Couldn't find this. Apologies if already posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5GZ6KofsU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7edICir6c4
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 18, 2013, 03:44:48 AM
Couldn't find this. Apologies if already posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5GZ6KofsU
INCA CITY - E09-00186
Mars Global Surveyor
"INCA CITY"
MOC wide-angle image E09-00186
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Mars_Images_24.html(http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e07_e12/full_gif_non_map/E09/E0900186.gif)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/SETI/E09-00186_annot1.gif)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/SETI/E09-00186_annot2.gif)
SETI
On Lunar ArcheologyApology not accepted :P
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 18, 2013, 04:03:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7edICir6c4
So lemme get this straight... NASA is covering up but he is using NASA pictures to show the cover up?
Ummm okay :P
The gear looking thing is interesting... I will see if I can find the original. Getting them off youtube... well SUCKS :D
Thanks for the awesome input, z! GFY!
Yeah. I have gotten into looking for anomalies and will post a few I found here in a wee bit.
EDIT to add: Yes, We use NASA's data. Cool thing is a trained eye can catch things They missed, or evidence of tampering. [grin]
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 18, 2013, 11:20:26 PM
Cool thing is a trained eye can catch things They missed, or evidence of tampering. [grin]
The problem is that most people do not have a trained eye and are not able to distinguish evidences of tampering from JPEG compression.
Also, professionally done image editing is not detectable. Even amateur image editing is not detectable, as a test I did some years ago showed me.
From this image:
http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/117546/snapshots/315914
I extracted the following images. I passed many things that I could make some case for tampering/anomaly, asking the question, "Could this be attributed to rocks?" I am not saying any of these could not be, but that I gave very low probability.
I will present the screen shot I worked off of and the result for images I worked. In working images, I used unsharp mask, contrast, and levels. This is only part of what I found.
The Temple:
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-temple.png~320x480?t=1384820990)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-templeproc.png~320x480?t=1384820914)
The stripe
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-stripes.png~320x480?t=1384820983)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-stripesproc.png~320x480?t=1384820985)
The Pavilion
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-pavillion.png~320x480?t=1384820977)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-pavillionproc.png~320x480?t=1384820979)
Here I contemplated how I might build with both the ability to move massive stones with ease, and also to "melt" stone into pliable substance, and could see...
The Compound
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-compound.png~320x480?t=1384820951)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-compoundproc.png~320x480?t=1384820954)
This may just be paradelia...or however it's spelt. Spell-check gave Me nothing. I thought it was striking so it's included.
The Catface
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-catrock.png~320x480?t=1384820938)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-catrockproc.png~320x480?t=1384820941)
The Chest
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-chestproc.png~320x480?t=1384820947)
The Evidence
Blurring
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-blur.png~320x480?t=1384820921)
This one clearly shows a trapezoidal selection that has been blurred
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-blur2.png~320x480?t=1384820922)
This is a part of the distance which seems to have no major data, but processed, it's clear some major messing has taken place.
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-distance6.png~320x480?t=1384820963)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-distance6proc.png~320x480?t=1384820967)
And...
How more in-Your-face can We get?
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-bigtower.png~320x480?t=1384820918)
Quote from: zorgon on November 18, 2013, 08:13:17 AM
The gear looking thing is interesting... I will see if I can find the original. Getting them off youtube... well SUCKS
My "trained eye" tells me that it's this photo. ;D
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00052/mcam/0052MR0239007000E1_DXXX.jpg
Quote from: ArMaP on November 19, 2013, 12:37:53 AM
The problem is that most people do not have a trained eye and are not able to distinguish evidences of tampering from JPEG compression.
Also, professionally done image editing is not detectable. Even amateur image editing is not detectable, as a test I did some years ago showed me.
[shrug] If You say so, ArMaP.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 01:32:42 AM
And...
How more in-Your-face can We get?
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-bigtower.png~320x480?t=1384820918)
What's the problem with the UHF antenna, besides being out of focus? ???
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 01:45:18 AM
[shrug] If You say so, ArMaP.
I do say it, specially the part of not being able to detect image tampering.
The test I made had two photos, one altered the one untouched, and most people pointed to the untouched image as being the one I had altered. The ones that pointed the right image could not point to what I really had changed.
Good image editing is undetectable.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 19, 2013, 01:48:24 AM
I do say it, specially the part of not being able to detect image tampering.
The test I made had two photos, one altered the one untouched, and most people pointed to the untouched image as being the one I had altered. The ones that pointed the right image could not point to what I really had changed.
Good image editing is undetectable.
Unless You're Deuem.
I don't think these guys are taking that much time with any given image. They have butt-loads to go through. They could hire Me... Hehe.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 19, 2013, 01:45:32 AM
What's the problem with the UHF antenna, besides being out of focus? ???
LOL! I guess You don't appreciate My humor, ArMaP.
Hahahahaha!
Quote from: ArMaP on November 19, 2013, 01:38:59 AM
My "trained eye" tells me that it's this photo. ;D
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00052/mcam/0052MR0239007000E1_DXXX.jpg
Ah! A field of basalt :D Some amygdaloidal (scoria)
...basalt is a cool stone... it forms hexagonal columns :D
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 01:59:01 AM
They have butt-loads to go through. They could hire Me... Hehe.
We tried to... when ASU called out to the public to look for anomalies. We wrote them, showed them ArMaP's favorite anomalies, but they wrote back and said they changed their mind and would let SETI do it
We wrote SETI to offer our help... they never replied, even though they have the Lunar Archaeology department (looking for anomalies in pictures :P)
It was NASA that labeled that picture "INCA CITY" :D
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 02:02:48 AM
LOL! I guess You don't appreciate My humor, ArMaP.
You're right.
Basalt...
Just for reference :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Basalt_structures.jpg)
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 01:59:01 AM
"Unless You're Deuem."
I don't think these guys are taking that much time with any given image. They have butt-loads to go through. They could hire Me... Hehe.
YEA!! You go girl !!!! I only wish I could get them 100%. WIP work in process.... What some people do in hours we can check in moments [like the news photo yesterday]
Quote from: ArMaP on November 19, 2013, 02:19:22 AM
I doubt it.
Come on ArMaP, won't you ever give me just a little break. I think I have shown many things that give the program some credit. Not every thing in this world is ArMaP Black and White. The Deuem world is very colorful. It is a fun world and an opening into thinking......
Do you ever dream? Dream outside of your boundries? Tackle something you know you can't do?
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 19, 2013, 04:04:43 AM
I think I have shown many things that give the program some credit.
Some, not full. :)
As you know, the program works with what is there, so if it doesn't find anything wrong it cannot show it. A good image editing doesn't leave those signs.
QuoteDo you ever dream?
Sometimes.
QuoteDream outside of your boundries?
Yes.
QuoteTackle something you know you can't do?
Why? That would be a waste of time.
Quote<blockquote>Tackle something you know you can't do?</blockquote> Why? That would be a waste of time.
See that is a big difference between us. If I know I can do it then I have done it before. I like to do things I can't do. I then have to learn something new.
Quote from: deuem on November 19, 2013, 09:48:48 AM
See that is a big difference between us. If I know I can do it then I have done it before. I like to do things I can't do. I then have to learn something new.
Yes, that's a difference between us, in the way we define things. :)
To me, something that I know I can't do is exactly that, something I know I can't do, like flying by waving my ears.
Then there are the things I have never done but, as they are not physically impossible, are possible, like learning a new language or repairing a dish washing machine. I do (or at least try) those all the time, although my attempt at repairing the dish washer last weekend has yet to end as expected.
PS: I think that learning is the only thing we can do at any time, during our life. :)
Some more images from the site http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/117546/snapshots/315914
(ArMaP, what say You to the rest of the images I put in the first? You were the grand prize winner in answering My question, "Who will be the first to point out that the signs of intelligent life in that last pic is part of what We know Humans created.")
The Flower Rock
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-flowerrock-1.png~320x480?t=1384829055)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-flowerrockproc-1.png~320x480?t=1384829059)
The Loop
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-curl.png~320x480?t=1384829045)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-curlproc.png~320x480?t=1384829051)
The Brick
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-brick-1.png~320x480?t=1384829034)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-brickproc-1.png~320x480?t=1384829035)
The Car Lot
Note the brick-like appearance of the piece circled on the right, and the car-like appearance of the one on the left.
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-carlot-1.png~320x480?t=1384829038)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-carlotproc-1.png~320x480?t=1384829040)
Processed Chest from First Batch
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-chestproc-1.png~320x480?t=1384829042)
The Quick Fix
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-hidingwhat-1.png~320x480?t=1384829033)
That is clearly white added in Photoshop, but I am sure it will be blamed on "camera glitch." I bet someOne at the last minute saw something clearly manufactured and, not having skills, just did a quick paintover.
And more...
The Art Deco Decoration
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-weirdgrowth.png~320x480?t=1384878778)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-weirdgrowthproc.png~320x480?t=1384878728)
A Little Pyramid
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-littlepyramid.png~320x480?t=1384878733)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-littlepyramidproc.png~320x480?t=1384878737)
Markings
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-markings.png~320x480?t=1384878741)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-markingsproc.png~320x480?t=1384878743)
A Tool
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-tool.png~320x480?t=1384878753)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-toolproc.png~320x480?t=1384878756)
A Toy
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-toy.png~320x480?t=1384878772)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-toyproc.png~320x480?t=1384878774)
Toppled Statue
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-toppledstatue.png~320x480?t=1384878766)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-toppledstatueproc.png~320x480?t=1384878770)
C'mon, ArMaP. Want to hear Your opinions of these images.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 03:01:47 PM
ArMaP, what say You to the rest of the images I put in the first?
There isn't much to say about them, they look like images of rocks and dust. :)
QuoteThe Quick Fix
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-hidingwhat-1.png~320x480?t=1384829033)
That is clearly white added in Photoshop, but I am sure it will be blamed on "camera glitch." I bet someOne at the last minute saw something clearly manufactured and, not having skills, just did a quick paintover.
It took me 12 minutes to do this, using Gimp (not as user friendly or powerful as Photoshop). Also, I am not used to make photo editing, I leave that to my brother, that has made several publicity works, including changing a dog into a lion.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img703/5469/eiaf.jpg)
Deuem can probably find the affected area. :)
So... The "Toy" with the regularly set holes looks like a rock to You? Nothing Consciously manufactured? Really?
Now I begin to see what I would call problems with Your perception. I will struggle to continue to take Your assessments seriously.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 10:27:57 PM
So... The "Toy" with the regularly set holes looks like a rock to You? Nothing Consciously manufactured? Really?
That one looks unusual, I didn't look at the images of your second post. :)
QuoteNow I begin to see what I would call problems with Your perception. I will struggle to continue to take Your assessments seriously.
I am used to it.
I'm guessing. LOL! Take a look at some of those things and ask the likelihood they would just happen in the random world of nature.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 19, 2013, 11:56:47 PM
Take a look at some of those things and ask the likelihood they would just happen in the random world of nature.
The strangest is the "toy". The "art déco" is also a little strange, but as unlikely to be natural as the "toy".
I will try to find better images.
PS: this time I looked. ;D
Edited to add that this shows one problem with posting too many photos of rocks: people get tired of them and stop looking, that's what happened to me. Because of that, the real interesting objects may be ignored, drowned in the flood of common rocks. That's why posting everything we find odd is not the best way of doing it, we should post only the strangest images and not every image of a rock that looks like something else, pareidolia does happen (and before zorgon says it, prosopagnosia also happens).
Hi Amy, rocks are always a problem for Deum And I only started to do some when Sky asked. So I don't have alot of Rock time. There is so much in the photo it overwhelms the program.
But If i had to guess from looking at what it gave me I would say the following.
All 3 large rocks have selection lines around them in the dark areas and have been worked. The top right one the most and the bottom the least. The top right rock has lost all of its deffinition lines and now looks to be just a few colors. On therest of the photo there are some flat rocks, center and 9 Oclock that have been blurred in place the white shows swirls.
The bottom rock has a white section that went to 100% white, the only place on the print that large of that white. Maybe all of that white was altered a bit. Again missing deffinition.
Am I even close?
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 20, 2013, 12:53:18 AM
Hi Amy, rocks are always a problem for Deum And I only started to do some when Sky asked. So I don't have alot of Rock time. There is so much in the photo it overwhelms the program.
But If i had to guess from looking at what it gave me I would say the following.
All 3 large rocks have selection lines around them in the dark areas and have been worked. The top right one the most and the bottom the least. The top right rock has lost all of its deffinition lines and now looks to be just a few colors. On therest of the photo there are some flat rocks, center and 9 Oclock that have been blurred in place the white shows swirls.
The bottom rock has a white section that went to 100% white, the only place on the print that large of that white. Maybe all of that white was altered a bit. Again missing deffinition.
Am I even close?
Deuem
Which image are You discussing...?
The Quick Fix
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/thequickFix.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/thequickFix.jpg.html)
Deuem on the above
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Thefixframe.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Thefixframe.jpg.html)
Close up
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/closeup.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/closeup.jpg.html)
After you were done and all of the text I wrote above applies to this print
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Amyafter.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Amyafter.jpg.html)
This photo shows me maybe even more than the white object.
I want to start out with: Any photos presented at our level should be of the best quality we can get. Taking sections of poor jpeg photos and then re-sizing them does not work. Also a direct link to the best original photo is needed to prove where you got it and that you did not change it or get it off another forum where they changed it and you don't know.
We end up in the same run around over and over. I know we went this way on the spaceship on the moon. Everyone was pushing it and I agree it looked that way but with the original it was not there it was just a play of light in the cheaper version.
The post should start with the original photo link, then a circled version then the work. Too many do spoil the thread. You can finish one then go to the next to keep readers interested or start multi threads. I don't even know what mission these are from. So if a judge called me in on this to testify I would have to decline on the grounds that I did not know where the shots came from and could have been worked before I got them.
Ok lets go with what we got for now. The white area has no definition; it is basically flat and very white. Almost like a mirror. It does have characteristics that remind me of CGI Painting and some blending. It would normally be put in the W.T.Heck is this box. Something is wrong. When I looked at the photo the first time I only looked at the re-worked one Amy did and did not see the white glitch one.
In her photo I had no idea what to look for. Because of the quality this is hard to do. The reworked from Amy has the same tones as the surrounding area and is more or less blended in better, but I did not like it in the first run as the rock and labeled it the rock in the center. I did not like the larger brown ones either, plus one more white flat stone. To me they might have also been worked before Amy. The high definition is missing I think they have been colored over using a selection tool to grab only that area. I show a path around them which turned green. Like a selection path in PS.
Now maybe there were all sorts of crawling creatures on those rocks basking in the sun or maybe the transmission got screwed up and they were full of glitches and they went in and fixed them before we saw it. That I don't know. But I do think someone touched up this photo in a hurry just to get it out of the way. I would like to see the best copy/original if we can get it.
We all know they go in and touch up photos, the real reason is why. Bugs and flowers or holes in data.
Deuem
The original photo is 0066MR0293063000E1_DXXX, from Curiosity, Sol 66.
This is the version I got from the PDS.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img42/8748/rznx.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img850/8944/o9d7.png)
This is the adjusted version.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img856/1554/0qa9.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/a/img801/7295/f1av.png)
PS: sorry for the file size, I didn't have the time to make a smaller version for the post.
Edit: I forgot to say that the white object (and the "toy") are on the right bottom corner of the photo.
Quote0066MR0293063000E1_DXXX, from Curiosity, Sol 66.
Found this pic
Mars Mobile - Nasa (http://www.google.com.hk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=0066MR0293063000E1_DXXX%20%2B%20Curiosity%20%2B%20Sol%2066&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjAA&url=%68%74%74%70%3a%2f%2f%6d%61%72%73%6d%6f%62%69%6c%65%2e%6a%70%6c%2e%6e%61%73%61%2e%67%6f%76%2f%6d%73%6c%2f%6d%75%6c%74%69%6d%65%64%69%61%2f%72%61%77%2f%3f%72%61%77%69%64%3d%30%30%36%36%4d%52%30%32%39%33%30%36%33%30%30%30%45%31%5f%44%58%58%58%26%73%3d%36%36&ei=g5SMUrOaOMybiQfTnIDoCQ&usg=AFQjCNFI0mU8GrbEYv8eK-QR6qhzZyWFow&bvm=bv.56643336,d.aGc&cad=rjt) marsmobile.jpl.nasa.gov/.../raw/?...
0066MR0293063000E1_DXXX&s=
6...? This image was taken by Mastcam: Right (MAST_RIGHT) onboard NASA's Mars rover
Curiosity on
Sol 66 (2012-10-12 18:38:34 UTC). Image Credit:
... Right Mast Camera ??? I must be on the wrong page, rover or planet.....Can't find the white object and my internet is so slow today, I can't see the photos you posted
Can you see this page (http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0066MR0293044000E1_DXXX&s=66)?
PS: I changed the images on my previous post, now the images in the post are smaller JPG versions, click for the full size PNGs made from the images in the PDS.
This image was taken by Mastcam: Right (MAST_RIGHT) onboard NASA's Mars rover Curiosity on Sol 66
(2012-10-12 18:24:58 UTC).
Curiosity Sol 66 0066MR0293000000E2_DXXX posted picture with white area
(2012-10-12 18:24:58 UTC).
Curiosity Sol 66 0066MR0293000000E2_DXXX noted in reply and the one the search came back with, perfect match until you figure out the time codes. the 0066 number is only in the save file area, not in the photo area....
2012-10-12 18:38:34 UTC).
sems thet all have the same number, only the time stamp is changed. cost me 3 hours to figure out you only posted 1/2 of the link to the photo, thanks.......next time post a link.
deuem
Deuem,
The image (original one I posted with the white blob) I did give the pic link to twice. ALL the images I am presenting in this thread are screen shots from a panorama image here: http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/117546/snapshots/315914
Except for the vids at the beginning, all the images I have offered are from that image and are screen shots I took.
ArMaP,
Given that there is at least one object in that image that shows evidence of intelligent manufacture - the "toy" (and look really closely at the "brick;" especially in the processed image, One can see brickwork within the larger rectangle!) - We must conclude one of two things:
1. These are pictures of Earth and We are being duped
2. There absolutely IS evidence that intelligent life existed at some time on Mars
Is there any other conclusion We can make?
(http://i1284.photobucket.com/albums/a572/paparumbo/marsrover_zps6ed7e7c5.gif)
That GIF needs to loop, Elvis. I missed much of it and had to refresh, as it stopped.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 20, 2013, 04:26:59 PM
That GIF needs to loop, Elvis. I missed much of it and had to refresh, as it stopped.
Hey Amy its looping for me. I didnt make it, I stole it like the naughty gif nicker that i am. ;)
I decided it must have been a glitch in My system - now it's looping.
Quote from: deuem on November 20, 2013, 03:10:31 PM
This image was taken by Mastcam: Right (MAST_RIGHT) onboard NASA's Mars rover Curiosity on Sol 66
(2012-10-12 18:24:58 UTC).
Curiosity Sol 66 0066MR0293000000E2_DXXX posted picture with white area
(2012-10-12 18:24:58 UTC).
Curiosity Sol 66 0066MR0293000000E2_DXXX noted in reply and the one the search came back with, perfect match until you figure out the time codes. the 0066 number is only in the save file area, not in the photo area....
2012-10-12 18:38:34 UTC).
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. ???
Quotesems thet all have the same number, only the time stamp is changed. cost me 3 hours to figure out you only posted 1/2 of the link to the photo, thanks.......next time post a link.
Are you talking about what I posted? I posted the correct link.
But I did post the wrong image ID yesterday, sorry for that, the correct image ID is the one on the link, 0066MR0293044000E1_DXXX.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 20, 2013, 04:07:26 PM
Given that there is at least one object in that image that shows evidence of intelligent manufacture - the "toy" (and look really closely at the "brick;" especially in the processed image, One can see brickwork within the larger rectangle!) - We must conclude one of two things:
You're assuming things, I never said that there's an object "that shows evidence of intelligent manufacture", I only said that I find it strange.
Quote1. These are pictures of Earth and We are being duped
I have seen several people saying that, but if that was the case, where are the clouds? We rarely see clouds in Photos from Mars, but when we do they are slightly different from those from Earth, and always of the same type.
Quote2. There absolutely IS evidence that intelligent life existed at some time on Mars
One strange object cannot seriously be considered evidence of intelligent life.
QuoteIs there any other conclusion We can make?
Yes, you shouldn't make conclusions based on wishful thinking but on facts. ;)
Maybe Aliens have been picking things up on Earth for countless years, looking them over and dumping the garbage on Mars on their way out of the system. They just want to look at our trash, not keep it. 8)
Quote from: ArMaP on November 20, 2013, 11:39:59 PM
You're assuming things, I never said that there's an object "that shows evidence of intelligent manufacture", I only said that I find it strange.
Did You examine the brick (wall)? There's also a pyramid with markings to the left and back. But I didn't bother mentioning, because I am sure such things are natural rock formations. ::)
QuoteI have seen several people saying that, but if that was the case, where are the clouds? We rarely see clouds in Photos from Mars, but when we do they are slightly different from those from Earth, and always of the same type.
Given the clear manipulation of the distance in the panorama, how do We KNOW the original sky had no clouds?
QuoteOne strange object cannot seriously be considered evidence of intelligent life.
But... 1. there is no natural explanation for that christmas ornamentish thing I called a toy, and 2. it is NOT just ONE thing. The brick (wall), the decoration, and many others add up to a scene once inhabited by intelligent Beings.
QuoteYes, you shouldn't make conclusions based on wishful thinking but on facts. ;)
That was a rather inane reply, ArMaP. I was asking about what We can make of the facts. ::)
Quote from: deuem on November 21, 2013, 12:50:54 AM
Maybe Aliens have been picking things up on Earth for countless years, looking them over and dumping the garbage on Mars on their way out of the system. They just want to look at our trash, not keep it. 8)
ROFL! GFY! I doubt it, but will not rule out the possibility....
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 21, 2013, 01:54:14 AM
ROFL! GFY! I doubt it, but will not rule out the possibility....
Of Course they extract any gold first....Yea never know what they would keep. Maybe there is an old tooth area there missing gold caps. lol
Quote from: deuem on November 21, 2013, 12:50:54 AM
Maybe Aliens have been picking things up on Earth for countless years, looking them over and dumping the garbage on Mars on their way out of the system. They just want to look at our trash, not keep it. 8)
NASA is following suit, just dumping crap on everything they can hit :D
Maybe its to cover up 'older trash' :D
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 21, 2013, 01:52:59 AM
Given the clear manipulation of the distance in the panorama, how do We KNOW the original sky had no clouds?
Clear manipulation? I have never seen it. On photos from the Apollo missions I have seen some, on photos from Mars, none.
QuoteBut... 1. there is no natural explanation for that christmas ornamentish thing I called a toy, and
That's where I think you (and most people) are doing it wrong. The fact that we don't know how it was created doesn't mean that the object is artificial. Assuming that shows that we are not looking at this from a neutral point of view, we are trying to find things to prove our point of view.
Quote2. it is NOT just ONE thing. The brick (wall), the decoration, and many others add up to a scene once inhabited by intelligent Beings.
To me it's just one thing, maybe two, and I don't see any clear sign of artificiality.
QuoteThat was a rather inane reply, ArMaP. I was asking about what We can make of the facts. ::)
But you were (or should it be was?) not using facts. :)
QuoteBut you were (or should it be was?) not using facts. (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Hey ArMaP the Deuem program likes the white color balanced photo the best, What say yee, Ok or junk to use... The raw data files are next in line but not as good for me.
That toy Amy is talking about is right on the line with the next frame. In the panarama it has stiching right through it. Is there a better photo we are missing? I do not like the idea they went with jpeg, just so they could get a 360 panarama with 20 degree overlaps. They should have only used png or tiff and cut down on the amount of photos. All the compession is like looking through milk for me. It is very hard to split it up when the color pallet is almost the same for the entire photo blured by jpeg.
I did find some details on the mast cameras and they are 2 different set ups. They have different focal lenghts so doing a sterio from them also might be very mis-leading unless you hit the sweet spot. So I am not sure if I can trust any of the mast sterio shots. It is like one eye has 20/20 and the other is nearsighted.
Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on November 21, 2013, 09:27:17 AM
Clear manipulation? I have never seen it. On photos from the Apollo missions I have seen some, on photos from Mars, none.
Well then. Go back to page 1 and see My posting of the screenshot and the processing I did of the "distance."
QuoteThat's where I think you (and most people) are doing it wrong. The fact that we don't know how it was created doesn't mean that the object is artificial. Assuming that shows that we are not looking at this from a neutral point of view, we are trying to find things to prove our point of view.
And I say when One can find MANY anomalous objects that One has to "explain" away as "something natural that We don't understand how it was created," One is seriously doing it wrong. Take any photo of earth lands and find that many anomalous objects that One cannot attribute to Human inhabitance. You won't find them. Just sayin'.
QuoteTo me it's just one thing, maybe two, and I don't see any clear sign of artificiality.
But you were (or should it be was?) not using facts. :)
Wow. Really? No sign in that brick (wall)? The clear blocks that it is constructed of? Wow, ArMaP. Is this willful not seeing?
More work on the panorama image:
Hope this comes out - the original image I took this from ("Car Lot") is showing up about 1/2 size it really is (why, no clue):
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-compoundwallproc.png~320x480?t=1385066788)
Goose Neck w/Hole
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-gooseneck.png~320x480?t=1385066773)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-gooseneckproc.png~320x480?t=1385066784)
And a look at the image that was blurred out... The purple indicates the area that was selected and blurred. The edges are telltale.
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-blur2.png~320x480)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-blur2proc.png~320x480?t=1385066771)
Quote from: deuem on November 21, 2013, 02:10:15 PM
Hey ArMaP the Deuem program likes the white color balanced photo the best, What say yee, Ok or junk to use... The raw data files are next in line but not as good for me.
Will making the image greyscale do any difference?
QuoteThat toy Amy is talking about is right on the line with the next frame. In the panarama it has stiching right through it. Is there a better photo we are missing?
The best I found was the one I posted.
QuoteI do not like the idea they went with jpeg, just so they could get a 360 panarama with 20 degree overlaps. They should have only used png or tiff and cut down on the amount of photos. All the compession is like looking through milk for me. It is very hard to split it up when the color pallet is almost the same for the entire photo blured by jpeg.
We can only get better quality photos (based on the IMG files) when they add the photos to the Planetary Data System, and they do it every 3 months or something like that, so we have to wait for those to make better panoramas. Besides that, the better quality photos must be converted from IMG to PNG, a process that is not direct, using at least two different programs, one of those only works in Linux/Unix, so it's not very likely to see a panorama made with those images.
Maybe I will make one. :)
QuoteI did find some details on the mast cameras and they are 2 different set ups. They have different focal lenghts so doing a sterio from them also might be very mis-leading unless you hit the sweet spot. So I am not sure if I can trust any of the mast sterio shots. It is like one eye has 20/20 and the other is nearsighted.
Yes, that's a problem, I usually resize both images so they both have the same size, but the right camera image loses detail and the left camera image becomes blurry.
In some cases is enough to give an idea of the 3D environment, but for small objects or objects close to each other it doesn't give good enough results.
PS: thanks for the English lesson. :)
ArMaP, if you can find the img file and convert it to png, If you stich it together then we have that problem also added. I really don't care so much about the color as I do getting rid of the compression. But the white color balance prints do give me a better pallet to look at. To find any wierd patterns.
Amy, I can find many rocks that have Bricked out. It is a common size when the layered stone fractures. They also build walls with the larger ones. So finding a rectangle, round or triangle stone is very possible if you look around large streams. Even rocks with holes in them can be found. Think Ice and cracks, pop
I am not discounting what you wrote, just letting you know what I can find local. Add a couple of million years in the stream and they all turn to sand.
Do you remember I wrote about a fallen rock in the middle of the road. It was almost perfectly square. Looked like a dice. It must have weighed as much as my truck.
Deuem
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 21, 2013, 05:14:31 PM
Well then. Go back to page 1 and see My posting of the screenshot and the processing I did of the "distance."
It would be easier if you marked in the full panorama where those small sections are, searching for something so small in a huge panorama takes a lot of time. The "toy" was easy to find because I could see the edge of the photo. :)
QuoteAnd I say when One can find MANY anomalous objects that One has to "explain" away as "something natural that We don't understand how it was created," One is seriously doing it wrong.
You are mixing things, you are the one considering them anomalous, I am not. :)
QuoteTake any photo of earth lands and find that many anomalous objects that One cannot attribute to Human inhabitance. You won't find them. Just sayin'.
Why any photo? Those rocks were created in specific conditions, looking for rocks like that in the middle of New York wouldn't work, we should look for them in places that have similar conditions.
QuoteWow. Really? No sign in that brick (wall)? The clear blocks that it is constructed of? Wow, ArMaP. Is this willful not seeing?
Show me the originals, not the recompressed panorama, I am not going to waste my time looking for a rock in a panorama with thousands of rocks.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 22, 2013, 12:30:00 AM
It would be easier if you marked in the full panorama where those small sections are, searching for something so small in a huge panorama takes a lot of time. The "toy" was easy to find because I could see the edge of the photo. :)
Never thought of that. Did You doubt My source? [grin]
QuoteYou are mixing things, you are the one considering them anomalous, I am not. :)
Ah, well then. No point in arguing. Heh. Yup. You're right.
QuoteWhy any photo? Those rocks were created in specific conditions, looking for rocks like that in the middle of New York wouldn't work, we should look for them in places that have similar conditions.
Ehr Ye dense, Lad? In amongst the "any" are the "appropriate" set, and I guess I figured You'd be bright enough to catch the idea that of those You might choose the best in Your opinion. But I guess I need to lead You there.
QuoteShow me the originals, not the recompressed panorama, I am not going to waste my time looking for a rock in a panorama with thousands of rocks.
Hon, I don't know where the originals are. That is what I used. If You find the original let Me know, because I wouldn't know where to begin to look.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 22, 2013, 12:46:51 AM
Never thought of that. Did You doubt My source? [grin]
It's not a question of doubting, it's a question of quality.
QuoteEhr Ye dense, Lad?
I just have this tendency to take words by their true meaning, too bad many people change the meaning according to what they want.
QuoteHon, I don't know where the originals are. That is what I used. If You find the original let Me know, because I wouldn't know where to begin to look.
Without knowing where in the panorama things are it's very difficult to find the right photos in the hundreds of photos they used on that panorama. Post an image showing where they are and I will search for the originals. :)
Ok, I agree with both of you an a lot of the things you posted.
Amy, that panarama is so huge, 360 degrees, ArMaP is right, How do we find it.It could be any rock in thousands.
Here is the jist of it. When doing this type of research we have been lead down fake paths so many times it hurts. One needs to either get the best original or at least state you can't. I stay away from pans because of the stiching. If you can only work off the pan then please crop out a section that is large enough to find [matchup] then box the area in question like rdunk does and then do your work up.
Because others have posted photos from other sites we have no idea if we are all on the same page or it was manipulated before you got it. The carp just gets deeper that way.
If any of us use a source like NASA then we all like to validate it for ourselvess. If a friend points out a UFO in a NASA photo, I go and find it for myself and duplicate that effort.
Quote
<blockquote>Never thought of that. Did You doubt My source? [grin]</blockquote> It's not a question of doubting, it's a question of quality.
ArMaP is 100% correct here. Me 3. Garbage in garbare out.
Quote
<blockquote>Ehr Ye dense, Lad? </blockquote> I just have this tendency to take words by their true meaning, too bad many people change the meaning according to what they want.
Us Americans took over the English language and we all do what ever we want with it. [I hear our british friends booing] But it is strange for us, because we all know the meanings of the words we can play with them however we want to and we all get it. If you are not an American you will never get it. It is how our slang starts.
We use the root meaning for another reason. We all get it....If you listen to American Rap and so do I , we will hear two different songs. I will heard the meaning, you will hear the words. That's why our English is so hard to understand once we get off the book English.
And I don't think it is too bad I think it is a lucky thing. In Chinese you can't do what we do. The subject will change.
Quote
Hon, I don't know where the originals are. That is what I used. If You find the original let Me know, because I wouldn't know where to begin to look.
Start with the bigger photo crop down and then ask for help. Easy. The ArMaP blood hound will find it. He seems to be best at that.
Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on November 22, 2013, 01:34:29 AM
It's not a question of doubting, it's a question of quality.
Ok.
QuoteI just have this tendency to take words by their true meaning, too bad many people change the meaning according to what they want.
Ummmm. I said, "Take any photo of earth lands and find that many anomalous objects that One cannot attribute to Human inhabitance. You won't find them. Just sayin'." What word(s) there was "changed?"
QuoteWithout knowing where in the panorama things are it's very difficult to find the right photos in the hundreds of photos they used on that panorama. Post an image showing where they are and I will search for the originals. :)
I have no clue. The only link I have is the one I have and which I worked off of.
Quote from: deuem on November 22, 2013, 02:37:42 AM
Ok, I agree with both of you an a lot of the things you posted.
Amy, that panarama is so huge, 360 degrees, ArMaP is right, How do we find it.It could be any rock in thousands.
Here is the jist of it. When doing this type of research we have been lead down fake paths so many times it hurts. One needs to either get the best original or at least state you can't. I stay away from pans because of the stiching. If you can only work off the pan then please crop out a section that is large enough to find [matchup] then box the area in question like rdunk does and then do your work up.
Because others have posted photos from other sites we have no idea if we are all on the same page or it was manipulated before you got it. The carp just gets deeper that way.
If any of us use a source like NASA then we all like to validate it for ourselvess. If a friend points out a UFO in a NASA photo, I go and find it for myself and duplicate that effort.
ArMaP is 100% correct here. Me 3. Garbage in garbare out.
Us Americans took over the English language and we all do what ever we want with it. [I hear our british friends booing] But it is strange for us, because we all know the meanings of the words we can play with them however we want to and we all get it. If you are not an American you will never get it. It is how our slang starts.
We use the root meaning for another reason. We all get it....If you listen to American Rap and so do I , we will hear two different songs. I will heard the meaning, you will hear the words. That's why our English is so hard to understand once we get off the book English.
And I don't think it is too bad I think it is a lucky thing. In Chinese you can't do what we do. The subject will change.
Start with the bigger photo crop down and then ask for help. Easy. The ArMaP blood hound will find it. He seems to be best at that.
Deuem
I guess My question is.... If You know where I got the image, what does it matter where in the original My finds are? And to be frank, since I went over more than half that photo all close up, popping out and back in again makes it very difficult to keep My place. And, popping out enough to show where in that huge thing I am looking would include a huge amount of area.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 22, 2013, 03:32:03 AM
I guess My question is.... If You know where I got the image, what does it matter where in the original My finds are? And to be frank, since I went over more than half that photo all close up, popping out and back in again makes it very difficult to keep My place. And, popping out enough to show where in that huge thing I am looking would include a huge amount of area.
If you want any credability in this Mars world of research you need to take it up a knotch. People have been doing this for years and have followed to many roads off a cliff. Sorry Amy but just taking a rock out of thoudands and saying, look what I found no longer works with the Mars people. Drive it home....
You have to step up or get eaten alive all the time.
See in your case the source is not nasa and we really have no idea what that guy did to make his picture better. I am sure he must have touched it up in places or got the overlap a few pixels off. He did not do that work for us, he did it for the photo. The reasons are different. 100% different.
The better you prepare your case the better your work becomes. Way back when I did my Apollo 17 research I had to wait an hour for the real photos to DL but it was worth it.
This is like a ping file
"would include a huge amount of area."
This is like a jpg file
"wiuls imckludr q hyge am jnt od ar a."
Every thing is just a little off, but if you stand back, you can read it because you fill in the blanks and correct the letters. The compression scrambles the pixels and we are after those pixels. That is why deuem does not like to run large photos on Mars. I have to get as clean as I can and even then it is almost worthless. Now 1 rock I might get a better picture on.
The best thing to say is that you did not take the picture and your working off of What?
Maybe you went outside and snapped a photo of a local rock and colored it in. That is what people will think when they are left empty handed. I don't even know what camera took that photo. It gets deep fast in the Mars pool. Sort of sink or swim deal.....
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 22, 2013, 04:21:11 AM
If you want any credability in this Mars world of research you need to take it up a knotch. People have been doing this for years and have followed to many roads off a cliff. Sorry Amy but just taking a rock out of thoudands and saying, look what I found no longer works with the Mars people. Drive it home....
You have to step up or get eaten alive all the time.
See in your case the source is not nasa and we really have no idea what that guy did to make his picture better. I am sure he must have touched it up in places or got the overlap a few pixels off. He did not do that work for us, he did it for the photo. The reasons are different. 100% different.
The better you prepare your case the better your work becomes. Way back when I did my Apollo 17 research I had to wait an hour for the real photos to DL but it was worth it.
This is like a ping file
"would include a huge amount of area."
This is like a jpg file
"wiuls imckludr q hyge am jnt od ar a."
Every thing is just a little off, but if you stand back, you can read it because you fill in the blanks and correct the letters. The compression scrambles the pixels and we are after those pixels. That is why deuem does not like to run large photos on Mars. I have to get as clean as I can and even then it is almost worthless. Now 1 rock I might get a better picture on.
The best thing to say is that you did not take the picture and your working off of What?
Maybe you went outside and snapped a photo of a local rock and colored it in. That is what people will think when they are left empty handed. I don't even know what camera took that photo. It gets deep fast in the Mars pool. Sort of sink or swim deal.....
Deuem
Or... I could not worry about it and have My fun finding and posting things. [shrug] I'm not doing this for work.
Also, I gave the link I worked off of. Clearly it was not something I shot in My back yard. If You need Me to prove exactly WHERE the images came from, I throw My hands up and Y'all can look for the anomalies without Me.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 22, 2013, 04:39:12 AM
Or... I could not worry about it and have My fun finding and posting things. [shrug] I'm not doing this for work.
Also, I gave the link I worked off of. Clearly it was not something I shot in My back yard. If You need Me to prove exactly WHERE the images came from, I throw My hands up and Y'all can look for the anomalies without Me.
Ok, I see your point, then why don' you just post it that way. Like I do for my flowers. Everyone knows that they are for fun. If you didn't worry about it, then you wouldn't come back out looking for ArMaP tail. You would say, Hey I just did this for the fun of it and don't bother looking into any details. I don't have them.
So far I think every post on this thread has been positive towards edging you to be more of a real researcher. [if you want to be] and laying out the ground rules for the game. If it is for fun you can add some smiley faces to the rocks. When you state "
it is what it is" then you stepped over the fun part and into the snake pit. In that pit you will get bitten if not careful.
Ok, what happens if you really do find an Earth shaking object , take a crop, and the next day the original is gone? This happens all the time. Ask Z. I have done many NASA photos and posts that seem to go off line in a few days. If they come back, they are clean.
Deuem, confused on what you really want to do.........
i love this topic. great pics and vids.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 22, 2013, 03:26:41 AM
Ummmm. I said, "Take any photo of earth lands and find that many anomalous objects that One cannot attribute to Human inhabitance. You won't find them. Just sayin'." What word(s) there was "changed?"
To me, "any photo of earth lands" means exactly that, it doesn't mean "appropriate".
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 22, 2013, 04:39:12 AM
Or... I could not worry about it and have My fun finding and posting things. [shrug] I'm not doing this for work.
As far as I know nobody here is, but that doesn't mean we should do it without thinking about the best way of spreading all the information about the findings.
Quote from: deuem on November 22, 2013, 04:21:11 AM
This is like a ping file
"would include a huge amount of area."
This is like a jpg file
"wiuls imckludr q hyge am jnt od ar a."
That's one of the best explanations of the difference between those two formats I have ever read. :)
Quote from: deuem on November 22, 2013, 05:20:55 AM
Ok, what happens if you really do find an Earth shaking object , take a crop, and the next day the original is gone? This happens all the time. Ask Z. I have done many NASA photos and posts that seem to go off line in a few days. If they come back, they are clean.
I have seen that happen (although not with Earth shaking objects but with tampered images) at least three times.
Quote from: deuem on November 22, 2013, 05:20:55 AM
Ok, I see your point, then why don' you just post it that way. Like I do for my flowers. Everyone knows that they are for fun. If you didn't worry about it, then you wouldn't come back out looking for ArMaP tail. You would say, Hey I just did this for the fun of it and don't bother looking into any details. I don't have them.
I find anomalies that in toto paint a clear picture; The point is what I found and not from where it was found beyond that it was found in images purported to be of the surface of Mars.
So if someOne comes along and says that My work shows nothing but rocks, all naturally formed, I will call it like I see it, having nothing to do with WHERE in the image what I found was.
QuoteSo far I think every post on this thread has been positive towards edging you to be more of a real researcher. [if you want to be] and laying out the ground rules for the game. If it is for fun you can add some smiley faces to the rocks. When you state "it is what it is" then you stepped over the fun part and into the snake pit. In that pit you will get bitten if not careful.
I suppose... But I say that any suggestion that what I found is irrelevant merely because I can't point to the larger image and say, "It's here," seems...disingenuous.
QuoteOk, what happens if you really do find an Earth shaking object , take a crop, and the next day the original is gone? This happens all the time. Ask Z. I have done many NASA photos and posts that seem to go off line in a few days. If they come back, they are clean.
Deuem, confused on what you really want to do.........
I have no control over NASA, but the fact that They continue to clean images of objects says a lot. And whether or not They reissue images, pointing to WHERE will not solve that. At best it can only be used to show evidence that the image was further tampered with.
And My aim is NOT to show tampering, but evidence of intelligent Beings on Mars before this generation of Humans arrived.
One thing I was struck by in going over that parorama was the fact that there are many "formations" in a roughly circular setup (The "car lot" was one of very many) and reminded Me of the many formations in south Africa being studied by Michael Tellinger (of the Ubuntu movement) that have very odd electromagnetic properties.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 22, 2013, 01:51:36 PM
To me, "any photo of earth lands" means exactly that, it doesn't mean "appropriate".
But it doesn't matter, ArMaP. If You take a photo of NYC and remove all attributable to Humans...You may have little to nothing left to examine, but of what IS left, You won't find the numbers of "weird things that nature created but We don't know how." And if You go to the desert and get a photo and remove all things You know Humans didn't create, You won't find that number of things suggesting an intelligent Being had a hand.
BTW, You think those white stripes are natural? Really?
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 22, 2013, 04:41:47 PM
BTW, You think those white stripes are natural? Really?
Yes, I do, I think they are parts of the rock(s) that are getting the sun at a different angle, so they appear brighter.
This is one of the things a better version like the ones on the Planetary Data System will probably show, as those photos are corrected according to the information from the cameras, to give the best image possible.
That's one of the reasons I am looking for the original photos ID's, to see if I can get better versions from the PDS.
PS: I find it interesting that someone that is always talking about wanting to help other people acts in such a selfish way in this case.
Deuem, I'm curious, does the Deuem process show any signs of tampering in this image?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img703/5469/eiaf.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on November 22, 2013, 09:32:57 PM
Yes, I do, I think they are parts of the rock(s) that are getting the sun at a different angle, so they appear brighter.
Hahaha! That rock is in shadow, yet shows two very distinct lines both curved identically. And the sun does NOT turn anything else in the pic WHITE. And even supposing there was something casting shadows and light, IT would have to have two slits of identical dimension. Which in itself bespeaks intelligent creation.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 22, 2013, 11:03:37 PM
That rock is in shadow, yet shows two very distinct lines both curved identically.
The rock is not in shadow.
QuoteAnd the sun does NOT turn anything else in the pic WHITE.
Obviously. I suppose that's why you ignored the "getting the sun at a different angle" part. :)
QuoteAnd even supposing there was something casting shadows and light, IT would have to have two slits of identical dimension.
Why would be something casting shadows and light? Where did you get that idea? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on November 22, 2013, 09:49:27 PM
Deuem, I'm curious, does the Deuem process show any signs of tampering in this image?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img703/5469/eiaf.jpg)
I already did this picture and also the one before she reworked it, in this thread if you missed it. But the answer is No. It will not even pull out what Amy did in any dramatic way. The pallet she used must have been sampled off the print and not another print to make something up. Like adding a UFO! When working with a jpg, all the pixels look funny. The compression on these Mars shots almost destroys any pattern of light there is or was. So Deuem goes funny and just sits there looking for pattern and coming up empty. Not exactly what it was written for but I try anyways. I don't know why anything on Mars would be 100% white yet that fore stone has it and the glitch had it. Even though the glitch is fixed now the only thing I can say is that it just looks out of place but what rock might not. I did mention before that it is possible that someone worked this before her. The 2 stones above look like they have paths around them and they are missing a lot of detail. The only rock that had detail was the bottom one in the shaded area. Lets play with an idea: Say those 2 rocks up there had a green moss on them and they wanted to hide it. Just something simple. They would path the area, pick the green and move it down the hue range to match or almost match the colors in the rock. For each rock, maybe at least ten or more greens had this happen. You can just pick out 1 or a color group of them. To me when it is processed it will lose definition in the color patterns and they become un-natural but looking but still real. So Deuem will do what it should and show the new shifted patterns that look like the same color and I will have flat spots. Which did happen? These flat spots maybe just what I wrote. Lines would blur out if they were full of moss. Hence much less definition! All very subjective to say the least! Since we are working with a reflective light to begin with and not an energy source I don't know what else to do. Thinking... If Amy wants to try a mos rock I will too, Before and after. A standard is needed. like I do on light..... Deuem
QuoteSo if someOne comes along and says that My work shows nothing but rocks, all naturally formed, I will call it like I see it, having nothing to do with WHERE in the image what I found was.
If you say you are doing it for fun, then maybe they are too.. Why would your feelings be hurt?
And yes we all can feel that ! Otherwise you would agree and have a ;D Let people see what they want to see. Once you step over that verbal line and say "it is a toy" and not " it looks like a toy to me" you enter the snake pit. That simple, that quick...
Amy, the best people in the world look these prints over and you entered that ring. Get the gloves up if you don't want to get hit..
I have no standard to work against. I know if you take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. No one will ever know. I can't tell. But if you had many of them and altered them to match an existing pixel color you should end up with a larger group of the cloned color. Now what does that do do to a photo?
ArMaP would have to make a photo, say a blue gradiant with a small red and green striped ball in the middle with both red and green having gradiants. And then see what you could do with it. Get rid of the ball..I would need to test it before and after to see if i could find anything..
Without doing a lot of testing I have no way of knowing what to look for and we have no idea if it can be done like you say on the mars prints..Mars jpg prints are very confussing to the eye.
If this rover was my project it would never have jpg. Period. I would get a lot less prints but they would be better. If I wanted to hide detail, I would force them to use jpg to make it easy for me to fix them when they came in. Bluring garbage with garbage is easy. Taking a very clean ping or tiff is not. One section could take a month to re-color and not have it pop out....
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 02:04:00 AM
you enter the snake pit. That simple, that quick...
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Machine_Parts/Main_02.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Machine_Parts/Spanner01.gif)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Machine_Parts/Metal_Plate_01.png)
A very thin, equal thickness plate that most resembles certain types of hardware made from a piece of metal sheeting.
Center Right...
2P173157084EFFACA0P2440L7M1.JPG
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Machine_Parts/Square_Blocks_01.png)
Interesting square blocks, very symetrical...
Lower Left...
2P173157084EFFACA0P2440L7M1.JPG
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Machine_Parts/Hollow01.png)
This one is really amazing! You can see right through it! The thin wavey base and the overall shape suggest some piece of machinery.
Just ignore the sleeping Gopher...
2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1.JPG
Those images... so real that a Hardware store paid to advertise on that page :D
Just some general comments to this extended discussion, on the about 3 years of my anomaly research.
Most everyone wants to take a personal look at the original photos of any serious anomaly - both skeptics for their reasons, and for others for proving the validity of the anomaly. Simply posting a panorama makes that generally too difficult to do effectively. Many, if not most, anomalies are hard for untrained eyes to see them anyway, so very few will waste the time to look completely through a panorama to find a single few inches object that doesn't look much different from surrounding rocks.
But, just know that in the posting of anomalies, the skeptics NEVER see anything but rocks, or at least don't admit seeing anything but rocks. So, the quality of the pics will not make a difference in what the skeptic sees.
There is no gain generally, to post rocky looking items, and make a guess at what they might look like. That is one of the big things that turn even believers off, as there is no real basis of specificity. That is the way people use clouds looking- like...............!
There are real anomalies of intelligent design to be found on Mars, even with photo tampering. I too am very satisfied with the many proofs of intelligent design that I have found, that intelligent life on Mars is proven, beyond any shadow of doubt.
There is no "winning" in anomaly discussions with a skeptic, or skeptics. It is all about light and shadows and rocks and sand and pixels and bad photos or better photos and look at it this way and look at it that way, and it absolutely makes no difference if it is an exact image of a well known article, or a very very obvious artificial object ~~~~~~~~~~~ still nothing but rock, by skeptic "proof". I am not saying to not discuss - I am saying, just know in the beginning where your post will stand with the skeptic.
If you are truly interested in anomaly research, then use the best photos available, and be able to tell folks where the anomalies are generally located in the photos, if not obvious in the photo.
Now just one comment on point - I thought the best looking piece/anomaly in the photos you posted is the "curvy thingy". It does have an un-natural look for what we supposedly know about Mars.
Here are the originals... there is so much scrap metal around here its amazing... Lets dig it up :D
(http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440L7M1.JPG)
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1.HTML
Dead snake Ok, lol ::)
What Z just did on reply the first snake reply was an on the fence move. No Links, No statements, Just a photo. Now anyone can run with it or laugh it off but he kept his feet out of the pit. The fence is a safe place. I do sell fence pillows. See the difference?
Out of the many answers/questions we can now type. Very few of them can bite hard. We are left to think on our own.
The pit is a dangerous place to play.
Deuem
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1.JPG (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/527/2P173156766EFFACA0P2440R1M1.JPG)
for the full image direct link which I can't get to today. It is Saturday and the traffic is high.
Quote from: rdunk on November 23, 2013, 04:21:44 AM.
But, just know that in the posting of anomalies, the skeptics NEVER see anything but rocks, or at least don't admit seeing anything but rocks. So, the quality of the pics will not make a difference in what the skeptic sees.
Not true.. it depends WHY the skeptic can't see them. If they are just being obtuse, yeah no amount of detail beyond a close up in high detail will work
But most skeptics simply cannot see it... either their eye sight is off, monitor is off whatever and all they see is a blur... and when someone else says other wise they believe they must be nuts
Happened in San Jose We had a huge Copernicus image on a poster... A LLNL physicist was pointing to the artifacts and was actually yelling "What is the matter with you are you BLIND? Its there as plain as the nose on your face!" to a skeptic who only saw blurs
I had one artifact that I highlighted with purple... only to find out that people cannot see purple if they have trouble with grey scale and see even more blur.
But The Borg.. at ATS he was a skeptic... till one day I pushed and he finally wrapped his mind around the SCALE we were showing... He then spotted one anomaly and said "Holy Crap... I see it" After that he found the rest easily... but then vanished from ATS. Maybe it was too much for him :P
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 04:28:00 AM
Dead snake Ok, lol ::)
What Z just did on reply the first snake reply was an on the fence move. No Links, No statements, Just a photo.
What you didn't see my two following posts? :P
Besides these anomalies in that 'snake' picture were on the website since Mike Singh was here.
Does no one look at our own site? LOL
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Mars_Other_02.html
You either see 'it' or you don't . Simple
I quit trying to convince. I post what I see. Believe me or not! Doesn't matter.
Not true.. it depends WHY the skeptic can't see them. If they are just being obtuse, yeah no amount of detail beyond a close up in high detail will work
Z, for sure you are right, as you have way more experience than do some of the rest of us. However............I have seen the many different sides of the skeptic community. On the Unexplained Mysteries site, there was a very well coordinated group there that went to great lengths in the "skeptic realm" to disprove the anomaly and/or "kill the poster". It did appear to be very much a paid operation, if there ever was one. That group actually got me banned from posting, by claiming I was someone else who had been banned, and was now back under another name - - because I wrote like him - I could write a book about those guys! Actually zaru let me back in, and because of the still complaining, he asked me to just not post. :)) And then ATS.................of course you know all about that.
I myself have yet to see a true skeptic admit to actually seeing an anomaly - because if/when they do, their belief system is forever changed - at least for most. :)
Sorry Z, I don't really research Mars. I just get involved with a post or two. The Mars guys should do that and have disks full of data like I have disks full of Deuem.
And yea I can see the snake shape with ease.. Cool
deuem
Sarge, If you can locate it in a jpg and it is still there in a qualiyt format, your right as I see it. many things go away with a clear print that is not scambled with jpg. All people like me and ArMaP what to do it to make sure we are looking at the best photo we can get before jumping in the pit. Even rdunk just said the same thing and if I remember right you had that problem once and retired for a spell.
Believe me, It would make my day if I could take any of these and help prove it.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 22, 2013, 11:59:31 PM
The rock is not in shadow.
Sorry, misspoke. That SIDE of the rock is in shadow, and the limned edge that is not in shadow is nowhere NEAR as white. Like I said, I fine-tooth-combed that image and there was no other area that white except for the photo edit (which was 100% white).
QuoteObviously. I suppose that's why you ignored the "getting the sun at a different angle" part. :)
Maybe You didn't grasp, ArMaP - not that little section. The whole panorama I spent 6 hours going over. There were no other areas that popped that white. And that face is in the shade.
QuoteWhy would be something casting shadows and light? Where did you get that idea? ???
I envisioned something like blinds in effect, if not actual construction. Casting shadows in lines. Be that as it may, ArMaP, the stripes are anomalous.
Lets look at the photo Z posted above. I went out to his link and it brought me to another HiRes link which I also posted that link. After 30 minutes I got it.
That Hi Res as they call it is only 1024 x 1024 @ 312 kb. My cell phone which takes garbage photos is better than that. Where are the real photos?
Ok I took that photo into PS and went to pixels. Show me the photo in actual pixels on my screen, then I snapped what i saw. Here it is. All the garbage is then filtered in your eye/brain to make a picture out of it.
Before I get hung, It is a find and it would even put me on a track to find a better photo, Maybe ArMaP can. And to further the research at a high quality level. I can't believe this is what they spent millions of dollars on hand made cameras to get. Right there is where the BS starts. For most people just look at the pretty picture and stop.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/truecrop.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/truecrop.jpg.html)
I think I could almost hide an elephant in that photo it is so poor..
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 02:04:00 AM
If you say you are doing it for fun, then maybe they are too.. Why would your feelings be hurt?
Um... Feelings hurt? Huh? I guess I have failed in projecting My meanings if at any time You thought My feelings were hurt. I was merely stating that I have better things to do if the content of the image is not going to be the focus but instead where in the pic the weirdness was found. [shrug]
QuoteAnd yes we all can feel that ! Otherwise you would agree and have a ;D Let people see what they want to see. Once you step over that verbal line and say "it is a toy" and not " it looks like a toy to me" you enter the snake pit. That simple, that quick...
I never DID say it was a toy. I said NATURE did not construct it. In fact I have very conscientiously been calling it the "toy," quotes and all.
QuoteAmy, the best people in the world look these prints over and you entered that ring. Get the gloves up if you don't want to get hit..
Ok. I have no issues with that.
QuoteI have no standard to work against. I know if you take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. No one will ever know. I can't tell. But if you had many of them and altered them to match an existing pixel color you should end up with a larger group of the cloned color. Now what does that do do to a photo?
Removes data.
QuoteArMaP would have to make a photo, say a blue gradiant with a small red and green striped ball in the middle with both red and green having gradiants. And then see what you could do with it. Get rid of the ball..I would need to test it before and after to see if i could find anything..
Reading and answering as I go... Not sure where We're going with this.
QuoteWithout doing a lot of testing I have no way of knowing what to look for and we have no idea if it can be done like you say on the mars prints..Mars jpg prints are very confussing to the eye.
Ok. Forget about these pics. I's found Me a TIFF. My system is puking trying to work with it but it allows Me to ensure that I can back up and point to where. Still not sure what ArMaP's creating a pic has to do with anything. Hoping to see as I read.
QuoteIf this rover was my project it would never have jpg. Period. I would get a lot less prints but they would be better. If I wanted to hide detail, I would force them to use jpg to make it easy for me to fix them when they came in. Bluring garbage with garbage is easy. Taking a very clean ping or tiff is not. One section could take a month to re-color and not have it pop out....
I don't think the data coming from Mars is in jpg format. I suspect They can choose what format to issue the images in.
QuoteDeuem[/size]
Well.... What's ArMaP creating something got to do with it? I'm still confused.
QuoteZ wrote:
This one is really amazing! You can see right through it! The thin wavey base and the overall shape suggest some piece of machinery.
Just ignore the sleeping Gopher...
Funny, I saw the gopher first, had to look for the rest, guess I like gophers.
Quote from: rdunk on November 23, 2013, 04:21:44 AM
Just some general comments to this extended discussion, on the about 3 years of my anomaly research.
...
GFY, rdunk. Yes, I agree. And that curvy thing is indeed interesting, jpg or no.
Quote from: rdunk on November 23, 2013, 04:52:07 AM
Not true.. it depends WHY the skeptic can't see them. If they are just being obtuse, yeah no amount of detail beyond a close up in high detail will work
Z, for sure you are right, as you have way more experience than do some of the rest of us. However............I have seen the many different sides of the skeptic community. On the Unexplained Mysteries site, there was a very well coordinated group there that went to great lengths in the "skeptic realm" to disprove the anomaly and/or "kill the poster". It did appear to be very much a paid operation, if there ever was one. That group actually got me banned from posting, by claiming I was someone else who had been banned, and was now back under another name - - because I wrote like him - I could write a book about those guys! Actually zaru let me back in, and because of the still complaining, he asked me to just not post. :)) And then ATS.................of course you know all about that.
I myself have yet to see a true skeptic admit to actually seeing an anomaly - because if/when they do, their belief system is forever changed - at least for most. :)
I met that group. They ran Me off by baffling with BS and then closing My thread. And then deleting it. It was on electrogravitics.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 23, 2013, 05:36:34 AM
[snip] I was merely stating that I have better things to do [snip]
The term I have better things to do can be a fordian slip for, "Oh yea buster, do it yourself"
QuoteI never DID say it was a toy. I said NATURE did not construct it. In fact I have very conscientiously been calling it the "toy," quotes and all.
I would think there is no difference here a toy is a toy and not a cigar.
QuoteRemoves data.
Ok, please spain this one! If I take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. How do I look at the new photo and tell I lost data. As far as I know saving a pixel in any color is the same but I will try that and get back. But even if I lost data, I guess you meant size of overall kilobytes. If I don't have the original to compare it to, how can I tell.
QuoteReading and answering as I go... Not sure where We're going with this.
I was hoping we could run a test to see if you could take a known and blend it so I could test it. I need before and after.
QuoteOk. Forget about these pics. I's found Me a TIFF. My system is puking trying to work with it but it allows Me to ensure that I can back up and point to where. Still not sure what ArMaP's creating a pic has to do with anything. Hoping to see as I read.
OK waiting.
QuoteI don't think the data coming from Mars is in jpg format. I suspect They can choose what format to issue the images in.
Go read the camera specs. They also say they are 1200 pixels yet we see 1024. HUM???
QuoteWell.... What's ArMaP creating something got to do with it? I'm still confused.
Don't worry about it "I have better things to do"! In this case do you read that as sarcastic? Or really true?
Deuem,
psst, that whole ArMaP thing was to help you but you missed what I was up to. I wanted to see if you could do what you say they are doing at the pixel level so we have ammo in our belts.
Deuem
Compared to most members here, John and Zorgon included, I feel like a "banned virgin". I have never been banned and I think my work is as far out on a limb as any others. If anything I keep getting requests to join other forums or please come back notes. I can see Z now. Deuem banned from Peggy. I hear the axe falling. Its turkey de-heading day...
Virgin Deuem....And I like it that way......
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 06:12:02 AM
The term I have better things to do can be a fordian slip for, "Oh yea buster, do it yourself"
Not what I meant at all. In truth, the time I spent finding images and but for rdunk, no One has mentioned the content of the pics unless I do and direct to anOther. But many chimed in about how important knowing where to find it is.
But, like sky.... I think I'm hooked, and will struggle with My gimpy system to please the whole lotta Yuz.
QuoteI would think there is no difference here a toy is a toy and not a cigar.
I also called it a "christmas ornamenty thing." I have to call it SOMETHING to ensure clarity as to which image I am referring to, n'est pas?
QuoteOk, please spain this one! If I take a red pixel and change it to brown and save it. How do I look at the new photo and tell I lost data. As far as I know saving a pixel in any color is the same but I will try that and get back. But even if I lost data, I guess you meant size of overall kilobytes. If I don't have the original to compare it to, how can I tell.
Oh. If You're asking whether One can tell, it depends. If You have a very dark image and change one pixel to yellow, You will see it. If You have a field of blue-greens and green-blues and change one pixel to the other value, You will not see it in the image.
BUT, what I look for in image manipulation is not mere pixel changing, but a quality of an aggregate. Blurring has a distinct "feel" to it, and when combined with a mask, leaves a certain edge line. I look for circular areas that seem to have slight "offness" to that which is around. This is characteristic of a clone tool (I have an image that I defined such evidence here somewhere). There is the edge "tucking" that happens also in masking an area to be filled in. Also, though subtle, I have seen rocks that are somehow more (or less) in focus than the rocks around. This suggests a rock from elsewhere pasted in like a UFO.
QuoteI was hoping we could run a test to see if you could take a known and blend it so I could test it. I need before and after.
Ah. Not sure what You mean by "blend" it, but if I get clear instructions, and what I need to work with, I'm game.
QuoteDon't worry about it "I have better things to do"! In this case do you read that as sarcastic? Or really true?
Neither. I accept You are busy, and whether it is true or not, all cool.
Quotepsst, that whole ArMaP thing was to help you but you missed what I was up to. I wanted to see if you could do what you say they are doing at the pixel level so we have ammo in our belts.
You want to see if I can use the clone tool, the masking function, the pasting over with rocks, the blur tool? On a pixel level? Kinda scratching M'head.
QuoteYou want to see if I can use the clone tool, the masking function, the pasting over with rocks, the blur tool? On a pixel level? Kinda scratching M'head.
I want to see if you can make the ball go away with out a trace....
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Sorry Z, I don't really research Mars. I just get involved with a post or two. The Mars guys should do that and have disks full of data like I have disks full of Deuem.
And yea I can see the snake shape with ease.. Cool
deuem
Sarge, If you can locate it in a jpg and it is still there in a qualiyt format, your right as I see it. many things go away with a clear print that is not scambled with jpg. All people like me and ArMaP what to do it to make sure we are looking at the best photo we can get before jumping in the pit. Even rdunk just said the same thing and if I remember right you had that problem once and retired for a spell.
Believe me, It would make my day if I could take any of these and help prove it.
Of course you always look for the best quality photo. But what if you don't have one? What if you only have what you have?
Then you do the best you can. Or don't even try? Some here would say there are no anomalies just bad resolution photos and they'll go to great lengths to prove you wrong in your interpretation.
I learned my lesson. If I put something out there and you don't see what I see, then so be it. I will not try to convince anyone anymore.
Peace 8)
Rock...
hey sarge
don't let anyone get to you..
makes me think of the "i see dead people" line some say "where?" and some say "yeah, right!"
and you can't convert either ....it's all good 8)
Quote from: sky otter on November 23, 2013, 01:46:24 PM
hey sarge
don't let anyone get to you..
makes me think of the "i see dead people" line some say "where?" and some say "yeah, right!"
and you can't convert either ....it's all good 8)
No one 'gets' to me anymore as I said....I learned my lesson...
At this point in time, I could care less what anyone thinks...except maybe John and of course Zorgon.... ::)
Sarge, I agree 100% you must at least try both you out lined. Get the best print and give it a go with what ever the best you have. Even if it the worst print on record. I am forced to do that with most every UFO I have ever done. The only difference is that the jpg format does not bother me as much as it does the Mars work. Basicly a UFO pattern is going to be there or not. On Mars, Moon and orbit photos, sometimes an object will go away in a better print but sometimes it will get better! When it gets better we all smile.. :) I say go for it. Run with the best you have. Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 07:50:27 AM
I want to see if you can make the ball go away with out a trace....
Ahhhh. Yeah, I bet I can. How's this?
Toy Gone:
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-toy-gone.png~320x480?t=1385224027)
(Original for comp)
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Mars-toy.png~320x480)
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 01:35:06 AM
I already did this picture and also the one before she reworked it, in this thread if you missed it.
I didn't miss it, I misunderstood what you were saying. :)
Quote from: rdunk on November 23, 2013, 04:21:44 AM
But, just know that in the posting of anomalies, the skeptics NEVER see anything but rocks, or at least don't admit seeing anything but rocks. So, the quality of the pics will not make a difference in what the skeptic sees.
I see almost all of the "anomalies", I just don't see them as irrefutable proof of being made by intelligent beings.
And yes, the quality of the photos makes a difference, specially when we are talking about small objects in the photo.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 23, 2013, 05:09:01 AM
That SIDE of the rock is in shadow, and the limned edge that is not in shadow is nowhere NEAR as white.
The side not in shadow is not in direct sunlight either, it's only getting reflected sunlight.
QuoteMaybe You didn't grasp, ArMaP - not that little section.
If the sun is reflected directly to the camera by one surface that surface will appear much brighter and can "burn" the photo on that spot. For another surface to do the same it needs to be in a similar position between the light source and the camera, so it reflected the light directly to the camera.
QuoteThe whole panorama I spent 6 hours going over.
Irrelevant.
QuoteThere were no other areas that popped that white.
Why should there be more?
QuoteAnd that face is in the shade.
The general face, yes, but I think that we are looking at is not a flat face, but a stepped face, with the face of the "steps" pointing to the camera and the top of the "steps" getting direct sunlight.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 23, 2013, 05:36:34 AM
I don't think the data coming from Mars is in jpg format. I suspect They can choose what format to issue the images in.
I don't know if they have the possibility of sending in anything besides JPEG (although the file naming scheme they use allows for uncompressed images), but, according to the information available in the LBL files, these are JPEG images.
Quote from: deuem on November 23, 2013, 05:23:18 AM
Before I get hung, It is a find and it would even put me on a track to find a better photo, Maybe ArMaP can.
A better photo? Here it is. :)
(click for full size GIF)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img541/9008/2o5.gif)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img51/6566/ycxs.gif)
Quote from: ArMaP on November 23, 2013, 07:01:58 PM
The side not in shadow is not in direct sunlight either, it's only getting reflected sunlight.
Not sure what You're saying here.
QuoteIf the sun is reflected directly to the camera by one surface that surface will appear much brighter and can "burn" the photo on that spot. For another surface to do the same it needs to be in a similar position between the light source and the camera, so it reflected the light directly to the camera.
So... You're saying there are two rocks side by side with equal width, that both "shine" like streaks of paint, but that nowhere else in that whole panorama does any other rock get it just right? Really?
Can't buy that, ArMap.
QuoteIrrelevant.
Not even. If rocks at certain angles create such white, to say that a closeup scan of six hour's length showing NO OTHER such rocks is in itself anomalous. If two side by side rocks can do it, in THAT amount of area, One would expect to see at least a general scattering of other rocks that manage the feat.
There are none.
QuoteWhy should there be more?
Um... Statistically, One would expect the "correct" angles to be offered on a fairly regular basis. It would be very freaky to have two same-shaped rocks together being the ONLY rocks hitting the "sweet zone." Rather like grabbing a handful of glitter and only two flakes, side by side, reflecting back the light.
QuoteThe general face, yes, but I think that we are looking at is not a flat face, but a stepped face, with the face of the "steps" pointing to the camera and the top of the "steps" getting direct sunlight.
And I say We are looking at a flat surface painted and fully in shade.
From: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/images/Bonestell_1772A_L456atc.html
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/AreafoundCombo.png~320x480?t=1385237063)
The original is much bigger and I don't know why clicking it will not bring up the original size.
I love this Photo of Mars from Nasa :)
(http://img.acianetmedia.com/i/xSVPQ.png)
Oddly in 2009 a friend of mine at the time, was living in Sydney, Australia and he could breath, run a forum, and be an all round great human.
This wikipedia page give's an approximation of what he he saw on the day:
2009 Australian dust storm
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Kirribilli_dust_storm.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Australian_dust_storm
Mar's must be some Quantum Computing Nightmare.
Look at it this way, It has an Atmosphere as refernced here on Wikipedia:
Atmosphere of Marshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
And Even Nasa Say that Mars Magnetic Fields are Extinct, Yet Mars roll's on and looks much like Earth in True Colour image's :O
Maybe, just maybe the model is wrong, and ya been sold a lemon in place of an orange ?
(http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/946xvariable_height/public/images/672679main_hassler02-43_full.jpg?itok=WGUw_vag)
QuoteThe various Martian magnetic fields do not encompass the entire planet and are local (right image). The Martian dynamo is extinct, and its magnetic fields are "fossil" remnants of its ancient, global magnetic field.
SOURCE:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/hassler02.html#.UpETvOLlP1A
Or hey to put on another hat, maybe it's not normal to have this magnetic field encompassing a planet and we are in fact "Harnessed in the Slums"
:P
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 23, 2013, 08:00:40 PM
Not sure what You're saying here.
I always have problems explaining the shadows. :)
What I mean is that the sides of the rocks facing the camera are not getting direct sunlight, they are either in the shadow of some bigger rock or in the shadow of the rock itself. As, in the case of this "stripes" rock, I don't see any other rock projecting a shadow over that rock, I said that the rock is not in the shadow, although the side facing the camera is in its own shadow.
The ground is in direct sunlight and appears much lighter, I think the two areas that make up the "stripes" are also getting the sunlight directly, only in an angle that makes it more noticeable.
I hope that makes sense. :)
QuoteSo... You're saying there are two rocks side by side with equal width, that both "shine" like streaks of paint, but that nowhere else in that whole panorama does any other rock get it just right? Really?
No, just one rock that is shaped (on the side facing up) more or less like a couple of steps of a stairway, and that the top of both "steps" are in a similar angle, and that angle makes it reflect the light directly to the camera.
QuoteNot even. If rocks at certain angles create such white, to say that a closeup scan of six hour's length showing NO OTHER such rocks is in itself anomalous. If two side by side rocks can do it, in THAT amount of area, One would expect to see at least a general scattering of other rocks that manage the feat.
The amount of time you took is irrelevant to the final result, and I was talking about
one rock.
QuoteThere are none.
It's possible, I haven't measured the brightness of all the rocks in the panorama. :)
The ground near the "stripes" rock has some spots almost as bright.
QuoteAnd I say We are looking at a flat surface painted and fully in shade.
Thanks for clarifying that point. :)
Quote from: Somamech on November 23, 2013, 08:52:58 PM
And Even Nasa Say that Mars Magnetic Fields are Extinct, Yet Mars roll's on and looks much like Earth in True Colour image's :O
Why shouldn't it look like Earth? ???
Oh wow.
Lots of detail in that pic, thanks Armap i will study it later :)
Apart from the 'shiny' rocks, does anyone else notice the 'tyre tracks' going from (IMO) right-to-left in the upper half of the picture?
Looks to me like (A) old rover tracks, which seems unlikely unless the damn thing was going in circles, and (B) it was not the Rover but maybe something else, something more recent.....
Just thinking out loud, great input guys........... 8)
Quote from: PlaysWithMachines on November 23, 2013, 10:39:56 PM
Apart from the 'shiny' rocks, does anyone else notice the 'tyre tracks' going from (IMO) right-to-left in the upper half of the picture?
What picture? Things are getting a little confusing with so many images. :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 23, 2013, 08:19:56 PM
The original is much bigger and I don't know why clicking it will not bring up the original size.
I suppose it should be this one. :)
(http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/AreafoundCombo.png~original)
Quote from: ArMaP on November 23, 2013, 09:42:16 PM
It's possible, I haven't measured the brightness of all the rocks in the panorama. :)
I found that on the left side of the panorama, near the rover tracks, we can see some rocks brighter than the "stripes".
Ok, I am officaly lost here. With so many photos that are so large my internet connection is boiling over. It must be nice to click a page and get it instant. I have to wait and wait or even re-boot for each page. When a conversation goe back several pages. I have to forget it and move on. Maybe 1 thread, 1 Mars photo and nothing else would be the best.
Doing a moving collection with such large photos is killing me and I can't do it from here. Sorry, Deuem And ArMaP I can not get such a large photo out of your image bucket. I need the link to Nasa if you have it. I have no idea about a stripped rock. And how shadows refect light back to the camera is in question also. The only light in a shadow is reflective to begin with. I think we need another term there. Reflective reflective is too long.
Since all light that a camera picks up is either dirrect or reflective, shadows and shade need to be defined better. It has to be a double bounce or more. In some areas the shaded areas, not the shadows have a lot of detail yet others seem bland or blured.
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 24, 2013, 01:54:28 AM
I need the link to Nasa if you have it.
Unfortunately, just the NASA link is not enough, to see the original images from Curiosity you need Linux and you need to compile the source code they supply to make a program that converts the images from DAT to IMG.
PS: Is there any file hosting site from which you get good download speeds?
Quote from: ArMaP on November 23, 2013, 11:42:46 PM
I suppose it should be this one. :)
(http://i1156.photobucket.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/AreafoundCombo.png~original)
Wow. How did You do that??? I see the ~original in the code...
Quote from: deuem on November 24, 2013, 01:54:28 AM
Ok, I am officaly lost here. With so many photos that are so large my internet connection is boiling over. It must be nice to click a page and get it instant. I have to wait and wait or even re-boot for each page. When a conversation goe back several pages. I have to forget it and move on. Maybe 1 thread, 1 Mars photo and nothing else would be the best.
Doing a moving collection with such large photos is killing me and I can't do it from here. Sorry, Deuem And ArMaP I can not get such a large photo out of your image bucket. I need the link to Nasa if you have it. I have no idea about a stripped rock. And how shadows refect light back to the camera is in question also. The only light in a shadow is reflective to begin with. I think we need another term there. Reflective reflective is too long.
Since all light that a camera picks up is either dirrect or reflective, shadows and shade need to be defined better. It has to be a double bounce or more. In some areas the shaded areas, not the shadows have a lot of detail yet others seem bland or blured.
Deuem
I put the link I got the pic from in the original posing with the 1/2 size image: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/images/Bonestell_1772A_L456atc.html
Ok.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Largeview.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Largeview.jpg.html)
Now am I supost to guess where it is your talking about. Can't you take a photo like this and stroke the area and maybe add an arrow.
I would think that most guests reading this post would have just dropped off by now. Nobody likes to re-research things if you had your hands on them. It is a waste of re-research time by many. When it would have been moments for you. Take a snap shot if you can't get the original.. Anything to bring your case home.
Now where is it in that photo?
By the way for some of us in the other world, any photo presented that is larger than 680 or so drives us crazy and most of the time won't show. A click to enlarge or click to link works very well. Other wise they show as blanks with a small red X. It then takes either half an hour to load or several re-boots of the thread or even computer.
I think 700pixels wide are the forum rules. There is a reason for that....
Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 24, 2013, 03:31:27 AM
Ok.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Largeview.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Largeview.jpg.html)
Now am I supost to guess where it is your talking about. Can't you take a photo like this and stroke the area and maybe add an arrow.
I would think that most guests reading this post would have just dropped off by now. Nobody likes to re-research things if you had your hands on them. It is a waste of re-research time by many. When it would have been moments for you. Take a snap shot if you can't get the original.. Anything to bring your case home.
Now where is it in that photo?
About 1/3rd of the way from the left, slightly above center.
Is the right section? Now where?
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Archway.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Archway.jpg.html)
I did like the area on the top where I found Deuems Arch. It looks like you can see right through it to the mountains behind. A stair case to the top and a padio below Maybe a cave entrance to the right and an area in front that might be a lava tube or a small bridge that is leaning over. ?
Deuem is going to set up sight seeing visits to our new Arch. lol
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 24, 2013, 02:59:06 AM
Wow. How did You do that??? I see the ~original in the code...
I looked at your Photobucket images. :)
Now, three things about that image:
1 - Where did you got the white balanced image?
2 - Getting that TIFF is good, but we don't know if the panorama was made from JPEGs or not.
3 - The rock doesn't look freshly broken, it doesn't have the patina but it is covered with dust.
About the "stripes" rock, what I think it shows is something similar to what can be seen in the image below, but with more contrast between the dark and bright areas.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img545/7466/rrid.jpg)
Many rocks have white stripes. i have one on my desk. How many do you want. What color strips do you need, I'll look.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Striperkfront.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Striperkfront.jpg.html)
I think I'll go amuse myself and make a rock flower from this one.
later, Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 24, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
Many rocks have white stripes. i have one on my desk. How many do you want. What color strips do you need, I'll look.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Striperkfront.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Striperkfront.jpg.html)
That's a nice rock, but I don't think the rock in the photo from Mars has stripes like that one, and I think that rock is a different type of rock, as it looks to me like a metamorphic rock, while most rock on Mars (including the one with the "stripes" look like sedimentary rocks.
But zorgon is the best person to comment on that. :)
Quote from: deuem on November 24, 2013, 02:56:58 PM
Many rocks have white stripes. i have one on my desk. How many do you want. What color strips do you need, I'll look.
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/Striperkfront.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/Striperkfront.jpg.html)
I think I'll go amuse myself and make a rock flower from this one.
later, Deuem
Yes, many DO have stripes BUT...
As You may notice, they go ALL THE WAY THROUGH. They don't stop - with a second one the same width also stopping - mid-rock.
Also, along the limned edge, One can make out what could be either natural striations, or perhaps a paint job in more muted tones.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 24, 2013, 02:14:55 PM
I looked at your Photobucket images. :)
Now, three things about that image:
1 - Where did you got the white balanced image?
2 - Getting that TIFF is good, but we don't know if the panorama was made from JPEGs or not.
3 - The rock doesn't look freshly broken, it doesn't have the patina but it is covered with dust.
1. The processed images were ones I did auto-levels on. Same as the image at the top with the yellow lines, only at 100% size.
2. Guess We can say that of ALL the images We see from NASA
3. I see fresh broken surface. Whatever, eh?
I know this turning kind of funny but to answer your question, In the same location where I got this rock there are many that have scattered connecting white lines just like this. Some in the shape of "Y" just like you wrote. The one I am thinking about is still very huge and I can't even budge it but next time I shall get a photo. There are all types of rocks there, Z would be busy for several trips. I have a photo of one that I think is Iron ore. It is as heavy as iron and a dark red in color like deep rust.
The collection area for rocks is in the river bed from millions of years or 1 good flood. With out an ice age or flood, stones of size are rather hard to move on their own. Some are the size of VWs and others are pebbles. Some of these boulders had to come from several miles away up to maybe 20 miles. The closer mountains are yellow. Further away you find more of the colorful rocks. What I am getting to is how did the mars rocks get to that location. Blown out of a crater? Ice flows or rapid rivers.
ArMaP, Can you place a location of the rover when it took a photo in Google Mars. I think the cooridants were in that list you gave me. Stay on the lizard photo. I need the map and also any better topo maps we can find to put it together. It would be nice if we could put a size on these photos. At least try.
Deuem
I was prowling this panorama (yes, probably jpg, but what I found is irrelevant to what format it arrives in, and yes, I have no way to show WHERE in the image(s) it is, but that is not the point, either): http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/4-billion-pixel-mars-panorama/
And came upon this image:
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Clonecircle.png~320x480?t=1385317633)
I looked at it and saw a "rock" that lay mostly left to right and saw that in the middle (well, more to left than right) was...
The Clone Circle. Can You see it in that image?
Here is the processed image with the circular area defined by selecting it with a circle in photoshop (round marquis tool with "shift" and "alt" pressed). A circle fits perfectly - something never seen in nature.
Now I want to know what that elongated "rock" really looks like!
(http://rs1156.pbsrc.com/albums/p572/AmaterasuSolar/Mobile%20Uploads/Clonecircle-.png~320x480?t=1385317630)
Quote from: deuem on November 24, 2013, 05:33:52 PM
ArMaP, Can you place a location of the rover when it took a photo in Google Mars. I think the cooridants were in that list you gave me. Stay on the lizard photo. I need the map and also any better topo maps we can find to put it together. It would be nice if we could put a size on these photos. At least try.
Just give me some time to try to fix my leaking dish-washing machine. :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 24, 2013, 06:40:54 PM
I was prowling this panorama (yes, probably jpg, but what I found is irrelevant to what format it arrives in, and yes, I have no way to show WHERE in the image(s) it is, but that is not the point, either):
If you can make a circle on the image you can show WHERE in the image did you take that small crop, you're just being lazy.
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 24, 2013, 05:08:57 PM
2. Guess We can say that of ALL the images We see from NASA
If it has JPEG compression artefacts then it was made from JPEG images and not from the IMG files.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 24, 2013, 07:07:36 PM
If you can make a circle on the image you can show WHERE in the image did you take that small crop, you're just being lazy.
Not so, ArMaP. I did a SCREEN SHOT of the panorama. I then brought that into photoshop. I then processed the SCREEN SHOT with the circle. The only real info on where is... Looking slightly south of east somewhere.
Also... I grabbed the shot last night and crashed. When I came on this morning, the page had itself crashed, and I could not locate it again.
So. Enough of where. Thoughts on the IMAGES?
I noticed now that lizard photo is not on this thread, so I will post that information on the right thread, not on this one.
Things are really getting confusing. ;D
PS: the dish-washing machine still leaks. :(
QuotePS: Is there any file hosting site from which you get good download speeds?
Maybe that is what I wanted when I asked in the Help thread. I used to have a good middle man program that took care of the DL problems and just kept at it till it was done. I got a 8mb connection. the fastest one I have ever had and it is as slow as my original dial up. Drop outs are the problem. The line has a +90% variance. Ouch!
Amy. Why can't you just open a copy of the photo in Gimp or PS and put a setection around it and then stroke it. That is all I do. It takes a few extra moments.
AMP, sorry the lizard is in the Sky thread. oops? Too many rocks in my head. Lots of dust...
Deuem
QuoteI was prowling this panorama (yes, probably jpg, but what I found is irrelevant to what format it arrives in, and yes, I have no way to show WHERE in the image(s) it is, but that is not the point, either): http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/4-billion-pixel-mars-panorama/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/03/4-billion-pixel-mars-panorama/)
Yes it is Number one and also doing a full photo with a circle or box is number 2.
Amy, you have already proved to me that I can not pick out your manipulation work on a very small section and I know it is there. I have both before and afters to compare. Your work just looks a little more bland and cuts into some of the other patterns. But nothing jumps off the page.
So if you can do it after a few minutes [change it] then how does anyone trust anything unless we can go to the master and see what it should be. That puts us on the same starting page.
I have seen so many things go away in better prints it is not even funny anymore. You can spend countless hours doing work, chasing a ghost and drag in world people that then do the same. These are the guide lines all Moon, Space and Mars researchers use now. See I don't care what you can or not see in a junk photo. I "really do care" if it is still there in the best one.
I do understand that sometimes all we have to work with is junk but that is the same junk for everyone. Like some of the early moon photos. The net chased that crashed spaceship on the moon for a few years before the true hi-res photo came out and everyone was stuck in a hard place. With Mars we know every photo is Higer-Res and they web post the junk files just to look at, not to research.
If you don't change, sooner or later you will go out on a huge limb and it will be cut off and it will hurt very much when you hit bottom.
The best we are going to get out of the mast cameras is 1200 x 1400 or around those numbers. No HD there. By even normal cheap toss away cameras these are on the low end. Why did they send such cheap cameras to Mars? Are we really seeing what they took at or is that a fib. They got more cameras on this rover than a street corner in China, and what, not even one good Hi-res camera. Like I said my Nokia takes higher res photos and it is just as old.
Ok, enough, Deuem
Quote from: deuem on November 25, 2013, 05:33:28 AM
The best we are going to get out of the mast cameras is 1200 x 1400 or around those numbers. No HD there. By even normal cheap toss away cameras these are on the low end. Why did they send such cheap cameras to Mars? Are we really seeing what they took at or is that a fib. They got more cameras on this rover than a street corner in China, and what, not even one good Hi-res camera. Like I said my Nokia takes higher res photos and it is just as old.
One of the problems with rovers and other ground-based probes is that they can only communicate with the satellites that do the relaying for 8 minutes each day at a maximum of 8Mbit/s, so they are limited to what they can send, and there's no reason to have 8M Pixel cameras if they are not going to be able to upload the photos.
Wait on that thought. On one of the links you posted I thought I read that it can talk to 4 things. Earth Dirrect. And 3 sats in space around Mars. In the link they even named them. Sorry I have to re-research that. So the 8 minutes a day seems way too little.
I need to go back and dig into the mast cameras agian to see if I can find exact data on them. These cameras can not do any zooming but they have the ability to do a drastic focus change or what we call a depth of field setting. So they can set this function on comand. 2 meters to infinity. Now depending on where the focus lens moves into, it will crop the photo.
Meaning an infinity shot will be wider than a close up focus shot. It narrows the FOV The m-100 reports a scale of 7.4cm/pixel at 1km. [maybe this is the infinity focus range]
On a 1200px wide photo that would set the photo plane at 88.8 meters. This means that if you had a stick 88.8 meters long and stood 1km away from that camera. The stick should print from side to side in a 1200px sq photo. A narrow FOV. This camera has a 34mm lens, Hence the name M-34. The other camera has a 100mm lens, hence M-100
The M-34 is 15 degrees and the M-100 is 5.1. this is why we need to know which camera took which photo and wht ArMaP has problems creating sterio photos.
FOV = Field of Vision.
50mm is very close to what the human eye focuses in or around and the best lens to get WYSIWYG
Deuem
I mean this in a nice/polite way...............but all of this photo related discussion is off point relative to the intentions of the OP. I suggest that maybe the Mod consider moving all of the "photo-how-to" discussion posts to another forum board??
While I don't think intended here, such moving off-topic is generally used by skeptics to "move off topic" relative to anomaly discussions. In this case I do think deuem is seeking a way to get better quality photos to better support the deuem process of photo analysis, and that is good!
As the OP commented, not much real discussion of the posted anomalies in these now 10 pages added to the Mars Anomalies Forum Board! On this board the discussion should be mostly about the credibility, one way or another, of the anomalies (of the which I am a little partial - ;) ) :P
Quote from: deuem on November 25, 2013, 05:02:51 AM
Maybe that is what I wanted when I asked in the Help thread. I used to have a good middle man program that took care of the DL problems and just kept at it till it was done. I got a 8mb connection. the fastest one I have ever had and it is as slow as my original dial up. Drop outs are the problem. The line has a +90% variance. Ouch!
Amy. Why can't you just open a copy of the photo in Gimp or PS and put a setection around it and then stroke it. That is all I do. It takes a few extra moments.
AMP, sorry the lizard is in the Sky thread. oops? Too many rocks in my head. Lots of dust...
Deuem
From one of these panoramas? Not sure how I would accomplish that.
Quote from: deuem on November 25, 2013, 02:43:05 PM
Wait on that thought. On one of the links you posted I thought I read that it can talk to 4 things. Earth Dirrect. And 3 sats in space around Mars. In the link they even named them. Sorry I have to re-research that. So the 8 minutes a day seems way too little.
I think it's only three: Earth, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey. The other (Mars Express) was used only for telemetry data during the descent. And it's 8 minutes for each orbiter, so a total of 16, if they are not visible at the same time.
QuoteI need to go back and dig into the mast cameras agian to see if I can find exact data on them. These cameras can not do any zooming but they have the ability to do a drastic focus change or what we call a depth of field setting. So they can set this function on comand. 2 meters to infinity. Now depending on where the focus lens moves into, it will crop the photo.
I don't know if the focusing is automatic or on command, but I don't think a change in focus (even a large one) would make any noticeable cropping on a camera that has the closest focusing at 2.1 metres.
QuoteThe M-34 is 15 degrees and the M-100 is 5.1. this is why we need to know which camera took which photo and wht ArMaP has problems creating sterio photos.
True, the photos from the M-100 show an area that is 1/3 of that size on the photos from the M-34.
Quote50mm is very close to what the human eye focuses in or around and the best lens to get WYSIWYG
Yeah, I remember from the lessons I got from my sister. :)
Quote from: rdunk on November 25, 2013, 05:37:32 PM
On this board the discussion should be mostly about the credibility, one way or another, of the anomalies (of the which I am a little partial - ;) ) :P
Does that mean that you don't think that the credibility of the images we are looking at should be discussed? ???
Quote from: ArMaP on November 25, 2013, 11:56:47 PM
Does that mean that you don't think that the credibility of the images we are looking at should be discussed? ???
ArMaP, you treat "image credibility" as if you were thinking that NASA might be adding anomalies to their photos. When a NSA image has a "real anomaly" pictured, you are right - I am not very concerned about "image credibility", when it is a NASA et al photo. If there is a real anomaly there, it is there because they didn't see it first.
You said way back there in this post, "There isn't much to say about them, they look like images of rocks and dust", which was regarding the posted anomalies. Why would you need more credible images?
I do consider that photo analysis is an important tool, particularly where photo resolution makes optical viewing difficult for discernment. In my view, detailed extended discussions on how to do that should be in some sort of specialized forum that is established for addressing such matters, or at least in a more associated forum/forum thread, than in an anomalies post. :o
Quote from: rdunk on November 26, 2013, 01:23:14 AM
ArMaP, you treat "image credibility" as if you were thinking that NASA might be adding anomalies to their photos.
No, I am talking about how much we can rely on what the image shows us, as a second or third generation JPEG may be showing things that were not there and not showing the things that were.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 26, 2013, 01:47:59 AM
No, I am talking about how much we can rely on what the image shows us, as a second or third generation JPEG may be showing things that were not there and not showing the things that were.
I have seen no evidence of "real anomalies" showing up in raw images pics that weren't always there. I have seen later raw images that were "changed" that took away anomalies that were in the original pics.
Of course. if NASA can change later pics, they can for sure change the originals too!
We might ask the question, if NASA is indisputably altering the images available to Us (reminds Me of Winston Smith's job in 1984), WHY would They do it?
ArMaP, do You think there is enough evidence to say NASA is indisputably altering the images They are issuing?
EveryOne: What are YOUR thoughts about WHY?
It is an easy answer. It would change our world forever and cause religion problems, gubermint problems and so on. Just like UFOs would. Or any other fringe idea that proved to be correct. It has to come from within and not from them. So far I think the jpg is one false lead, Color shifting is another and working prints is the third. Those cameras take raw data photos. They can do what ever they want with it. They give us the scraps in jpg. We really don't know what they can do with it, only what they tell us. But with 8GB on board they can see a nats eyeball if they wish too.
Deuem
Sorry but my hearts not in this right now. BBL........
Here's My thoughts...
It is one of two reasons:
1. There's something there and They are hiding it; or
2. They put "anomalies" in and are using the whole thing to promote the awareness of the ET possibility when the Blue Beam project is implemented.
I favor #1.
I like #1 also, Blue Beam is off my list.
I am really trying to get a cleaned picture as rdunk mentioned. I am working on that now but to get by the fluff is difficult. I have found with Deuem a perfect Oval mask. I doubt that is on Mars. I have one object that no matter how I look at it I can not see a rock and I am trying to see a rock. Noting matches up on that one.
When you made that toy go away. It gave me a standard to look for. Sections where Deuem goes dull and the patterns are not as presice as they are right next to it. So maybe that helped. Maybe.
But the above oval I talked about, reached out and smacked me. Glitch or selection ? If it was a glitch, [Ovals] I would expect to see it in many prints, all over a print and maybe different sizes. Amy, luminosity is a key here. Bluring/Blending dampens it. A white pixel blended with a black pixel will give me gray and the lum drops off.
The hard part on this is I cant run the full Ring Deuem. I can only run pixel Deuem and look for patterns. 1.4 million of them? Full Deuem it will search out like colors and ring them out. When you did your magic trick it re-joined all the same colors and just made a new set. Only when I overlaid the two could I see exactly what you did. Oh yea with an original and your rework you can see the changes you did from across the room with one eye closed and no lights on, monitor off. lol. It shows to me that well. But on their own, Nothing.
So, I think I can compare two photos and find work but on their own, NO. Not yet! Not with the ring program.
When stopping at the pixel level, it takes a lot of guessing and thinking outloud to find patterns that should not be there or that have been cut. Ah yes the word cut. Light does not do that, it is constant and produced gradiants everywhere.
Very few of black shadow or shaded areas are 100% black in most prints. To me they mostly process as well as a section in the sun. I can work black as well as white as long as they are not at the extreme limits of 100%. So, to get a nice pretty sharp line of this 100% black is not common to get. It is as if many of the shaded areas have been painted 100% black but not all. I don't know how this could happen in some areas but not others on the same print.
So the rules would be easy if I were the boss. If you can go 100% white or black to mask out anything, "Do it". Once they did that nobody could ever un-work it. What ever was there is gone for good. For the rest of the objects, first color shift the entire print and only touch it up as little as you need to ruin the deffinition. If an object is too large and you can't hide it we will lose that print and renumber the entire SOL collection before it is released. Those get sent to Area 51 for further study and pulled off our data base to protect us from hackers. And when you are finished run your prints though every known debunking trick there is..
I suggest everyone to re-read the above carfully and ask question on the shady areas [pun intended] you might not understand or agree with.
rdunk I know you like just posting pics and saying what you see but a few of us here joined Peggy to do the research thing.
Ok, fingers need rest,
Deuem
#3 Paredolia :P
Phages favorite :D
Reason's NASA Alters Photos:
1. If you wanted to play Devils Advocate, you could say that because it is NASA (And the U.S. Taxpayer) who fronted the millions to acquire those photos, then it is for their eyes only. It is their 'Intellectual Property'. They expended the time, expertise and monetary outlay to acquire them, why would they give them away for free? Hence they doctor the Photos.
2. There is nothing there! To perpetuate the idea (For scientific or strategic purposes) that the U.S. has found signs of Alien Civilisation and maybe contact, they have altered parts of the photos to make you think they are hiding something. This is a subtle message (Perpetuated in Holly Wood too) that alien's have only contacted the U.S. as they are superior in some respect.
3. There is 'stuff' everywhere and they are covering it up!
Take your pick :)
Quote from: rdunk on November 26, 2013, 02:06:59 AM
I have seen later raw images that were "changed" that took away anomalies that were in the original pics.
One example (or a thread) would be good. :)
Quote from: Amaterasu on November 26, 2013, 02:48:33 AM
ArMaP, do You think there is enough evidence to say NASA is indisputably altering the images They are issuing?
No, I haven't seen no real evidence of that.
As I have said in other occasions, I have never seen any signs of image altering in the science-related sites, the only images I have seen with clear signs of being altered were on sites for the general public (and all were from Apollo missions).
Quote from: deuem on November 26, 2013, 07:38:34 AM
The hard part on this is I cant run the full Ring Deuem. I can only run pixel Deuem and look for patterns. 1.4 million of them? Full Deuem it will search out like colors and ring them out. When you did your magic trick it re-joined all the same colors and just made a new set. Only when I overlaid the two could I see exactly what you did. Oh yea with an original and your rework you can see the changes you did from across the room with one eye closed and no lights on, monitor off. lol. It shows to me that well. But on their own, Nothing.
Do you see why I said that I doubted that the Deuem process could find the changes? :)
QuoteVery few of black shadow or shaded areas are 100% black in most prints. To me they mostly process as well as a section in the sun. I can work black as well as white as long as they are not at the extreme limits of 100%. So, to get a nice pretty sharp line of this 100% black is not common to get. It is as if many of the shaded areas have been painted 100% black but not all. I don't know how this could happen in some areas but not others on the same print.
That's another problem with the images they publish for the general public, they usually have the contrast increased, so not only is it possible that we see things that are not as they are on the original, it's even more likely that looking at those worse versions we miss real interesting details.
QuoteDo you see why I said that I doubted that the Deuem process could find the changes? (http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)
Ok but don't count to ten just yet. ;D
The ring section didn't pop it out but the pixel section showed a mess. now this is the first standard I have ever done like this and reading the processed pixel mess is not easy to do. I have to look for brush stroke patterns instead of rings. So far it looks like if they use any area selection tool, I got them. If they clone an area and it does not match, being shifted over, I got them and if they blend an area and miss a spot in the middle, I got them. So that does not leave a lot of space for them to work with. The hardest part is finding the area in question to begin with.
When I write I got them, it means that the section in question went beyond the midle mark for me and the probability of someone working the photo has increased in my opinion.
The words hidden in plain sight seem to fit what I am seeing. Now, what I am seeing is in question even with myself, So the battle starts at home on this topic. Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on November 26, 2013, 01:47:52 PM
One example (or a thread) would be good. :)
I will post it "one of these days", on an Evidence of Photo Tampering OP. Same "jumble of rocks" with images taken just a few Sol days apart, completely changed. The first pic included a small very specific statue. It was gone in the 2nd, as well as specific rock make-up was changed. Very same rocks, but very different. When I pointed this out to the team leader of the skeptic bunch at the time at Unexplained Mysteries, he seemed just a little taken back, and actually quit talking about that "jumble of rocks". :o
ArMaP, got a strange request for you. The rovers Azimuth starting point. Is it North or South. I never though it would be in question but when it comes to space I don't know which one of the decriptions they would use. See Below. If we use the wrong one we are off by 180 degrees. Can you research that and find out while I sleep? Thanks in advance. Deuem
QuoteDictionary.com:
Astronomy, Navigation . the arc of the horizon measured clockwise from the south point, in astronomy, or from the north point, in navigation, to the point where a vertical circle through a given heavenly body intersects the horizon.
Quote from: deuem on November 26, 2013, 05:50:42 PM
ArMaP, got a strange request for you. The rovers Azimuth starting point. Is it North or South.
From what we can read here (http://starbeam.jpl.nasa.gov/tools/ddlookup/data_dictionary_detail.cfm?ResultsSelBox=fixed_instrument_azimuth) I think it's North.
The FIXED_INSTRUMENT_AZIMUTH element provides one of two angular measurements for the pointing direction of an instrument, measured with respect to a coordinate frame co-linear with the surface fixed coordinate frame. The azimuth is measured positively in the clockwise direction (as viewed from above) with the meridian passing through the positive spin axis ('north pole') defining the zero reference. The angle is measured in the local gravity horizontal plane, i.e., a plane perpendicular to the local gravity vector. The FIXED_INSTRUMENT_AZIMUTH is derived from the instrument pointing and spacecraft orientation. It is co-linear with the surface fixed coordinate system, but the origin of the observation may not be coincident with the origin of the surface fixed frame.
Sorry about taking us sideways off topic from mars to the moon guys.
Maybe those clementine comments need to be moved to another thread if mods deem necessary. IMHO the clementine 1.5 stuff has not been addressed to any solid conclusion.
Elvis.
Quote from: ArMaP on November 27, 2013, 01:48:50 PM
PS: I also think this "detour" should be moved to a different thread.
Split the thread then ArMaP. You have the power and evidently more time than I do.
Sorry to PRC members for neglecting my duties recently. Difficult times what with folks rudely departing from this life and another one on the way, a new business and the rest. I am missing having the time to do research and help out here. I will never again underestimate the value of free time. :)
Quote from: Pimander on November 27, 2013, 04:43:34 PM
I will never again underestimate the value of free time. :)
"Time is the fire in which we burn."
Quote from: WarToad on November 27, 2013, 04:48:10 PM
"Time is the fire in which we burn."
And the devourer of all things....