence I am posting is in a more visible place on Cape Vincent, and it is also pretty obvious, when one actually takes the time to "see it". It is in an area above the Egyptian, and is in the "walkway" that is easy to see. There are actually two pieces of evidence here, and I will specifically point out each of these in a screenshot.

One of the pieces of evidence shows that the "tampered-texturing" extends over/out-into a part of a large opening - it has the look of an arched door-like opening. This opening is in the wall on the left of this walkway, and one can see the texturing as it extends over a part of this opening.

The other piece of evidence is texturing over a rock face - - - - and there seems to be no rock there, just the texturing. The texturing seems to have been put into the open air, maybe to hide something else?? This tampering piece is at the opposite end of the walkway. It is a piece of "dark texturing", is about the width of the walkway, and we can see the "straight-edges of it across the top, and down its right side. But it is pretty obvious that this texturing is just put there, as we can see the rocky areas below and to the rear of it.

What do you think?

For member convience, I will post again a link to the full Rover Opportunity photo, and a screenshot with decription locators.

photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov...







posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   
The "texture looking(tampering)" layer I can see too, but more so on LORC moon images where a similar texture layer "floats like fog" over another,still visible, layer.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
What are all those little circles? they are all over the images...they kind of look like those stars you see when you get up too quickly.

Victorias Secret?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by silversurfer6161
 


Glad you are able to see it silversurfer! I have looked at the moon some, but i just have to keep coming back to Mars - a planet full of stuff!



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brainpower2theMax
What are all those little circles? they are all over the images...they kind of look like those stars you see when you get up too quickly.

Victorias Secret?


I think the "little circles" probably are a result of the magnification. We can see that sometimes. Now, who knows. "Victoria's Secret" may already have a shop on Mars, but it may very well be underground!!! ('
')

If we see men making a line for the trip to Mars, then we will know V/S is already there!!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by rdunk
 


Seriously some people DON'T really see whats on an image


The red line shows the edge which can be clearly seen even on your picture .



Here is another image just to prove you are wrong!





edit on 25-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Hi wmd! Yes, every photo can have differences in what we can see, because of time of day/sun light, shooting angles of the photos, colorization, and etc.

Even with your pic, with magnification, one can still see the edge of the cliff, as it drops behind the texturing. Also, it is still pretty obvious that the "texturing" is something separate/added to the photo. One can especially see that, just by noticing how the "texturing" bulges even above the cliff-top on the back side.

Yes, the obfuscation is pretty obvious, here and numerous other places - to my eyes and opinion, of course!! ('
')
edit on 25-4-2013 by rdunk because: edit



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdunk
 

Yes, the obfuscation is pretty obvious, here and numerous other places - to my eyes and opinion, of course!


I also took a closer look and have to agree with wmd:

The cliffs look natural and the edges are rather distinct. Also, the texture seems to be consistent with some of the other rocks in that formation. There is a second feature with a similar texture, lighting etc. right above your example:


Click here for the original NASA image

As far as I'm concerned, everything seems to be OK at first (and second) glance ... would you consider this case solved or did we miss something?!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by rdunk
Hi wmd! Yes, every photo can have differences in what we can see, because of time of day/sun light, shooting angles of the photos, colorization, and etc.

Even with your pic, with magnification, one can still see the edge of the cliff, as it drops behind the texturing. Also, it is still pretty obvious that the "texturing" is something separate/added to the photo. One can especially see that, just by noticing how the "texturing" bulges even above the cliff-top on the back side.

Yes, the obfuscation is pretty obvious, here and numerous other places - to my eyes and opinion, of course!! ('
')
edit on 25-4-2013 by rdunk because: edit


You still don't see it.

Your image of the cliff edge


My image Yellow line were you think it ends red were it actually ends!!!
Red x next to the rock on top .


Here is the only colour image I could find not sharp as res was low marked in same way
yellow line were you think cliff ends red were it actually ends and red x next to rock on top!


Now do you see, look at the shape and the colour of the cliff and because the background slope is a different colour it's easier to see.
edit on 25-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeep3r

Originally posted by rdunk
 

Yes, the obfuscation is pretty obvious, here and numerous other places - to my eyes and opinion, of course!


I also took a closer look and have to agree with wmd:



Thanks the problem on here is that to many people think NASA alters pictures and hides evidence of aliens/other civilizations (Moon/Mars) they have a totally closed viewpoint so they see what they want and NOT what is actually there.

I watched the Moon landings as a young boy, my dad took me to see 2001 when it was first released I saw the Mars face when first shown on tv I would really like to see some evidence that's why I joined here.

I think out there somewhere there has to be other life 100% does it travel or has it been here or the Moon/Mars I don't think so but if I ever see a picture on here that I think is the real deal I will back that 100% and I will use my eye for pictures built on 30+ years taking,looking at and messing around with images

Then of course if I see what I think is BS I will point that out as well 100%.

On here someone like myself ie a sceptic is more likely to find the real deal because we look at the images objectively
edit on 25-4-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 

So true, preconceptions are a difficult thing and it's hard to stay objective (as a potential believer) ... I don't want to be pessimistic, but I guess we'll never get that one sharp image (from Mars or Moon etc.) that will - beyond all doubt - represent an actual artifact, unless NASA wants us to discover it.

On the other hand, I sometimes believe that even if we had a close-up of something really special, the usual nay-sayers would still gather in crowds and deny it, especially if NASA wouldn't comment on it ... but hey, that's part of the game, I guess! It's never easy to get the message out that something might just potentially be something else than a 'rock' ...


But getting back to the official NASA images: I stick to my version that they are indeed unaltered (but also that they are just a careful selection of what we're supposed to see). That's a rather 'comfortable' attitude, I know, but I'm not so much into image-editing/manipulation that I could 100% prove that NASA did in fact delete or alter parts of an image ...
_________

P.S.: Oh yes, 2001 (the movie) was way ahead of it's time (content-wise and technologically) ... sometimes I feel it was actually too much ahead of it's time!!



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Hey guys, I appreciate your comments, even though you don't see it as it do. I had already looked at all of these photos before I posted. Anomalies on this cape have been discussed for several years, so, I have photos of it galore. I suppose you guys still don't see the ancient Egyptian-looking statue??

Also, I don't remember you commenting on the obfuscation associated with the end of the "walkway" reply, that included additional tampering evidence? To me, it is even more obvious. and it doesn't make much difference how you "slice and dice" the photos, the applied "texture" still remains at the end of the walkway, just there, standing all alone, with no "rock face" behind it. Pretty obvious!

By the way, I have no preconceived notions relative to anomalies. So, in searching, I see lots and lots of rocks, way more rocks than anything else. That extensive effort (for most anomaly hunters) possibly has a little to do with recognizing an anomalous object when one see it.

Again thanks!



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdunk
Hey guys, I appreciate your comments, even though you don't see it as it do. I had already looked at all of these photos before I posted. Anomalies on this cape have been discussed for several years, so, I have photos of it galore. I suppose you guys still don't see the ancient Egyptian-looking statue??

Also, I don't remember you commenting on the obfuscation associated with the end of the "walkway" reply, that included additional tampering evidence? To me, it is even more obvious. and it doesn't make much difference how you "slice and dice" the photos, the applied "texture" still remains at the end of the walkway, just there, standing all alone, with no "rock face" behind it. Pretty obvious!

By the way, I have no preconceived notions relative to anomalies. So, in searching, I see lots and lots of rocks, way more rocks than anything else. That extensive effort (for most anomaly hunters) possibly has a little to do with recognizing an anomalous object when one see it.

Again thanks!


You are the second member to give me a
today are you denying that the cliff continues past you yellow arrow it's clear for everyone to see in the colour picture.

As for the so called Egyptian-looking statue rock you do know what size that is


Just going to make a post re your other pictures to show that you really do have a problem understanding what you see in these pictures.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by rdunk
 

Anomalies on this cape have been discussed for several years, so, I have photos of it galore. I suppose you guys still don't see the ancient Egyptian-looking statue??

Yes, I did ... it should be this:



It's been discussed for years, I know. It indeed looks interesting, but if you look at the relief in the rock to the right of it, it shows the same pattern & lighting, except that, where the alleged artifact stands, the rock seems to have broken off and looks eroded.




Also, I don't remember you commenting on the obfuscation associated with the end of the "walkway" reply, that included additional tampering evidence?

To me, it is even more obvious. and it doesn't make much difference how you "slice and dice" the photos, the applied "texture" still remains at the end of the walkway, just there, standing all alone, with no "rock face" behind it. Pretty obvious!

Below is an image of how I see it, I drew the edges in for you. I don't think there's anything unusual about it, there is no texture continuing without a rock behind it, it's just two different rock segments protruding from the cliff. And when looking at it in perspective, there's no opening either, the triangular hole you mentioned is a protrusion as well, a part of the rock lying in the shadow.






By the way, I have no preconceived notions relative to anomalies. So, in searching, I see lots and lots of rocks, way more rocks than anything else. That extensive effort (for most anomaly hunters) possibly has a little to do with recognizing an anomalous object when one see it.

I know, we (those who actually look, myself included) usually have experience in looking at things in perspective (considering lighting, shadows, terrain etc.). But the sole fact that we think they're might be something there does make us a bit biased. That's why we need the sceptics and I don't mean those who just respond with 'it's just rocks' ...

Just my opinion ...
edit on 26-4-2013 by jeep3r because: text



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jeep3r
 


A well you saved me the hassle it seems thanks jeep3r





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join