Last edited:
Valid questions, Why is Nasa editing Rover Images
- Thread starter fluid1959
- Start date
- Status
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
Have you ever heard of electron overflow on a CCD? It looks like overexposure to me. They should have had the camera subframe the intended target to prevent CCD washout from brighter sunlit areas. Maybe they were just working off of smaller energy constraints.
blackholesun, are you speaking of blooming? That doesn't look like blooming to me. I
do not know why, but the images were tampered with. Neither overexposure nor
blooming would present the type of jagged rim nor the smooth 'sky' in the images.
Did you look at the side-by-side images on page 2? Here is a link:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm
do not know why, but the images were tampered with. Neither overexposure nor
blooming would present the type of jagged rim nor the smooth 'sky' in the images.
Did you look at the side-by-side images on page 2? Here is a link:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm
Fluid, it has been discussed on these pages ad nauseum, and still you don't grasp it. NASA don't send probes all that way to snap .jpg's for the likes of you to drool over.
They send probes to do science, which means they gather data, using filters, and then, to give the public something to show for their money, make a colour composite from the data they have. The images will have been put together as an approximation from three other filtered images at least.
There's no cover up, it's just how SCIENCE is done, it isn't landscape photography.
They send probes to do science, which means they gather data, using filters, and then, to give the public something to show for their money, make a colour composite from the data they have. The images will have been put together as an approximation from three other filtered images at least.
There's no cover up, it's just how SCIENCE is done, it isn't landscape photography.
Smething else that should be analysed is what communications system is outputting the images and what array is transporting that data back to earth. It's not as simple as a mobile phone network surrounding the planet which will have a delay of milliseconds for distance. When dealing with "a call from Mars" the planets could be in a particular rotation, their orbits around the sun could be increasing the distance between the send and receive points and the satellite have to then align.
At any point through this telecommunication things can "Float" through the datastream which potentially causes the drop in data quality. For instance a dense cloud of gas could streamby that would distort the datastream or even make it drop out all together. (Understand that that gas cloud will have different physics to an atmspheric cloud on earth, although Thunderstorms when lightening is present tend to knock out uplinks)
It's been mentioned over and over again, NASA isn't editing the images, if they had something they didn't want you to see then it would be easier to withdraw it than doctor it. NASA would probably love to find some reminants of life elsewhere in the universe and would probably love to prove that it exists because it would mean their funding would be increased and a common goal set for a Spacial Archeological dig, however it's not too promising at present with the barren wastelands of Mars.
At any point through this telecommunication things can "Float" through the datastream which potentially causes the drop in data quality. For instance a dense cloud of gas could streamby that would distort the datastream or even make it drop out all together. (Understand that that gas cloud will have different physics to an atmspheric cloud on earth, although Thunderstorms when lightening is present tend to knock out uplinks)
It's been mentioned over and over again, NASA isn't editing the images, if they had something they didn't want you to see then it would be easier to withdraw it than doctor it. NASA would probably love to find some reminants of life elsewhere in the universe and would probably love to prove that it exists because it would mean their funding would be increased and a common goal set for a Spacial Archeological dig, however it's not too promising at present with the barren wastelands of Mars.
I have inside information in respect to the deception of the rover imagery. A disgruntle NASA employ corrupted the fake environment. This person has been eliminated (accident report Incident # ORCC04CAD092153 7/30/2004 ORANGE county police).
Warning don't probe, or rove..
Warning don't probe, or rove..
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
2inquisitive said:
Well I'm guessing there are some sort of anti-blooming drains on the ccd itself or some sort of algorithm that protects adjacent ccd elements if the elements above it are overexposed.
These aren’t the first pictures NASA has edited, nor will they be the last. May they all rot in hell that perpetrate these deceptions and lies.
Thank you to those inside NASA that are trying to get this information out and make the public aware of the tampering.
Thank you to those inside NASA that are trying to get this information out and make the public aware of the tampering.
craterchains (Norval said:
What tampering?
2inquisitive said:
That's a very interesting page. I believe that the sky is certainly fake, but as for that signature, i opened the image in paint, and used the fill effect on the sky, and no signature was to be found.
http://sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1
Each camera picture is taken at different times, what if in one frame the sun is illuminating a part of the crater directly and this overloads the CCD and makes the image look like it has a white horizon and sky? This would explain the effects we see in some of these photos.
As for the spots in the sky that could have been do to cosmic rays discharging the pixels in that spot before it was read, resulting in a black spot.
As for signal black out that happens, sorry you try communicating to a robot from millions of km way.
As for the spots in the sky that could have been do to cosmic rays discharging the pixels in that spot before it was read, resulting in a black spot.
As for signal black out that happens, sorry you try communicating to a robot from millions of km way.
Ya Nasa Scientist would have to be pretty dumb to tamper with photos and make it this obvious. Which is why electronic errors seem more likely. Let alone the fact that If Nasa ever had proof of aliens it funding would go through the ceiling and they would have a man on mars in just a few years, plus spare change, but instead they decide to cover it up, yep brainless.
Blindman provided the answer, can't you guys read? It was not data drop-out, that
is common with many images that are recieved and is entirely different. NASA itself
did not alter the images, but a disgruntled employee. But the fact remains that those
particular images were altered. The rhetoric spouted by some only shows your blind
'faith' in what you see as the unquestionable reporting of the 'whole truth' by the government and its branches. Even when looking at the altered images themselves,
some still propose inane excuses as to why the images weren't tampered with. And
Fetus, I don't believe anyone has suggested 'a little green Martian' has been edited
out of the images. The time stamps on the images were the same. The link again to
the side-by-side images at the bottom of the linked page:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm
is common with many images that are recieved and is entirely different. NASA itself
did not alter the images, but a disgruntled employee. But the fact remains that those
particular images were altered. The rhetoric spouted by some only shows your blind
'faith' in what you see as the unquestionable reporting of the 'whole truth' by the government and its branches. Even when looking at the altered images themselves,
some still propose inane excuses as to why the images weren't tampered with. And
Fetus, I don't believe anyone has suggested 'a little green Martian' has been edited
out of the images. The time stamps on the images were the same. The link again to
the side-by-side images at the bottom of the linked page:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
All I was saying is that at least some of it looked like it could have been overexposure. If Blindman was serious well then the man responsible is an asshole for being slanderous.
You're right about the side by side comparison as there can be no other explaination. But why just the left camera and not the right? Both used the same filters.
You're right about the side by side comparison as there can be no other explaination. But why just the left camera and not the right? Both used the same filters.
This is a free country - yes. otherwise you'd be in a looney bin.
We have a free press - which you are making us of right now. Even the tabloids are 'press'
Department of Defense..(Nasa) would never cover up anything. - DoD most certainly would. Nasa would have little reason, as this is their lifeblood.
Bush was voted into office - um, he was. Just not by the majority.
No such thing as Ufo's - nombody has said that. We simply said that UFO doesn't equal flying saucers from Venus.
Iraq - completely unrelated, but what should I expect.
Do you have ANYTHING to offer?
We have a free press - which you are making us of right now. Even the tabloids are 'press'
Department of Defense..(Nasa) would never cover up anything. - DoD most certainly would. Nasa would have little reason, as this is their lifeblood.
Bush was voted into office - um, he was. Just not by the majority.
No such thing as Ufo's - nombody has said that. We simply said that UFO doesn't equal flying saucers from Venus.
Iraq - completely unrelated, but what should I expect.
Do you have ANYTHING to offer?
Fluid, it seems that since NASA is under the umbrella of the DoD and any NASA investigation or research would be under the watchful eye of the Department of Defense for the United States, it can be concluded all information released by NASA and related sources will be skewed. Keeping this skew in mind does not mean one cannot pick out what these research teams are really looking for or investigating including the research done between NASA and cooperating countries.
It just seems that over time this manipulation is blatant and the persistence by ones like yourself and NASA's own artists with their signature watermarks is unique.
It just seems that over time this manipulation is blatant and the persistence by ones like yourself and NASA's own artists with their signature watermarks is unique.
fluid1959 said:
and it certainly doesn't take a genius to speculate they have been!
Get a clue, and actually go DO some research rather than flinging mud at others. Just because you are too stupid to ever get inside NASA, dosn't mean you are allowed to bad mouth those people that do work there, in honest pursuit of their research.
Oh Phlogi,
That is priceless coming from you.
There is so much proof of tampering that it is becomming like the old saying show me a picture of a UFO. FOCL
That is priceless coming from you.
There is so much proof of tampering that it is becomming like the old saying show me a picture of a UFO. FOCL
blackholesun
Registered Senior Member
Where is the evidence of "tampering" then Norval? What is your definition of tampering?
craterchains (Norval said:
Yes it is, considering I used to work with a bunch of astronomers and have seen how these composite images are created. I understand the process, that's the difference Norv. NASA don't go all that way to snap pretty pictures, they go to do science. They then try and give the public a pretty pic to satisfy their curiosity. The general public don't want data, they want pretty piccies, and that suffices. The only issue, is when underachieving pseudo-scientists start doing 'research' with .jpg's!
I don't know what format NASA use for planetary images, but for all other astronomical data, , Hubble data, EUVE, etc, they use FITS, and a piece of software called FTOOLS. If they could do science with a few .jpg's and MS 'Paint', they wouldn't spend all that time and effort designing their own
file format and software, would they?
Show me tampering. Really. tell me how the image was created.Tell me what filters were used, and when th eimages were taken, and how they were composited. Then tell me how the image _should_ look (by comparing to each individual filtered image from the raw data) and show me where the 'tampering' occurs post composite. Go on, should be easy, you're so sure of yourself.
Why do you bother with a chair?
- Status