Do you accept that this NASA photo shows buildings on Mars? Video.

a reply to: grobi77

Maybe the images from the blue and green channel had a lower resolution or colour depth.

I have to look at the older thread, I have a good memory, but not that good.

Edited to add that no, the image from the red channel doesn't have a higher resolution or colour depth.

a reply to: klassless

Unless Nasa have perfomed a Fly By duplication of the Hale crater this is actually ESA footage from the European Space Agency.

The site is the Hale crater and I downloaded the images some time ago to study for myself, all that you can see here does indeed show up but you need to mix and mess with contrast and brightness setting's in an image app.

The most compelling argument against is that the images artifacts are due to digital compression error's caused by light block's of similar colour being reduced down to a single block of that colour.

Argument against fail's in my opinion because these thing's have shadow like formations associated with the block's, building like structures with clear pillared colonades and even road like formation's intersecting them, even more compelling is the fact that in the same image there are areas with no structures that look almost as if sand has blown over them, they appear in multiple image's of the crater at slightly different angles as well so in my opinion NOT compression artifact's.

www.esa.int...

You may also like these image's, they are also genuine.
www.marsruins.com...
Now from the same page, road network's, intersections and almost all bulding's cratered as if carpet bombed, crater size of most craters is of a similar magnitude while there are some very large craters as if larger destructive method's was used on more important target's.
www.marsruins.com...

Real, I believe so but there are plenty of Skeptics on this site whom will now disect it and tear into it if they feel like doing so poo-pooing it as nothing but image artifact's.


Here is another one that most Skeptic's put down to an image seam were two images are nitted together, I think they are wrong on this one but have a look for yourself and spot the washed away/eroded sections of the road as well as some interesting structure at some section's near to it.

I see a lot of anomalies on Mars that make me think there are artificial structures, remnants of ancient civilizations and even fossils but...this I just don't see. It seems to me to just be the rock formations in that area. A closer, higher resolution picture is needed. Just my opinion here...and I get excited by Mars very easily! LOL

a reply to: klassless

Some people on here NEED to learn the limits of digital imaging before posting BS from the net.

REAL HI -Res Mars Images

Instead of looking at deliberate low res cr4p from the net look at the link above.

Images at 50 down to 25 cm per pixel.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Argument against fail's in my opinion because these thing's have shadow like formations associated with the block's, building like structures with clear pillared colonades and even road like formation's intersecting them, even more compelling is the fact that in the same image there are areas with no structures that look almost as if sand has blown over them, they appear in multiple image's of the crater at slightly different angles as well so in my opinion NOT compression artifact's.

I don't think those are compression artefacts either, I think they are the result of too few shades of grey in the individual images from each channel.

You can download them here, but you need a program that can read IMG files.

Real, I believe so but there are plenty of Skeptics on this site whom will now disect it and tear into it if they feel like doing so poo-pooing it as nothing but image artifact's.

This sceptic is just going to ignore the images in that page for two reasons:
1 - they are not identified, so we cannot look at the original and are left with those images, without knowing how much "treatment" they got from the person(s) that made the page;
2 - I don't see any thing worth dissecting, as I only see natural formations.

Here is another one that most Skeptic's put down to an image seam were two images are nitted together, I think they are wrong on this one but have a look for yourself and spot the washed away/eroded sections of the road as well as some interesting structure at some section's near to it.

The "roads" are the result of joining two images together, as they are perfectly parallel to the sides of the image. The image is made from 20 vertical strips.

originally posted by: grey580
I'll just leave this here.

I have seen basalt columns like this in the PNW at a few different quarries. Pretty neat.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I also see a very tall tower in front of the highway, and the highway continues under it or behind it. Because of that fact, I don't see it being two images spliced together.

a reply to: ArMaP

Fair enough, I accept your point.

Now other's are however getting carried away directing to Higher resolution images which is all find and good unless you have a think about it.

Now in the old day's there WERE photographic artists - the so called Air Brush monkey's whom it has been claimed by several sources retouched NASA imagery from the old apollo moon mission's which even without alien/ancient ruin's or artifact's would have been an important matter since it was the cold war and the US could not afford to lose the space race due to the amount of public sentiment and moral resting upon that success and so it is very possible that there WAS a back up studio just in case thing's went very badly though of course that remain's wild speculation without any substantiation but and however it also remains a genuine possibility.

Now how does that relate to these NEWER and Hi Resolution images, well to cut it simply as you know in the old day's any image retouching had to be done by hand by a human operator.
Now it can be done in real time by a machine using sophisticated algorythm's, first artifact's would be detected then obscurred, two feed's would deliver the sanitized version for public release and the unsanitized version for actual observation by an elect group whom had clearance to study any such find's.
This too remains' wild speculation but is not only possible it is very possible indeed to process raw date in this manner.

Now your explanation based on the analogue to digital conversion you are talking about and the limited number of level's available depending on the dac method and sampling rate used hold's water as indeed did the other explanation of the image being a heightmap and not the raw data but rather a computer generated image based on the non optical date in which different height's were shown as area's that seemed to produce this level of artifact data in the HALE CRATER image's, however to my mind if this second explanation is accurate then it would be potentially feasible that it is not grey scale' limitation or indeed image artifact's based on height map data limitation but indeed genuine archaeological data showing buried structures in the sand.

Now this is of course only a thought on the matter as I have no idea what technology was used, if the data was processed in any way other than to produce the visible representation here shown as a photograph (Which if I remember correctly from another explanation by someone (was it you I can not remember as it was several threads ago)) it is actually not as it is a rendering based on the height data from surface scan's that has been used to generate this image.

As for those road like formation's I accept your explanation but they are compelling without knowing for certain are'nt they.

Also I have to say I do not accept the explanation AWAY by nasa of the face on mars feature, it look's to me like there was an attempt to destroy the evidence and it failed, the face is damaged very badly and one side has slid down but it remains a face with far too perfect proportion's to simply be a trick of light and shadow, also the publicly released data as you also know was processed THREE time's which actually took data out of the image before it's public release.

You have already seen the reconstruction of the face from that data and the site which showed the pre-edited image which before being Sanitized for public release certainly looked a lot more like the voyager face from the 1970's and there is a very compelling argument that SOMEONE wanted it gone badly enough to have potentially taken over the mars observor mission and used it to bomb the structure just like they did another stucture on the moon.
www.aliens-everything-you-want-to-know.com...

Yes there has been a concerted effort to debunk this but it simply does not hold water.
www.ufosightingsdaily.com...

Now here is an entertaining if not enlightening short youtuber compilation of odd images.


Now to me IF there is a cover up then likely the vast majority of people at NASA and in the US government have no idea, then again there may not be a cover up just a bunch of conspiracy theorist that like this site so much because of discussion's about this very subject.

And of course this is Rock's but what was it before that, is it actually what I believe it is, a human being or something so similar that old Darwin would have to throw his monkey theory out of the window due to this likely being older than primate's by a hell of a way's.
Is it like I believe a molecularly decayed hard soft composite space suited astronaut from some lost civilization whom lay there in his last moment's with his right hand on his chest as if he was gasping for air (perhaps a casualty in a forgotten war of anihilation).
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
From this image,
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Which as I have suggested in the past has many other anomoly's that resemble wreckage and an oblique skid mark/crash scar heighlighted here.
files.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course everyone has there own interpretation.

a reply to: klassless
These images below show the original area in question in the Op video and the potential region of discussion...

first arrow on far left over original image of area seen in image 1
second arrow on right over original image of area seen in image 2

enlarged original image


image 1


image 2

a reply to: klassless
To add klassless, 1 cannot confirm what is being observed in the video, it is however interesting...
The images I posted are from this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Which can link you to an older Mars related thread

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ArMaP
Now it can be done in real time by a machine using sophisticated algorithm's

More nonsense spouted by the NASA lies camp. What algorithm would that be? The "remove alien infrastructure" one or maybe they can use the "hide buildings" one. I like that one.

No such "algorithms" exist . As someone who paints out backgrounds on a daily basis as part of compositing jobs (and I'm damn good at it ) , it's all done painstakingly and by hand . If it could be done in ANY way automatically , it would have been Included in Nuke, Photoshop, Flame etc....

Yes wire removal can be semi automatic but that's about it.

Utter hogwash.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ArMaP
Now it can be done in real time by a machine using sophisticated algorithm's

More nonsense spouted by the NASA lies camp. What algorithm would that be? The "remove alien infrastructure" one or maybe they can use the "hide buildings" one. I like that one.

No such "algorithms" exist . As someone who paints out backgrounds on a daily basis as part of compositing jobs (and I'm damn good at it ) , it's all done painstakingly and by hand . If it could be done in ANY way automatically , it would have been Included in Nuke, Photoshop, Flame etc....

Yes wire removal can be semi automatic but that's about it.

Utter hogwash.

neural networks.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Now it can be done in real time by a machine using sophisticated algorythm's, first artifact's would be detected then obscurred, two feed's would deliver the sanitized version for public release and the unsanitized version for actual observation by an elect group whom had clearance to study any such find's.
This too remains' wild speculation but is not only possible it is very possible indeed to process raw date in this manner.

Although it's theoretically possible I doubt that anyone has created any algorithm that works as needed, for several reasons.
It's true that pattern recognition has evolved a lot in the last years, but in this case they would need something much more complicated than that, as they would need something that would look for non-specified things, as a sign of a past civilization (for example) can be something as simple as a brick or a ball, while a sign of life can be almost any thing, like a rock that appears in one spot in one photo and in a different spot in a different photo, or something that slightly changes colour.
As someone that made his first image-related algorithm some 30 years ago (OK, it was only a circle-drawing algorithm, to replace the one that was part of the ZX Spectrum system) I don't think that's possible, not because of the hardware needed but because humans cannot (yet) really understand how our brain works so they can model those processes in machine code, and, in that case, the algorithm would need to work in the same way to "see" what humans could see and (another problem) replace it with something that would not look out of place in the scene.

Now your explanation based on the analogue to digital conversion you are talking about and the limited number of level's available depending on the dac method and sampling rate used hold's water as indeed did the other explanation of the image being a heightmap and not the raw data but rather a computer generated image based on the non optical date in which different height's were shown as area's that seemed to produce this level of artifact data in the HALE CRATER image's, however to my mind if this second explanation is accurate then it would be potentially feasible that it is not grey scale' limitation or indeed image artifact's based on height map data limitation but indeed genuine archaeological data showing buried structures in the sand.

I see there's some confusion with what I said, as I was not saying that it was a limitation of the DAC, and neither was I saying that the image was used as a height map.

The low colour depth in that photo is easy to get when you take a photo with dark and bright areas (for example), as in those situations the DAC has to work with both extremes of too much and too little light levels and so can only use a limited amount of levels for those areas. The same thing happens when you take a photo of a brightly lit scene with something in a dark corner, you will never get as many levels in that area as you get on the rest of the image.

As for the image being a height map, it was not, it was used as the texture, the height data came from the stereo sensors (the "S" in HRSC), as the HRSC has two "twin" sensors, one pointing ahead and the other pointing behind, so while the satellite moves over the ground they get images from (from example) a south-north direction and then, some time latter (and they know exactly how long it takes, as they know exactly the altitude and speed of the satellite) another image from a north-south direction, enough to create a 3D scene. Over that scene they then "paint" either the colour image made from the red, green and blue sensors or the "nadir" image, an image taken from a sensor that has a higher resolution (I think it's twice the resolution of the colour and stereo sensors) but a "clear" filter pointing straight down, giving a true greyscale image of the ground.

As for those road like formation's I accept your explanation but they are compelling without knowing for certain are'nt they.

I will download the strips for that image and see if they match the "road".

Also I have to say I do not accept the explanation AWAY by nasa of the face on mars feature, it look's to me like there was an attempt to destroy the evidence and it failed, the face is damaged very badly and one side has slid down but it remains a face with far too perfect proportion's to simply be a trick of light and shadow, also the publicly released data as you also know was processed THREE time's which actually took data out of the image before it's public release.

I don't think there was any evidence to destroy in the first place.

You have already seen the reconstruction of the face from that data and the site which showed the pre-edited image which before being Sanitized for public release certainly looked a lot more like the voyager face from the 1970's and there is a very compelling argument that SOMEONE wanted it gone badly enough to have potentially taken over the mars observor mission and used it to bomb the structure just like they did another stucture on the moon.
www.aliens-everything-you-want-to-know.com...

How can we, in that case, know for sure that what is presented as "before sanitized" is the original image?

Now to me IF there is a cover up then likely the vast majority of people at NASA and in the US government have no idea, then again there may not be a cover up just a bunch of conspiracy theorist that like this site so much because of discussion's about this very subject.

I think it's more likely that people are trying to find a conspiracy where there's none than the opposite.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't smaller conspiracies related to less famous topics.

And of course this is Rock's but what was it before that, is it actually what I believe it is, a human being or something so similar that old Darwin would have to throw his monkey theory out of the window due to this likely being older than primate's by a hell of a way's.
Is it like I believe a molecularly decayed hard soft composite space suited astronaut from some lost civilization whom lay there in his last moment's with his right hand on his chest as if he was gasping for air (perhaps a casualty in a forgotten war of anihilation).

I think Solar wind and cosmic radiation would destroy any thing faster than it would turn to rock by some unknown method.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ArMaP
Now it can be done in real time by a machine using sophisticated algorithm's

More nonsense spouted by the NASA lies camp. What algorithm would that be? The "remove alien infrastructure" one or maybe they can use the "hide buildings" one. I like that one.

No such "algorithms" exist . As someone who paints out backgrounds on a daily basis as part of compositing jobs (and I'm damn good at it ) , it's all done painstakingly and by hand . If it could be done in ANY way automatically , it would have been Included in Nuke, Photoshop, Flame etc....

Yes wire removal can be semi automatic but that's about it.

Utter hogwash.

Obviously you lack the inforamtion (I shall not say intelligence as I fell charitable) to understand that this is not only possible but has existed as a technology since the cold war.

At it's simplest to try to explain to someone that either does not want to know or otherwise lack's the understanding to hash it out for themselves I shall endeavour to enlighten you.

Back in the cold war day's even the best human operator would miss thing's in both aeriel and satellite imagery so both NATO and the USSR set about trying to automate the process in order to run both the manual analysis and also a mainframe image analysis (now remember those old mainframe's that used to take up whole room's were only about as powerful as your average modern desktop or indeed far less powerful with your smart phone being many magnitudes more complex and powerful than those old machines back in the 70's and early 80's).

So the program would observe an image and analyse for a set of criteria based structures within the image, circle's, right angles, line's and other artificial or out of place structures, these would then be hilighted and the brought to the attention of a human operator whom would verify them, of course over time the program's got more and more sophisticated but back in the 80's it leaked out that the US military were using such a program which kept identifying unknown ancient archeaological site's, of course this information was not made public and could not be as if they had admitted that they had this type of program the russian's would have had a confirmation that the america's had what they themselves probably also had but according to the leak this program had a very high level of accuracy, now of course it was also leaked that it also had been used on images from the moon and from mars which may have been nothing more than cointel as according to THIS leak the program identified a very large number of probably ancient site's on these two body's.

Now I would in your own interest's advise you to get your head out of the sand and NOT CALL PEOPLE liar's, not only is it not nice or indeed well mannered but it is incredibly offencive to cast such aspersion's, as WE say in the the uk you really should not cast stone's if you live in a glass house now should you.


Now a quick perusal of the net show's up several work's, though very dated and more scholarly in nature a Civilian work published in 1977 called Computer methods' in image analysis may also be enlightening to you but you will have to find a library that still stock's this dated title.
Now bare also in mind that this was probably dated on work and research in the Civlian sphere from the mid 1960's up to the early 1970's but to a modern computer scientist though it may be a museum piece of a text it is also still highly relevant in it's study for this field.
www.lilplay.com... is&sf=eone&utm_source=biglibrary.co&utm_medium=referral&placement=http%3A%2F%2Fbiglibrary.co%2Fdownload%2Fcomputer-methods-in-image-analysis.pdf&adser ver=0.19.6&m=books&sfv=11&_sign=1ea187e7c9de1e1cca7146d15ee0fcab&_signt=1472065497
Sorry that Url is a long one and you will have to use the quote function (you don't have to requote it but it will produce the entire line of the Url so that you can google it when hilighted) so see it.

a reply to: ArMaP

Armap it has been around since the 70's.

Now you know yourself from Camouflage training and observation that the basic rule is to look for break's in the natural pattern's.
At it's basic that is all this type of program does, it look's for area's with a high level of potential artificial structuring by using a mathematical analysis of an image, now I never wrote the program and would have to go to structured programming or simple flow charting and then construct my program around the area's and criteria I thought to be most suitable, the guy's that made these though knew what they were doing and given that it was developed as early as the 1970's but was definitely an available technology by the early 1980's we can really only guess at how developed it is today with modern computing speed's and technology's as well as more accurate optical system's such as far higher resolution CCD's and even non optical imaging technology's.

The decay of artifacts on the moon would actually be quite thorough, the solar radiation is an impacting rain of particles that will over time cause molecular disassociation, heat and cold will also cause ductile decay over time of most artifact's and then there is the impact ejecta from strike's on the lunar surface that without an atmosphere mean's that these small and large particles will fall back with ballistic velocity.

In short you are correct the lunar surface is surprisingly hostile when considered over a medium to long time period, yes it does not have normal weather based erosion but there is erosion on the lunar surface as a result of these and also moon quake phenomena, even armstrong's footprint's may be now eroded but they would still be visible barring something pretty severe as the individual grains of lunar dust are probably held together by electrostatic attraction in the absence of an atmosphere or other intermediary material around them.

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: ArMaP
Now it can be done in real time by a machine using sophisticated algorithm's

More nonsense spouted by the NASA lies camp. What algorithm would that be? The "remove alien infrastructure" one or maybe they can use the "hide buildings" one. I like that one.

No such "algorithms" exist . As someone who paints out backgrounds on a daily basis as part of compositing jobs (and I'm damn good at it ) , it's all done painstakingly and by hand . If it could be done in ANY way automatically , it would have been Included in Nuke, Photoshop, Flame etc....

Yes wire removal can be semi automatic but that's about it.

Utter hogwash.

Obviously you lack the inforamtion (I shall not say intelligence as I fell charitable) to understand that this is not only possible but has existed as a technology since the cold war.

At it's simplest to try to explain to someone that either does not want to know or otherwise lack's the understanding to hash it out for themselves I shall endeavour to enlighten you.

Back in the cold war day's even the best human operator would miss thing's in both aeriel and satellite imagery so both NATO and the USSR set about trying to automate the process in order to run both the manual analysis and also a mainframe image analysis (now remember those old mainframe's that used to take up whole room's were only about as powerful as your average modern desktop or indeed far less powerful with your smart phone being many magnitudes more complex and powerful than those old machines back in the 70's and early 80's).

So the program would observe an image and analyse for a set of criteria based structures within the image, circle's, right angles, line's and other artificial or out of place structures, these would then be hilighted and the brought to the attention of a human operator whom would verify them, of course over time the program's got more and more sophisticated but back in the 80's it leaked out that the US military were using such a program which kept identifying unknown ancient archeaological site's, of course this information was not made public and could not be as if they had admitted that they had this type of program the russian's would have had a confirmation that the america's had what they themselves probably also had but according to the leak this program had a very high level of accuracy, now of course it was also leaked that it also had been used on images from the moon and from mars which may have been nothing more than cointel as according to THIS leak the program identified a very large number of probably ancient site's on these two body's.

Now I would in your own interest's advise you to get your head out of the sand and NOT CALL PEOPLE liar's, not only is it not nice or indeed well mannered but it is incredibly offencive to cast such aspersion's, as WE say in the the uk you really should not cast stone's if you live in a glass house now should you.


Now a quick perusal of the net show's up several work's, though very dated and more scholarly in nature a Civilian work published in 1977 called Computer methods' in image analysis may also be enlightening to you but you will have to find a library that still stock's this dated title.
Now bare also in mind that this was probably dated on work and research in the Civlian sphere from the mid 1960's up to the early 1970's but to a modern computer scientist though it may be a museum piece of a text it is also still highly relevant in it's study for this field.
www.lilplay.com... is&sf=eone&utm_source=biglibrary.co&utm_medium=referral&placement=http%3A%2F%2Fbiglibrary.co%2Fdownload%2Fcomputer-methods-in-image-analysis.pdf&adser ver=0.19.6&m=books&sfv=11&_sign=1ea187e7c9de1e1cca7146d15ee0fcab&_signt=1472065497
Sorry that Url is a long one and you will have to use the quote function (you don't have to requote it but it will produce the entire line of the Url so that you can google it when hilighted) so see it.

Oh dear...where to start , where to start?

First off,don't ever tell me how to act And what to say. You came across very badly.

Second, show me where I called him a liar. I said its nonsense and hogwash. Please show me wherei said liar.

Third...you think that detecting patterns is the same as automatically painting over them perfectly? If you notice my reply I talked about the painting over seamlessly. I know about pattern recognizing tech.

Fourth, if it was that easy, I ASSURE you the big software I mentioned would have it as a feature. The tools that already include are astounding. So, you can be sure this would make them hundreds of MILLIONS if they could offer it.

Fifth, I've been doing my job for 20 years and have seen the meteoric rise of the GFX industry. I still don't believe it's possible and certainly not 20-30-40+ years ago.

I can't look at your link now but I will later. I'm not excreting it to prove my above points wrong.

So, I'll say it again.

The claim that "they" can in real Time look for anomalies and seamlessly paint them out is utter nonsense.


By the way, I LOVE that you can imply I lack intelligence but I can't say something is nonsense. Hypocritical much?

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Now you know yourself from Camouflage training and observation that the basic rule is to look for break's in the natural pattern's.

I never had any camouflage training, but I do know that that's the way to find thins that are "out of place".

What I was trying to say was that, in a case like this, the algorithm needs to find things that are out of context, not just things like straight lines on a an area full or curves, and that's much more difficult. Also, while looking for camouflaged objects means looking for known objects, in this case it would be looking for any object, or even for objects placed in positions that are not as expected, like two flat rocks together arranged in what looks a little like roof. Besides that, the need for changing the image is not something easy to do, at least in a way that can fool people, and don't forget that, besides people like you and me, those photos are seen, analysed and used in the work of thousands of scientists around the world.

a reply to: ArMaP

Right sorry Armap, my appology's, when a soldier is trained to spot a camouflaged object be it a person, vehicle, mine such as IED or structure they are trained to spot thing's that are out of place.

For example a bush that does not look right or a strange shape in the grass, obviously it all depend's on how well the object is camouflaged and since the whole object is to defeat the observor not an easy task even for a trained operative.

Breaks in the natural flow of the landscape are often used though that obviously works best in observation of open area's but the whole point is to hide what is in plain sight.

A great example is the Roll's Royce factory during WW2, this vital facility was hidden in plain sight from German bombers though a mixture of method's including using turf over and planting tree's on it's roof while German night bombers were diverted away from real city target's by the use of fire basket's set out in street and grid patterns on uninhabited moorland which was the opposite of camouflage if you think about it but like any camouflage served to help distract from the real target which was in blackout.

Jasper Maskelyne is the name of one of the greated optical illusionist in the history of camouflage and his inventiveness is still inspiring today, he was a stage magician before the war.

He used both concealment and also disorientation to trick the human eye, one of this methods used to protect the Suez cannal from German bombers was to use modified spotlight's with spinning mirrors in them which dazzled and disoriented the german pilot's so badly that they could not see the target.
en.wikipedia.org...

He was also involved in the production of fake army vehicles and other fake asset's in both the African campaign against Rommel's forces and later in the build up to D day which confused the German's.
My favorite though far from his most ingenious deception was his ply-wood tank's built around ordinary army truck's which confused Irwin Rommel into thinking that he was facing far more tank's than he was and which also helped to hide the movement and disposition of the real tank forces'

So it was somewhat of a subjective statement and once again I apologize, I am used to talking to a lot of ex military personnel on this site and made an erroneous assumption.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Ha, I actually enjoyed that reply, well stated but I still disagree with you, now as you know animating a skeletal mesh and producing a three dimensional computer object even with the texturing work is not the same thing, I accept that you are therefore skilled in that area of the digital art as well and definitely far more than myself (I can not tell you how much difficulty I had correcting some alpha blending problem's recently only to realise I had not added an alpha channel but that is another matter and I spent ages fixing the texture itself when the problem was in the mesh).
That said I have to still disagree but to yourself also I apologize for the tone of my earlier reply as I was as we say here somewhat out of order so for that I say SORRY.

But I stand by my statement that it is not only possible but that it has been so for quite a while.

The military are using far more sophisticated program's than you can buy from adobe or any other retail civlian software producer and they most definitely have proprietry technology's which are not in the public domein but you do make an excellent point about how much such an image obscurring technique can make, the closest would en automated blending and cloning tool which would morph cloned section's and use them to overfill the area's to be obscurred with after they had been altered with generated data based on a heuristic analysis of the image's data in area's that were not identified as potential artifact's near to the offending object by the initial image detection software and I for one actually do not believe that is beyond the capabilty of technology today and indeed no beyond the ability to real time manipulate date but it would indeed require some fast processing.

Remember you can at it's simplest break an image down into number's, this is how compression work's of course and so if you break it down into enough you can easily morph out an area's that you do not want to be shown as they were originally detected and that is child's play to someone like the military, it is even probable they are using civilian programs which have been reconfigured and altered to function on there proprietry hardware such as being configured for multi threading to make use of more than the standard home pc's number of processing thread's.

Now I am not saying it is as simple as clone and past over which as you know would create visible image dysmorphia but that they are using a method that can mathematically fill in the space based on the surrounding mathematical pattern of the image in the region to be obscurred and that this is can then be saved from the initial processing and reused or even enhanced upon later to continue to obscure with predictable integrity to prevent two seperately processed images from producing wildly different obsurcation's of an objective location.