True color Mars: JPL/NASA database exposed
Posted August 19th, 2008 by AbrahamNorway
output
Absolutely astonishing! Beautiful!
Bookmark/Search this post with:
 HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING |
(This is the reply in a
(This is the reply in a discussion buried in a narrow nested set of replies below in this thread)
Replying to: http://www.dailypaul.com/...
"- Actually you will find them on three, including this one:
http://esamultimedia.esa.... - which is the same picture as the one you posted earlier in black & white.
If you take a look at one of the two others:
http://esamultimedia.esa....
Adjusted exposure: http://gs83.photobucket.c...
You will find if you look closely, the same exact patterns, and take note, they are in the right position according to the angle of this photos perspective. One cannot dismiss it for coincidence. That somehow a pre-determined pattern of compression and distortion appears equal for all the photos in different angles."
# Exactly, that image shows artifacts too.
Let me go more into that one first and then into how the 3D perspective images are made, I'll try to make it short.
Some details about the colour and grayscale images first.
http://esamultimedia.esa....
Colour:
1980x1654
3.27 MPixels
942 kB
7716864 bits
24 bits/pixel
http://esamultimedia.esa....
Grayscale:
2680x2152
5.77 MPixels
3.142 kB
25739264 bits
8 bits/pixel
The colour image is 57% the size of the grayscale image in MPixels.
BUT...
The colour image is 30% the size of the grayscale image in bits.
This means the colour image is far more compressed than the grayscale image, as it only uses about half the data for the same thing.
This is not all however.
If that wasn't enough I didn't take into account the difference between grayscale and colour images as it relates to the data needed.
So let's take the effective MPixels of each image for the available data.
Colour: 7716864 bits / (24 bits per pixel) = 0.32 MPixels effective
Grayscale: 25739264 bits / (8 bits per pixel) = 3.22 MPixels effective
In other words, while both are compressed, the colour image uses 10! times less data for the same amount of pixels, which necessarily means a lot of compression as well as lots of artifacts, there is no other way.
Now, this explains the artifacts in the colour image, but why is this important for the 3D perspective images?
Those images are not real camera images made from that point and direction, but rather a software model made by a combination of a normal image of the MOC or Mars Orbiter Camera (the colour image) and data gathered from the MOLA or Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter. This is effectively a radar, that makes a map of the terrain by measuring the bouncing lasers off the surface and measure that distance. What they do is drape the colour image over this software "terrain" and you've got yourself a 3D piece of mars you can move and turn around anyway you want like a videogame.
This is basically what they have, data about a terrain taken from directly above:
http://www.freewebs.com/h...
Then an image of grassy terrain taken from directly above like a flat map
And then the combination:
http://www.freewebs.com/h...
What this all comes down to then is that there are two images, one decent grayscale image, and one pretty bad, but fancier colour image. They could just as easily make those 3D perspective images with nothing but the grayscale image and the terrain data they already got and you would be left with a better, but less pretty model. The current model and it's perspective images are nothing more than a different view of the same old colour image. So that's the explanation for why those things are seen, and seen on several images.
"- I almost forgot. Have you yet spotted the face-mountain at the edge of the mountain? Right in the middle of the disputed area."
# I'm going to ignore that if you don't mind.
"-The map we use is the same. The difference is that you used the newer Beta version, 2.0. I happen to use the older version 1.5. They come from the same provider. In the newer beta version the smudges are less apparent but many are still there. The smudges and black patches in the beta version are addressed in their faq-section, where they answer they do not know because they were not part of the construction of the map. They give a "may be" answer that the photo vessel did not capture any usable images for that location. But apparently the smudges and black patches are improved in the Beta version.
Bottom line is - the 1.5 version is legit and they include smudging."
# I didn't argue that it wasn't legit, my argument was that they didn't manually smudge those images to hide anything, as you can see the unsmudged images somewhere else.
"- Well I guess we come to a point where it is a matter of trust. While you believe there can be many legit reason for "doing such things - if they did" and that it is "obviously" it's not an artificially made face, at the same time, I believe that NASA is a agency complex of lies and deceit. Our discussion would move a bit further to those who run the show and so forth."
# That's a whole different subject though, which would require it's own evidence, the thing is that there is corruption everywhere, but most of the people "on the floor" are usually fine people. It doesn't change the 20000x15000 pixel image of the thing at any rate.
"- From badastronomy: "He protested the way the image was processed, the way it was released, the method used to take it, the methods not used to take it, anything to distract from the fact that no matter what, it just doesn't look like a real face!"
The site is continuously using obnoxious language from the very introduction throughout the page and when finally referring to the solution, "The Real Deal", he relies entirely on Michael Malin, CEO of Malin Space Science Systems, with ties to NASA already from the Viking program 1975, and to this day(http://en.wikipedia.org/w...).
What's wrong with _not_ consulting a neutral part to this controversy? Well for starters, if it is a conspiracy, which is clearly implied by Flandern "the joker", it would be a bit funny if the face of mars editing was complimented any less then "good enough to be reliable"."
# The language is so because of the person who is being responded to, who's life consists of nonsense claim without evidence, then when it is presented he denies it or drops it like nothing happened instead of facing it.
He does no rely on some person, he looks at the data and information about the people who actually made the camera.
I don't see who you would see as a neutral party in this exactly, it's not like you can say much about anything if you don't know the thing you are talking about. But this is not the point at all, even if it was ' less then "good enough to be reliable" ' as what matters is what is actually there, since there cannot be a conspiracy if there isn't anything to conspire about! Which is more than clear from the 3 separate and very reliable images made in 2001, 2006 and 2007 as I can see it.
Part of the problem,
is as old as space exploration itself.
It often takes up to ten years to plan, design, and execute a single mission to space.
Quite often, the technology of the mission is quickly surpassed by the technology of the average consumer.
Thats just the facts of life.
But, having said that, these true color images of mars are SPECTACULAR!
This is AWESOME NEWS!@!!@!!@
We are all one step closer to electing Ron Paul Supreme Overlord of Mars!!!
LOL
!
I'm not sure
JM
of the total cost of the rover missions, but they most probably were in the billions. I would like to know why NASA didn't splurge just a little and install cameras that would send back full color, high resolution images? Heck, my el-chepo webcam does color. I feel we've been ripped off by NASA. Just look at the raw images, black and white I might mention, and mostly out of focus and without good resolution. This is just completely shameful. There could be a 747 right in the center of an image, and with such poor quality images, you'd be hard pressed to identify it as such.
raw images: http://marsrovers.nasa.go...
Actually, black and white photos
typically have 3 times the resolution of a color photo for a given size of ccd chip.
You are right.
JM
And that is what bothers me about these photos. You, like me probably,
have downloaded some of these images. Overall they arn't all that bad. But the problem comes to light when you try to enlarge a section of an image. For instance, if you focus on a single rock, crop and enlarge it, the resolution is not good. You can't see enough definition, in most cases, to examine the image close up without being out of focus. It is as if the pixel count is low. Some of the images are very interesting though. I still say the cameras on board the rovers could be of better quality.
Found some data on Spirit's camera
It turns out that the camera's resolution is only 1024x1024. It's main advantage is in its light gathering capability. Here is an article that does a pretty good job of describing the camera:
http://www.space.com/busi...
This means that the images can be made in poor light conditions (no flash available), but you can't do much zooming in on the image. In this case it makes sense that they would be much more interested in getting usable images even when the sky is darkened by dust.
In case you or anyone else
In case you or anyone else is interested in even more details:
http://athena.cornell.edu...
http://athena.cornell.edu...
http://www-robotics.jpl.n...
http://europa.la.asu.edu/...
You can bet there is more to a $15 million camera than meets the "eye" :)
Sweet
Now I need to spend more time I don't have looking at this stuff. I am way to much the geek. ;)
Yuppers
Those are the ones I love to download and analyze. Then if I want, I can make 3 seperate false color images and combine them together afterwards.
-
Show your support on the Ron Paul Map !
People worldwide support Dr. Paul too :-)
http://www.pollingmatrix....
That sounds interesting.
That sounds interesting. Would you please explain the process you use to do this? Thanks!
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Digital Cameras
Digital cameras always have to make assumptions about ambient light in order to assemble an image from the information they "see". Your webcam makes assumptions based on conditions it is likely to find here. That is why you usually get different image colors in flourescent light than incandescent light. The problem is that on the surface of Mars we don't actually know what the ambient light is like at any given moment. The filters used in putting the pictures together are a best guess for trying to simulate what a human would see. From an analysis point of view, the "true color" image is not particularly useful, anyway. Using various "false color" images to highlight particular features is far more useful.
Why not just cut to the
Why not just cut to the chase and say what you really believe: that the landings have all been faked on Hollywood stages.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Officially
We haven't been to Mars yet;)
No LOL seriously. Don't be judgmental like that. You are actually limiting yourself by the very act. That is all I will say.
shenanigans
Your post is shenanigans. He never said anything about the moon landing. That's your crazy theory. Take your crazy theory to a different forum. We only discuss news here, not crazy theories from crazy people like you.
well...
...disregarding your extraordinary brilliant sarcasm, I will say that one have to be a bit "crazy" to go beyond the mainstream paradigm of our reality in our times. I think most of us within the liberty movement more or less sees that one.
Don't tell me
you're saying they faked the moon landing? I was trying to be sardonic, not sarcastic. For the record no moon landing is a crazy idea with no proof I've found.
I agree that just using a red filter takes a phony shot of mars. When you put all 3 filters together Mars gets alot more interesting.
...
I will not tell you they faked the moon landing. Does that make any difference my friend?
What is sardonic? I am sorry my English vocabulary does not stretch that far.
Hehe! ---------- Liberty for
Hehe!
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Conspiracies? Not here.... no way....
First of all, AbrahamNorway, Thx for posting this. I love science, and we are incredibly lucky to live at a point in history where anyone can see the surface of a world not our own.
Beautiful.
wolfe said:
"There is a world of difference between being lied to, and not taking the time to understand the information that we are given."
This is one of the best sentences I have ever read on the DP. At first, I couldn't tell if other posters were joking about conspiracies. Sadly, they were not.
Most of the photographs you will see of things in space (IE, not Earth) are false-color.
Standing on Mars would be like standing in a room where the only windows were coated with a red film. Most of the blue and green in the light is either gone or overshadowed by the red light.
With software and the amazing cameras on these probes, we can re-balance the color to approximate what the scene would look like in colors we are accustomed to. But no matter how good the color-correction, milk will still be indistinguishable from tomato juice because there is no way to get both accurate white, and accurate brightness at the same time. There is no way to put truely accurate color into an image that never contained it in the first place.
Astronomers use false-color to see things that their eyes otherwise wouldn't allow them to see. 99% of the Universe shimmers in colors that are completely invisible to us. Computers have to fill the gaps, and there are bound to be short-comings.
My Shelfari page
Since you love science.
and I agree with you about this instance dealing with the rust in the atmosphere on mars causing a red filter. I don't think that that red is there all the time since Mar's atmosphere isn't that thick. Which would lead you to believe the some of the Time you get true white light hitting the surface especially on a clear day.
Anyhow I'm just curious what is your take on WTC 7?
Demolition or Fire?
The light...
The color of the light will depend strongly on conditions. In the heart of a dust storm (and Mars has some wicked dust storms), the ambient light will be much more red than it would be if the wind were still. Also, the same rules that apply on Earth also apply on Mars. Noon will be less colored than sunrise or sunset because a lower proportion of the light is being refracted through the atmosphere at noon.
But what is true white light? When I was repairing digital cameras, one of the common non-problems I saw was a customer claiming that their camera's color was messed up, when in reality, they had their white-balance set to manual. Try this on a digital camera. A good camera will have a setting called white-balance that is used to change what the camera represents as white. I can use this setting to make virgin snow look like someone soiled it.
The brain is amazingly complicated. And the way we effortlessly tell the color of an object regardless of lighting conditions is an example of how unreliable our senses (and our reasoning) can be under the right circumstances.
Building 7?
I can't say... I see the argument from the Truther's point-of-view. And I badly want to see it answered. I won't be one of the guys saying that it was a false-flag attack, but something is really dirty. "They hate us for our freedom" is inadequate to say the least. Maybe if the gov't acted like they gave a shit about the question, I would be less inclined to worry about it. Since I can't give a hypothesis that is as clean as demolition... well...
My Shelfari page
White light is what your eyes can see.
The spectrum of the rainbow that is visible light. On the Mars surface the rust isn't in the air constantly. Therefore the red filter isn't a constant. And since the atmosphere on mars has less water vapor in it then it would make the white light from the sun reach the surface more easily. SO your whole time of day stance is a bit flawed.
As for WTC 7 I figured you wouldn't take a stance. Saying "you'd be worried about it if the government is worried about it" makes you sound like you're taking the governments side. You should be worried about it since your freedoms are being taken away daily because of it. Patriot Act ring a bell. You remind me of rhino. Always dancing around the answer.
Now you want to think about why they would put a red filter on the lighting of different photos to exaggerated the true color of the atmosphere? OR are you going to try and continue a runaround on this subject.
View this page.
http://www.xfacts.com/spi...
"On the Mars surface the
"On the Mars surface the rust isn't in the air constantly."
How so?
About the website.
There isn't much information about the raw picture to go by and even less from the edited "normalized" one. Did they just change the white balance to make it the sky white/blue and then declare that's how it looks because it's more like on earth? I'm not sure what it's supposed to be.
Then the JPL press conference bit, it isn't said what picture it is, if it was meant to be "true colour" or anything else, there is just zero information, apart from a picture from a projected picture by a beamer.
Then below it they give an "altered" version but also lacks any kind of information about it.
Then the Hazy Martian Skies picture.
They use the tactic the creationists are famous for: Quote mining.
They say: "This image mosaic taken by the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's panoramic camera shows the hills southeast of Spirit's landing site. Like a smoggy day in Los Angeles, dusty martian skies limit how much detail can be seen" where they imply that this is the most detail one could get and that they misrepresent reality.
When looking at the whole description it becomes obvious what the goal of this picture is: "This image mosaic taken by the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit's panoramic camera shows the hills southeast of Spirit's landing site. Like a smoggy day in Los Angeles, dusty martian skies limit how much detail can be seen. This lack in visibility is demonstrated by comparing hills on the left to those on the right, located nearly two times farther away. The left panel of this image was captured in the late morning martian hours, looking toward the Sun. The right image was taken in the early afternoon, when the Sun was higher and the skies appeared darker."
What this picture is clearly made to show is how much the detail changes when there is more dust increases, not that they are trying to show the highest resolution detail or "hiding" or distorting something.
They then say a picture was made with the raw RGB data, but such data is not provided as such, the R, G and B filters used to make every picture are not the same width of the spectrum nor equally spaced out in the visible spectrum, so one cannot put these pictures together and get a "true colour" image like that, only an approximation that can be nothing like reality. That it is a higher resolution is not surprising as the provided picture isn't full resolution and is obviously not meant to be that.
Reservation of judgment....
This might be weird, but stick with me.
The visible spectrum doesn't include a color that would be recognized as white. White is produced by your brain. There is no such thing as white.
White is an illusion.
Normal (not color-blind) humans are trichromats, meaning we can see red, green and blue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Some animals can see many more discrete colors and some can see colors that are not in the visible spectrum (honey bees see in ultraviolet).
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
By showing you different combinations of red green and blue, I can make you see all the colors that you are capable of perceiving. If this were not true, you wouldn't be able to read this image on a computer screen, because computer screens only display three distinct colors. Your brain fills in the gaps.
http://www.colblindor.com...
When you think you see white, your brain is playing a trick on you.
What looks like white to you does not necessarily look like white to a honey bee.
Hence, white is a perceptual illusion. It does not exist outside of your mind. The only reason you and I can talk about white is because we have sensors and brains that are roughly the same.
Now that we have that established, we can talk about Mars.
>>...the rust isn't in the air constantly. Therefore the red filter isn't a constant.
I agree. You are right.
Here is the absorption profile of water. This page describes what colors water absorbs and how well. The image is of most interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
Water is more-or-less equally transparent at all visible wavelengths. In other words, it isn't a very good filter. It passes visible light indiscriminately.
Rust, on the other hand is opaque, meaning it doesn't transmit visible light at all. Instead, it reflects visible light. I wish I could find a similar chart of hard-data for the absorbency profile of rust, but I can't. Suffice it to say that rust reflects red light, and absorbs green and blue.
Dust in the air will absorb green and blue, and scatter red. For the same reason that sunset is red (dust in the air), the Martian sky is red. On Earth, the red hues only come out when sunlight hits enough dust to absorb the blues that result from Rayleigh scattering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
The Martian atmosphere is too thin and too dusty for the blues of Rayleigh scattering to overpower the effect of the absorption of the blue by dust. Hence, the perpetual red tint in the sky that is less pronounced toward noon.
Now back to color perception...
If no blue is reaching the camera on the probe, then no blue will be recorded in the picture.
And if no blue is in the picture, it must be added to give the illusion of white and make the photo appear natural to a human being.
But because you can't add color to a photograph without increasing the brightness, you have to re-balance the entire image in order to not end up with an image that looks less-natural than the original.
Hence, why the photo was doctored.
It takes 2 years of university-level physics and 3 years of mathematics to answer the child's question "why is the sky blue".
But now you've been given an answer more complete than your parents gave you.
You are welcome.
Reservation of judgment in the face of imperfect data is not a flaw in reasoning. It is an acknowledgment of the failability of reason itself. It is the habit of people that patiently seek truth, rather than impatiently seeking answers.
My Shelfari page
So you are saying the photo was doctored.
So we could tell the real colors on Mars because the camera on the rover would give a false reading...lol.
I already know what you are talking about but thanks for the refresher course on wavelength and what makes white white.. I am saying that if their isn't a dust storm a brewing rust doesn't easily stay in the atmosphere especially if the atmosphere is thin.
Which makes it easy for light to reach the surface and interact with the camera lens and surface material.
Oh your last little bit makes me laugh. Your thought of patiently seeking answers should go a long way if you feel that WTC 7 wasn't of importance to understand.
Way to dodge that question.
Not a false reading...
Not a false reading... a less useful reading.
The photo was doctored to highlight features that wouldn't be easily visible otherwise. Which is, I believe what several other posters, and NASA themselves, stated. By adding a third color channel (or maybe more, I didn't read their specific methods for these images), contrast is increased. I know the youtube video said "true color", but that is exactly opposite. True color would be a drab red landscape with few visible features.
False-color is a common tool when photographing alien scenes.
Rust isn't a gas, it is a solid. It therefore comes in variously sized pieces. During periods of high wind, larger (more surface area to absorb) particles get kicked up. But the smallest particles can stay airborne for weeks. Remember when Mt. St. Helens erupted? Dust stayed in the air long enough to land in San Diego.
Regardless of how long the dust is airborne, or what time of day it is, there isn't going to be nearly as much blue in the pictures as there would be in an photograph on Earth.
No one said WTC-7 wasn't important. But I know that people are prone to reaching the conclusions that they want to reach. And they do so hastily. And the attitude that I need to 'make up my damn mind' is the kind of thing that makes people think 9-11 truthers are crackpots. They play loose and fast with reasoning, accept anecdote as evidence, impart motive where there may be none, use ad-hominem and straw-man arguments to win converts, and on top of it all, they typically don't know their ass from their elbow when they talk about the scientific principles that they build their conclusions on.
For instance, Mars has been incapable of sustaining life for more than 2 billion years, and you think there were people living there?!?
But that doesn't mean WTC-7 wasn't demolished.
So I haven't dodged any questions. I've simply declined to follow your shoddy chain of reasoning without asking additional questions along the way.
I have to sleep now. Hit me up when you want to lose another scientific argument.
My Shelfari page
Thanks I'll keep that in mind.
We'll talk about Quantum Mechanics when you wake up. Sorry if I've cut to the point.. You seem to not had to have be walked through the process of WTC 7 physics. You have not won a thing. It wasn't about winning to begin with. That is where you are mistaken.
We are discussing on a blog the filter level of Mar's atmosphere in conjunction of the red filter caused by rust particles. I've looked through the argument about Mars being able to sustain life or have a magnetic field in the past from a molten core. Then again you can put that argument up against Human life being created here on earth or Intelligent Design. Doesn't mean at some point their wasn't another civilization there hell Cheney is talking about colonizing it in the near future.
Whole point is You think that NASA is totally forth coming with its info.
I disagree.
Not to mention they hide the fact of
older human civilizations that once lived there. I know Photoshop quite well and to be honest when it color corrects RGB it doesn't add or take colors it just balances them out according to true light conditions. My only question is why do they take pictures with a filtered setting lens. Do they want it to seem that Mars is uninhabitable?
http://www.xfacts.com/spi...
Please tell me you're not
Please tell me you're not serious.
Actually, oruval, you now have it within your power to banish me from DP forever. And this time I really mean it.
Tell me you truly believe that there were ancient human civilizations on Mars, and get at least two others to agree with you (not new members, i.e., not your own sockpuppets), and I will logout of this insane asylum for good.
That's a promise.
Come on kooky, you can finally be rid of me, but it will cost your credibility and claims to sanity, and the same from two others. I need a trio of loons to convince me that all hope for DP is lost.
:-)
----------
Liberty for Dummies
I do
Not sure if it is human, but... that's one:)
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...
Photos can be found at:
http://www.esa.int/esa-mm...
---> search "halo crater", get the images,
...and no, the patterns is not a result of pixel distortion or anything like it. The exact same patterns is found on the exact same locations on the different photos.
Have fun!:)
Oh - and if you buy it;) - here are some amazing close ups:
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...
It's plenty out there...
And yet if you look at the
And yet if you look at the cleanest of all images it appears to just be a crater and all the unnatural patterns disappear:
http://esamultimedia.esa....
yes
It is definitely the one cleanest of details. It is the lowest resolution photo of them all. But even in this photo, take it down and play with it in photoshop, you can still find a few of them there.
I assume you took a good look at the other photos. Now I'm curious - what do you think?:)
oh, and btw - the photos released by esa (and nasa) with hints of unnatural structures are always smudged. You will find it in the hale crater photos. When it comes to smudging of other structures on mars and the moon, you will find it if you look for it, it is right there for us.
I hope you are kidding me,
I hope you are kidding me, that picture is far better than the others, it's purest without many artifacts. The perspective shots on the other hand look like bad quality renders with a lot of compression. Apart from simply looking at them you can see this by downloading them both and compare their size in pixels and bytes.
You will find that while the perspective image is 60% the size of the image I linked to, it's a mere 37% the size of it in bytes and that while it's colour vs grayscale! This means it's less than 1/4th of the data it should have had if it wanted to be as detailed as the grayscale image I linked to on average. What this means is that the image is much more compressed and therefor loses much more detail compared to the image I linked to. The perspective image might look fancier, but it really isn't, there has been much more editing going on with it and the result is artifacts. You can even see similar stuff on the steep ridges and on walls of vertical cliffs in the perspective picture, while not on other flat surfaces, they must have had weird idea's about engineering there.
For a more visual story:
http://www.badastronomy.c...
Look, structures and civilizations in his eye and ear!
I did look at the other photo's obviously and I everything I think about it I have just said.
"oh, and btw - the photos released by esa (and nasa) with hints of unnatural structures are always smudged."
Err, no, you see those unnatural structures BECAUSE the quality isn't high, NOT despite of it.
"When it comes to smudging of other structures on mars and the moon, you will find it if you look for it, it is right there for us."
Yes, because the world's leading imaging experts smudge something deliberately that you can find freely online on their website for you to then still "find" it with some primary school use of photoshop...
not kidding you
yes the picture you posted is bigger. the point is when you compare them two, the picture you posted is show less details per the actual distance!
http://esamultimedia.esa....
http://esamultimedia.esa....
also, in the perspective photo, the focus is on the area closest to us.
The patterns are part of the surface. They belong to the ground.
The exact same patterns are found on the exact same locations on the different photos. These geometrical patterns seems to be of intelligent design. They are not natural. And yes they are easily found with "primary school" use of photoshop. There are some geometrical patterns that seems to go up against steep ridges and along the mountainside, but hey, what do we know of martian engineering - perhaps it's a beautiful panorama view hotel:P The point is - they are there.
compare for example:
http://esamultimedia.esa....
http://esamultimedia.esa....
http://esamultimedia.esa....
And yes, some of our "world leading" imaging experts are spending their time smudging pictures so that we will not be exposed to the truth.
for example;
http://www.disclose.tv/ac...
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.m...
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.m...
nasa scientists apparently playing down the face on mars:
http://uk.youtube.com/wat...
Bottom line, I'm no expert at imaging at all, but one need not be an expert (or an authority) to connect the dots and see that there is something fishy going on. There are tons of information on abnormalities on pictures from the space agencies, let alone the unofficial information about these agencies that we are not supposed to know about. But it is there to be found if one is curious enough. I think it's only time before it breaks into the mainstream, but it's going slowly because the reality is almost to weird to comprehend. The truth is being heavily suppressed on all areas of our lives. Curiosity and open mindness is the key.
I of course looked at all
I of course looked at all those images already.
My point is that the perspective image is far more edited and compressed than the grayscale image, which simply shows by looking at them.
The patterns are not part of the surface as you can clearly see on the grayscale image. Some of the artifacts are found on both of the perspective images, but that doesn't mean it's actually there, it means they use the same data, same colours and using the same compression which show the same or similar artifacts. This is only the case for some of them though, a lot aren't seen anymore at all or completely different between the images.
That there are two similar images only shows my point better, if you actually look at all of it, instead of a cherry pick some artifacts that seem similar.
All in all, common, typical compression artifacts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w...
"When using quantization with block-based coding, as in JPEG-compressed images, several types of artifacts can appear, including contouring and posterizing in otherwise smooth gradients, staircase noise along curving edges, "mosquito noise" around edges, and/or blockiness in "busy" regions (sometimes called quilting or checkerboarding)." sounds familiar?
Those "smudged" images are simply digital errors which are very much expected.
About those examples, you can actually find alternative sources that do show the images completely so not only is it expected, there was nothing to see there.
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.m...
You can find those area's for yourself here:
http://www.nrl.navy.mil/c...
I've spent some time looking for them for you so here are the coordinates.
The first one is at Lat 64 Long 95.
The second one is at Lat -72 Long -108.
The third is at Lat 68 Long 120.
So far for being exposed to the truth about that.
Then the youtube video.
The joker Tom van Flandern has such weak and old examples it's hardly worth looking at anymore.
Such as glass tubes:
http://www.badastronomy.c...
And of course the face on mars:
http://www.badastronomy.c...
Anyone that still believes it's a face is being completely delusional after looking at the real thing, even pseudoscientists Hoagland has given in to it.
Things like:
http://www.msss.com/mars_...
http://a52.g.akamaitech.n...
http://a52.g.akamaitech.n...
http://www.esa.int/esaMI/...
And if you still aren't satisfied, you can download a full-scale 300! megapixel image of the thing here: http://hirise.lpl.arizona...
If that is anything more than a hill then I don't know what isn't anymore.
"Bottom line, I'm no expert at imaging at all"
You don't say.
"but one need not be an expert (or an authority) to connect the dots and see that there is something fishy going on."
Like I just showed, you DO need to have an understanding of what the "dots" are you are connecting with or your whole dotconstruction collapses like it has now.
"Curiosity and open mindness is the key."
No, evidence and objectivity combined with critical thinking is the key, or you get, like shown, shoddy wishful/imaginary thinking.
oh really?
"My point is that the perspective image is far more edited and compressed than the grayscale image, which simply shows by looking at them"'
-Well your point seems to rather change with the wind eh?
"The patterns are not part of the surface as you can clearly see on the grayscale image."
-Yes, on the grayscale image. That doesn't eliminate the patterns on the other pictures.
"Some of the artifacts are found on both of the perspective images, but that doesn't mean it's actually there, it means they use the same data, same colours and using the same compression which show the same or similar artifacts. This is only the case for some of them though, a lot aren't seen anymore at all or completely different between the images"
-Who are you trying to fool here. There are more than a few distinctive geometrical patterns, which are -identical- and on the exact same locations on the photos. It's not like there are one similarity here and one there. They are thoroughly visible around in great numbers. I know it is sick but that's it. Unless this process of compression is followed by divine intervention, they have no say in the presence of these things. They cannot be dismissed as compression artifacts. The absence of them on the black and white photo does not change that.
-You did not find the moon tampering spots because you used a different map of the moon. The coordinates were meant for:
http://www.cmf.nrl.navy.m...
You will find them on the map you shared with me.
For example:
1: Latitude 68 Longitude -174
"So far for being exposed to the truth about that."
I couln't agree more;)
"The joker Tom van Flandern has such weak and old examples it's hardly worth looking at anymore."
-Well, I have no idea what those "tubes" are but I earlier referred to the piece about the face; Well this "joker" made a completely legit allegation that the NASA folks distorted the photo by using a high-pass filter, then a low-pass filter and then averaged the two, which removed the details of the image. The NASA people doesn't even deny it!
The site you gave me, badastronomy.com, just made a fool of Flandern for going up against the NASA scientists. That's it. How f***** scientific:)
" 'Bottom line, I'm no expert at imaging at all'
You don't say."
-...wow
' "My point is that the
' "My point is that the perspective image is far more edited and compressed than the grayscale image, which simply shows by looking at them"'
-Well your point seems to rather change with the wind eh?'
#What are you talking about? The first two sentences in my reply before the one you are commenting on were:
"I hope you are kidding me, that picture is far better than the others, it's purest without many artifacts. The perspective shots on the other hand look like bad quality renders with a lot of compression. Apart from simply looking at them you can see this by downloading them both and compare their size in pixels and bytes."
There is no change in point here.
"-Yes, on the grayscale image. That doesn't eliminate the patterns on the other pictures."
#I didn't say they weren't on the other pictures as that is what I addressed, my point here was to say that in the best picture without any artifacts there aren't any patterns on the surface which would be quite obvious if they were in fact there as it shows detail of the surface you cannot even see in the perspective shots.
"-Who are you trying to fool here. There are more than a few distinctive geometrical patterns, which are -identical- and on the exact same locations on the photos. It's not like there are one similarity here and one there. They are thoroughly visible around in great numbers. I know it is sick but that's it. Unless this process of compression is followed by divine intervention, they have no say in the presence of these things. They cannot be dismissed as compression artifacts. The absence of them on the black and white photo does not change that."
#My point was why those patterns are there and on both images. There is no divine intervention, its the effect of compression (and a whole bunch of image noise) on the very same data which result in the very same artifacts. I don't see on what basis you claim that they cannot be dismissed as compression artifacts as its the same data on which the compression would have a similar effect.
http://i295.photobucket.c...
"-You did not find the moon tampering spots because you used a different map of the moon. "
#Obviously, that was my point, there is alternative data, you just chose the smudged version whereas I didn't.
"You will find them on the map you shared with me.
For example:
1: Latitude 68 Longitude -174"
#I don't see much there apart from the unsmudged "triangle" shape, which you get if you stitch images together now and then.
"Well this "joker" made a completely legit allegation that the NASA folks distorted the photo by using a high-pass filter, then a low-pass filter and then averaged the two, which removed the details of the image. The NASA people doesn't even deny it!"
#There can be many legit reasons for doing such things if they did, but the point he is making that it is in fact an artificially made face, which it obviously isn't.
The picture he is referring to seems to be from 1998.
A month before his presentation which was on may 8 2001 as seen in the youtube video, a better image was made that is much less "face-like" than the 1998 image, even more so when compared to the original 1976 image.
Which is this one:
http://www.msss.com/mars_...
Then in 2006 the perspective images and video I linked to in my previous reply of the "face" which show even less of a "face"
And in 2007 the high resolution image I linked to was released which shows even more detail and no sign of anything artificial or a face.
"The site you gave me, badastronomy.com, just made a fool of Flandern for going up against the NASA scientists. That's it. How f***** scientific:)"
#No, it went against the ridiculous claims made by Flandern and others based on nothing, in other words, showing how f***** scientific they are...
my apologies
"There is no change in point here
-You are right. A misstep by me - your point was the same.
"My point was why those patterns are there and on both images. There is no divine intervention, its the effect of compression (and a whole bunch of image noise) on the very same data which result in the very same artifacts. I don't see on what basis you claim that they cannot be dismissed as compression artifacts as its the same data on which the compression would have a similar effect"
- Actually you will find them on three, including this one:
http://esamultimedia.esa.... - which is the same picture as the one you posted earlier in black & white.
If you take a look at one of the two others:
http://esamultimedia.esa....
Adjusted exposure: http://gs83.photobucket.c...
You will find if you look closely, the same exact patterns, and take note, they are in the right position according to the angle of this photos perspective. One cannot dismiss it for coincidence. That somehow a pre-determined pattern of compression and distortion appears equal for all the photos in different angles.
- I almost forgot. Have you yet spotted the face-mountain at the edge of the mountain? Right in the middle of the disputed area.
http://media.photobucket....
http://media.photobucket....
- I found plenty of interesting stuff on photobucket. I never even knew this site existed. I even found a good demonstration for what I argumented earlier given by sean1david1ryan:
http://media.photobucket....
- And then we come to the smudging on the moon.
"...there is alternative data, you just chose the smudged version whereas I didn't"
-The map we use is the same. The difference is that you used the newer Beta version, 2.0. I happen to use the older version 1.5. They come from the same provider. In the newer beta version the smudges are less apparent but many are still there. The smudges and black patches in the beta version are addressed in their faq-section, where they answer they do not know because they were not part of the construction of the map. They give a "may be" answer that the photo vessel did not capture any usable images for that location. But apparently the smudges and black patches are improved in the Beta version.
Bottom line is - the 1.5 version is legit and they include smudging.
NASA distortion - face on mars:
"There can be many legit reasons for doing such things if they did"
- Well I guess we come to a point where it is a matter of trust. While you believe there can be many legit reason for "doing such things - if they did" and that it is "obviously" it's not an artificially made face, at the same time, I believe that NASA is a agency complex of lies and deceit. Our discussion would move a bit further to those who run the show and so forth.
"No, it went against the ridiculous claims made by Flandern and others based on nothing, in other words, showing how f***** scientific they are..."
- From badastronomy: "He protested the way the image was processed, the way it was released, the method used to take it, the methods not used to take it, anything to distract from the fact that no matter what, it just doesn't look like a real face!"
The site is continuously using obnoxious language from the very introduction throughout the page and when finally referring to the solution, "The Real Deal", he relies entirely on Michael Malin, CEO of Malin Space Science Systems, with ties to NASA already from the Viking program 1975, and to this day(http://en.wikipedia.org/w...).
What's wrong with _not_ consulting a neutral part to this controversy? Well for starters, if it is a conspiracy, which is clearly implied by Flandern "the joker", it would be a bit funny if the face of mars editing was complimented any less then "good enough to be reliable".
If this thread continues, I might have to start a new one. These are beginning to be difficult to read.
(Anyways, conspiracy or not, thank you for forcing me to initiate more research upon this topic. I've already learned a great variety of things with this thread.)
"If this thread continues, I
"If this thread continues, I might have to start a new one. These are beginning to be difficult to read."
I agree, I reply on top of this thread with a new comment.
You would like that wouldn't you.
I don't have definitive proof. More of a hunch about Mars. I don't believe it to be absolute true. But I sure as hell don't believe in the Governments version of 9/11, and I sure as hell am not arrogant enough to think we are the only creatures of intelligence in the entire know universe which comprises of a Billion known Galaxy s with a Billion or so stars in each Galaxy.
That's a 1,000,000,000 x 1,000,000,000 chances that one of those other stars has a planet which can support life.
Watch the disclosure project. And open your mind a bit.
I don't need to open my mind
I don't need to open my mind because I'm right there with you on the broader point.
But you said there were ancient human civilizations on Mars. Do you really believe that, or don't you?
You have one backer already, you'd need only one more to be rid of me.
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Can I make a fake account.
I highly doubt you'll leave.
Haha, no, I said no
Haha, no, I said no sockpuppets. I'll be checking account age. So far it's you and AbrahamNorway, you only need one more. It shouldn't be hard, I'm widely hated here at DP for not believing that a rocket hit the Pentagon or that a virgin gave birth to a god-man. The kooks and theocrats would love to rid of me.
And yes, I promise to leave forever. I've already staked out another libertarian haunt (a legit one, unlike this nest of former Huckabee supporters).
----------
Liberty for Dummies
LOL
Careful, or I'll go right ahead making this my mission;)
No no no, oruval has to
No no no, oruval has to produce the third kook. ;-)
----------
Liberty for Dummies
Then go there.
Why wait.
It's more fun this
It's more fun this way.
What's the matter, don't you have any friends?
----------
Liberty for Dummies
More than you know.
How is it fun, unless of course you are a troll. And btw nothing you can say or do is going to affect me.. But keep trying.