Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Need expert advice ? Mars Rover Photo's  (Read 13601 times)
Fluid1959
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« on: January 17, 2004, 09:52:03 PM »
ReplyReply

It's my contention that these  big rocks behind dirt mounds would be clearly lying in the open and that the fact that they look half buried is an illusion caused by nasa edits .. the dirt mounds don't exist....therefore these rocks should appear to lie on top ofthe ground or above the surface.

It's also my prediction at this early stage in the mission that these rocks will never get any clearer than they are now
call me zolof







http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA05049.tif
Logged
pmkierst
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2004, 06:23:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, since they are composite images, they are without question edited. Otherwise they would be quite a bad mess. Obviously the editing is less then perfect. However, compositing a perfect outcome would probably involve some invention of data, which would make the accusations even worse.

Outside of all that, let us say that the editing has indeed make some rocks look half buried when they are actually lying on the surface. Ok, so what? I don't get your point. It doesn't prove it is intentional, nor does it prove that anything mysterious is going on.

In short, even if what you say is true, what is your point? Having a long argument about "truth" is pointless if even a correct verifiable answer yields no information of value.
Logged

Paul K.
pmkierst
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2004, 10:24:33 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, I will play for a moment.

First off, you don't seem to understand how these pictures are taken. Many images, with the camera pointing in different directions, are taken and then the mosaic of images are joined together to make a whole. This is often called stitching. It is used to take a relative low resolution camera and generate high resolution images and also increases the field of view. NASA uses this technique as the camera on the rover is quite wimpy. They do not deny this. Joining the images together is fairly difficult and requires considerable editing. If you are really good, you can do this seamlessly; however doing so requires editing the photo quite a lot and is not good for scientific purposes, only aesthetic ones. So they leave it quite rough. If they wished to edit the photos in order to dupe someone, a high school student could do a much better job then you see here. A reasonably competent person could modify these pictures well enough that no amount of examination by you could spot them. Even a person highly trained in looking for photo manipulation could have considerable difficultly. So your evidence of editing does not conclude anything.

Secondly, your items are highly questionable. Even you must realize that. Ever seen animal shapes in the clouds? Try this: Go to a rocky desert location. carefully verify what is in the location. Now take some pictures of it. Actually, better that a trusted friend does that step. Now, take the pictures home and examine carefully; you will find all sorts of interesting shapes and items. Our perceptive processes find patterns in all sorts of interesting ways. You should try reading up up on human perception to understand what you are seeing; this would enable you to better assess such things.

The fact you are not getting any support is because none of us see what you are seeing. That makes you either one of the enlightened few or wrong. Personally, I always get suspicious of myself when I start believing I am one of the enlightened few.
Logged

Paul K.
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2004, 04:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

After carefully reviewing your photos, I find you missed an important piece of evidence, Fluid.  In the final image, there's a telling clue on the edge of the landing platform visible along the lower margin of the photo, immediately adjacent to the largest stone.  That's obviously a bare female breast, nipple and all-  clear evidence that the mission was not robotic, and that the female astronaut perished in the landing.

I grieve for her family and friends in their time of loss.
Logged
drm
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2004, 03:04:14 AM »
ReplyReply

so, if THEY have so much to cover up, why did they release any pictures ?

Why not just PRETEND that the ROVr isnt WORKING any more ?  If THAT happened then may be you're right!!!

Quote
won't say what this looks like they will lock me up!

Well you're already in DEEP trouble I reckun. Heard of IP tracing ? Post only from public terminals and make it SHORT!
Logged

--
David Mantripp
http://www.snowhenge.net
Fluid1959
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2004, 04:22:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Mud Patch revisited

You tell me ?













Possible living snake !


Logged
Fluid1959
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2004, 03:43:42 PM »
ReplyReply

It's my contention that these  big rocks behind dirt mounds would be clearly lying in the open and that the fact that they look half buried is an illusion caused by nasa edits .. the dirt mounds don't exist....therefore these rocks should appear to lie on top of the ground or above the surface.

It's also my prediction at this early stage in the mission that these rocks will never get any clearer than they are now
call me zolof







If you dont download the 38.5 mb tiff your wasting your time!
this is what tif pia04995 looks like  as a whole the interest is up in left hand corner lets zoom


Whats has happened here ?  This piece was added I hilighted the crop


Here's the unedited



Do you think I have a case that it was edited ?
Thanks for any kind input .....

The following is a link to 38.5 mb tif

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA04995.tif
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2004, 11:02:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I see your both rude and vision impaired. And neither are requirements for this thread!
I've been a contributor to this board for about a year, and if you look at the content of my postings, I've been reasonably patient with people asking silly and even stupid questions that were actually on-topic for this forum; i.e. landscape photography, digital photographic technology, color management, etc. That is what this site is about, not X-files alien conspiracy theories, which is all you have managed to contribute here so far. There are numerous fora on the internet devoted to such topics; Art Bell's site would be a good place to start. It would be greatly appreciated if you took your alien conspiracy silliness elsewhere.

BTW, the ability to spell words correctly is a great asset when attempting to establish one's credibility. It's "identical", not "identicle".
Logged

Bobtrips
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2004, 06:21:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Digi -

I can't quite say that I understand the original post.  But it was a question about a landscape ...  ;o)

I can say that I feel that Jonathan's replies were less than polite.  Read back and see if you might have been less than happy if the replies to Fluid were aimed at you.

In fact I think many of us would have told Jonathon to stuff it after his first post.
Logged
Fluid1959
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2004, 01:56:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Mars appears to have very strange geology and rock formation
There are more anomolies here but they have been painted out



I won't say what this looks like they will lock me up!
ok  it looks like a garden jockey.
Also notice the pipe runing past the jockey to as far as we can see.




Feel free to count his 5 toes or his five fingers of his left hand!
This poor guy lost half his head which is 1 foot over to left.
This image has bodies in about every square inch. the objects you see and
in between them is the objects you don't.



If you can see the bones in this light photo you can imagine how many bodies  are here and painted out.

Too me it appears to be a human baby's face but slightly broken like fossilised rock.


This is without a doubt an arm with a square implant under skin  and insignia
Pardon Nasa but they didnt paint it out just seperated the fingers and painted it so it look like it went down.

Every square inch of this image has anomalies the ones you see and the spaces in between are the ones you don't.


This Picture also every square inch of this image has anomalies the ones you see and the spaces in between are the ones you don't.

All above from tif below
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA05102.tif
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA05117.tif
I consider New TIF to be quite Interesting, to say the least.
Logged
Hank
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


« Reply #10 on: January 21, 2004, 03:37:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Without impuning you, I'm not following your assertions or how your examples and photoshop work support your points.
Logged
Guest
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2004, 06:11:30 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, that's enough.

The only way I'll let this thread continue is if someone has some really good jokes to add.

Fluid - please remember to take your meds every day.

Michael
Logged
b.e.wilson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


WWW
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2004, 11:38:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, I downloaded the big tiff, and found the right-hand side view mirror from my 1997 Gray Saturn that went missing a couple years ago! Thanks for finding it for me. You wouldn't mind fetching it for me, would you?

I looked at the original image and can find nothing odd in the area you indicate. There are, however, some very poor image blends in other locations. JPL could clearly use some help from this guy who knows how to put together multiple images.
Logged

Digi-T
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2004, 04:56:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So sorry professor.
I wasn't under thee impression that people get sucked into a thread, but had a choice in the matter.

And thank you in advance for the angelic job you have done for over a year with the idiots who peruse this forum.

Where better to seek the photgraphic truth but here ?
Even if your theory is true (and I don't rule anything out) this is not the proper forum for it and your methods of displaying your "evidence" is vey poor, not to mention your attitude. Calling every user here an idiot is not a very smart way to make friends and make your point. If you have something appropriate to contribute to these forums and can do it in a civil manner then we might take you seriously, otherwise you might wish to go find another forum.

T
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5069


« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2004, 08:21:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Just on the topic of the "chunky" way that NASA edits together the individual frames from the rover; while the aesthetics of landscape photography might dictate using some smoothing at the joins, the interests of providing untainted raw data for scientific analysis probably dictates that they not do so. Ironically, the problem with the rover photo is probably that it has NOT been edited as much as we would usually expect of a panoramic composite.
Logged
mcanyes
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2004, 08:34:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks guys! You should do this more often. It took me away from the endless election coverage for a few minutes.
Logged

Michael Canyes
Nikon stuff
www.dig-arts.biz
Fluid1959
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2004, 01:35:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I appoligize for my lack of photshop skills as I have only photshop'd
sorta since the rover landed I slide the little lever over till it looks
good. But the pro's do it scientifically and many of these photo's once enhanced by the likes of keith Laney of KeithLaney.com  and others
like him they will be even clearer.

Most of these Tif's are fiction created by NASA...But don't take my word for it!
Do your own homework. Cheap LCD monitors wont cut it for seeing detail.

The word edit equals alter, paintover pasteover clipout
hide from view disguise etc,  but applying seams of the mosaic is altogether a different subject.
  
These arrows indicate types of areas to look for edits .
Any area that has a darker or lighter color is an edit
Any area that appears like a dirt mound is an edit
Any time an object looks half covered with dust ..it's an edit


Example of NASA editing

This first Image shows the white patch im looking at.


This is a closeup untouched

This shows same patch with color and brightness/contrast enhancements "only"



Location of finds



Appears to be a strange rock holding a weapon


Again no editing I used lasso to outline it and clip image


Appears rover Lost an arm !





It Appears Rover Landed on a small  toy robot by size estimization!  It has eyes ears nose and hair  as well as 2 metal brackets with holes for a neck   It's on the far left side of this photo. The photo is busy and there are many anomalies here but focus on left . it's body is under the lander


I added more to my last post
Logged
Scott_H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 331


« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2004, 08:34:47 AM »
ReplyReply

The assumption seems to be that NASA is editing the photos.

I think that overlooks the disturbing possibility that the martians are intercepting the signal, and editing the photos before they are transmitted to Earth.

The 'software difficulties' the rover is now reported to be experiencing may be a result of martian tampering.

Someone is obviously covering something up, but I think assuming it's NASA may be overlooking a far more disturbing possibility.
Logged

Marshal
Guest
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2004, 09:42:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's the latest high-res photo from the Spirit Rover showing proof of Life on Mars:  

http://www.cinecon.com/forums/attachment.p...p;postid=170469
Logged
Fluid1959
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2004, 01:52:12 AM »
ReplyReply

So sorry professor.
I wasn't under thee impression that people get sucked into a thread, but had a choice in the matter.

And thank you in advance for the angelic job you have done for over a year with the idiots who peruse this forum.

Where better to seek the photgraphic truth but here ?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad