MORE Moving Mars rocks and image manipulation, My finds

The images I'm comparing are two different photos taken of the same area, at different times and from a slightly different angle. The area in question is Yellowknife bay, Mars. The main image can be found here...

Yellowknife bay, Mars, IMAGE 1
Yellowknife bay, Mars, IMAGE 2


I am a professional graphic artist and notice tiny details in images that have been altered that most people may not notice. There is obvious photo manipulation going on here. Some rocks (numbered in second image) appear in one photo, then magically spread out with more rocks appearing in the next photo.

As you can clearly see, a mosaic was made combining different parts of two images to create a composite of certain areas. We know Nasa creates their panoramic images using several images, but why would someone go into such detail to add or remove certain rocks, adding cracks in dry creek beds, moving things around? Click on the "View Full Image" links to pop out the images for a better view.

View Full image


View Full image 2

Im sorry but i see edited photos.

If your going to investigate this subject, you should use original images from NASA.

There is no way in hell some of those changes happened.

I could see wind moving a rock, but not to completely change things as has been done.

Even the light source is different. Not that that cant be attributed to different photos.

I see the same photo with image manipulation, light source changes and color adjustments.

My .02

reply to post by shaneslaughta


These ARE Nasa's original images. I merely have labeled the areas that show manipulation.

reply to post by super70


Very good,number 3 has definatly moved,have you discounted the wheels moving the stones?
It seems the rocks are alive!
Oh at 1 oclock in your last image there appears to be a pair on tentacles , s and f

reply to post by super70


In image one, where is the exact location? On the unedited one.

I see they are from jpl, but i do not see the location.

reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse


Yes, and 6 and 7 appear out of no where.

reply to post by super70


These pictures were taken from different angles, which is why it appears to look this way. I am also a professional

You have posted one unedited photo. the rest are from your ats account.

You need to give points of reference for the original.

The crack looks like a bunch of dots.

It looks like tons of edits. I dont buy this at all.

Rocks dont grow legs. Rocks dont crack for no reason.

reply to post by Staroth


So what do you think about the dotted crack in image one?

I do see the perspective change now.

I also see evidence of wind erosion, that can attribute some of this to moving dirt.

things being covered and uncovered. Would explain the moving rocks too.

reply to post by super70


And the top rock in this portion of your pic is cracked in the "after" picture but not cracked in the first, or "before" picture:



Could all of these be explained by the Rover rolling across the site (although I don't see any tracks in the after pictures)

reply to post by shaneslaughta


Go back to the OP, both images from JPL are linked for review.

reply to post by Aleister


Good catch!

reply to post by super70


Yeah ,thanks for adding the second link.

reply to post by Aleister


It actually look like the stitch is going right through those rock, so that the part on the right has been moved down.

It's bad editing.

I have a theory for the cracks.....moisture in the stone and temperatures way below freezing a night.

Mianeye
reply to post by Aleister

 

It actually look like the stitch is going right through those rock, so that the part on the right has been moved down.

It's bad editing.

I don't know what you mean. The pic I uploaded catches a portion of the picture to the left of it, is that what you see?

Well, no, wait, the cracked rock I found seems to be an entirely different rock. Look at the formations in front of the two pictures, they seem totally different. OP, are you sure these are of the same area? I'll go eyeball it some more.

No, on the second set of pics it's the same area, but the entire section in front of the cracked rock I found has been overrun by dust or something, covering the flat rocks in front of it.

reply to post by Staroth


Yes i mention that these images were taken from a slightly different angle. This does not explain the obvious "mosaic" of different areas, as shown at the bottom of image one.
Take a close look at the red boxes and how someone spent some time morphing these areas to look authentic.

The mosaic is because that is how the images are captured. One small image at a time.
They transmit the small images back to NASA where they stitch them together.

Those giant images are comprised of dozens of smaller images.