Valid questions, Why is Nasa editing Rover Images

Status
Not open for further replies.
You zoom in on a picture and then wonder why it's distorted. What an idiot. Hasn't Marsha fired you yet?

I personally find this funny:
Now I took this sample and selected a spot of the brown sky at random. I then did a "selective replacement" of that one color value with red. Normal images will have thousands of different shades in them, not a single uniform shade. What happened?
Click to expand...
Have you EVER taken a picture of a clear day? Or a foggy day? Guess what, same results. The image is obviously smoothed, what do you expect?
 
Thanks again Persol , your a legend ...
Thanks for the input


Unfortunately calling people idiots.. Is the biggest sign of ignorance..

I will e-mail the moderator in an attempt to keep you following the rules that others here seem to follow..

As always you never surprise me with your level of genius. You are the Winner
the first person to resort to name calling in this thread.. ( but I understand,, Your frustration in trying to communicate your genius.

These kinds of issues must often lead you down that path of name calling..
 
Last edited:
Ah yes, don't actually address any points. Just complain that I called you an idiot.

Idiot.
 
Goading people into namecalling is just as bad as actual name calling.

What I ca't understand is why you people waste your time looking at pictures NASA has outputted and defiantly suggesting they have been doctoring images, purely because you don't work for NASA and therefore don't get to deal with them first hand.

It's been stated multiple times why the images are like that, for one you are looking at images they wanted "cleaned up" for Press releases like tabloid publications and magazines, even televised news reports. All of those need pictures of Clarity, not murky blank and whites, or images with an odd skyline but ones that could be classed "A postcard from Mars".

It's even been explained that their image's are a higher quality in their lab as aposed to images that are released upon the internet, this is because of the sizes on the internet, and the fact that they have already sifted through the images for interesting information by that point so there is no point keeping the images in their full quality (and of course own extension).

What also has been mentioned is the loss of quality in JPEG this is caused by the way the size of the file is manipulated through the information being stored in a Vector format. This means generating smallers sizes at the expense of the loss of quality.

It's also been mentioned that if NASA was to hide something, they wouldn't output doctored images since the individuals that would have seen anything that would have to be doctored would have to undergo some form of secrecy bill. Therefore both the "witnesses" would be silent, and the images would never see light in a doctored or undoctored form.

If you or your conspiracy buff friends are going to say NASA is covering things up, then confront NASA rather than continuing your conspiracy since you lack credible proof.

Persol wasn't right to call you an idiot, however that doesn't mean you haven't been acting like one with this dillusion.
 
And, this is why we call this place scifoolems forums. NASA constantly doctors images and releases them. There have been enough whistle blowers that if one doesn’t comprehend the magnitude of this cover up or chooses to ignore it, go figure? One has to ask why any sentient intelligent being could just ignore all that is now known?

Or is there a reason for such activities that would undermine those that would want the truth?
 
No dust at all on the solar panels .. None .. Zilch.. Try to include some facts based in reality when you make statements.. "not NASA's Version of reality " of course...
Click to expand...
And this is because you did the tests to determine the specula index of the solar panels and compared them to early ones thus determining that no dust has settled. Or maybe you have direct readings of the power output, was able to do the math to allow for time of sol and orientation of the rover to determine that apart from the natural decay of the solar cells there is no power reduction due to dust.
Or did you just look at a picture a say that's not dusty. May be a alien should place "Please clean me !' in the dust for you to make it out.
To look for dust on the panels you need to view the image that has used the L2 or R2 filter because these are the ones tuned to the mars dust.
Once again all images from NASA have been edited because most of you don't know how to view the raw data.
 
The one point you do make is .. This advanced pancam camera isn't advanced enough to image its own solar panels.. And maybe the reason you can't make anything out .. Is because that dark tunnel up ahead is the rear entrance to NASA.. And you can't seem to pull your head free.. Or maybe your dyslexic and you just can't help getting the facts backwards.. Or maybe your some religious partisan nut, that clutches his bible at night with the sheets over your head and can't face reality....

Or maybe your just waiting for Good Ol George W Bush to tell ya everything is fine.. they found the WMD's

Maybe you should do some research learn and grow,, Instead of building your
little house on stilts..
 
This advanced pancam camera isn't advanced enough to image its own solar panels
Click to expand...
Looks dusty to me.
Left pancam filter 2 sol 273.
2P150603497EDN8953P2102L2M1.JPG


You should at least attempt a little research before stating the facts..
 
Hiding behind your brilliance.. Is an amazing feat..

optics.jpg


When you do wake up ... your going to feel real lonely..
 
fluid1959,

Your logic is so flawed that I seriously doubt you believe what your saying.
 
I beg to differ about who's logic is flawed.. In fact I would go so far as to say.. Logic is not part of your equations..

sol285x.jpg
 
Read this! Full pdf document here.. If you have any scientific credentials.. lol

http://www.agu.org/journals/je/je0311/2003JE002070/2003JE002070.pdf


2. Pancam Investigation Objectives
The primary science goal of the MER Athena investigation is to determine the aqueous, climatic,
and geologic history of sites on Mars where conditions may have been favorable to the
preservation of evidence of pre-biotic or biotic processes (Squyres et al., 2003). Pancam has
been designed and will be operated on Mars with the aim of supporting this primary goal and a
number of related scientific and measurement objectives.



2.1.1. Geology/Geomorphology. Substantial information useful for the interpretation of
the past history of a landing site can come from simply acquiring images of the surroundings.
The MER mission rovers are highly capable in this regard because each is endowed with 9
cameras (4 stereo pairs and one micro-imager) plus a descent imaging system on the lander itself.
Pancam is the highest spatial resolution stereo imaging system on the rovers. Like the Viking
and Pathfinder imaging systems, Pancam has the capability to generate panoramas of the
surrounding terrain spanning the full 360° of azimuth. However, the high-resolution capabilities
of Pancam (0.27 mrad/pixel IFOV, corresponding to ~1 mm/pixel at a range of 3 m from the
rover) provide approximately a factor of three better resolving power than the Viking Lander
cameras or Mars Pathfinder IMP imaging system.


First, it provides the equivalent of
20/20 human vision. (what human Mr. Magoo)

We know that 20/20 vision in the field, when coupled with surface mobility,
provides a good capability for a human geologist to make observations and to formulate and test
hypotheses based on these observations. Second, a resolution of 0.28±0.02 mrad/pixel is an
appropriate value for assessment of distant rover obstacles. Pancam provides a spatial resolution
of 2.8 cm/pixel at a range of 100 meters, which is the maximum distance that the MER rovers
can be expected to traverse in one sol.

Are they talking about the same camera?

In case math isn't your thing 1 in = 2.54 cm

magoo.jpg
 
Last edited:
Your not to bright are you. Nice pictures but what they have to do with your argument alludes me.
A normal human 6/6 vision = 1arc minute at 6 meters = 1.745mm
Pancam has 6/6.23 vision witch is slightly better then a normal human.
PS 6/6 vision is the metric version of 20/20
 
Well what seems to allude you.. is common sense..
the camera specs = 1 pixel represents approx 1 inch at 100 meters..

When in fact at aproximately at fifty meters all is just a blurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..
But you couldn't deduce that.. Because your too smart for me..

I am yet to look at any image (set of images) Stereo (not mosaics IE pia4995.tif that even comes close to half the resolution of the specs..

Specs read as the pancam images are Equal to a human's 20/20 vision or slightly better..

When someone looks down at their feet with advanced stages of cateracts they would see clearer than this Pancam... Blurry Muted images (do not constute 20/20 vision..



Your not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you.?
 
Fluid still doesn't grasp that .jpegs are not the raw data gathered from the camera.

Sad, infuriating, but that's what we have to work with.

I dunno how it works with NASA data, but with European missions, the PI (Principle Investigator, for Fluid, and anybody else that doesn't know how science works), only gets exclusive rights to the data for one year. They have a one year headstart to analyse and publish their data, then it becomes available to the public, via some archive. I helped set up one of the first astronomical databases which was open to the public, when we first realised the power of the fusion of databases, and web servers, in the '90s. Previously we'd used anonymous ftp, over academic networks, so access was restricted to Universities etc. Now, anybody can get astronomial data, and analyse it.

If NASA dont allow the general pubic access to it's data, the answer is simple, Fluid. Get a degree, start a PhD, and apply for access. You'll get the data, it could be yours in three years or thereabouts. Isn't three years worth of study worth it, to answer all your questions? How curious are you? Enough to read a real science book for a few years?
 
Fluid1959, for the benefit of people like me - who haven't been following all of your your posts - could you possibly state your opinion of what NASA are hiding and how they're doing it?

Cheers
 
Some things to consider:

1. NASA is barely scraping by with its budget. If anything, I would expect them to fake evidence in favor of life on Mars, rather than cover it up. At least then they might get some funding.

2. Why would NASA even bother editing out things that they don’t want people to see in their photographs? It would be a lot easier to simply not release them, wouldn’t it? Surely they could manage a few photos that didn’t have any sensitive things in them for public consumption.

3. JPL has some of the most sophisticated image processing and analysis facilities in the world. If they wanted to alter pictures, I’m sure they could do a lot better than using Adobe Photoshop. Frankly, if the JPL people wanted to start faking photos I doubt that anyone would be able to catch them at it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top