The information presented here could possibly become one of the "holy grail "proofs of long term suspicions of NASA/et-al's lying and deceit with photos made public.
The information revealed in the screen shot photos and links below present the most obvious and serious presentations of just how far NASA et al will go in attempting to hide the truth of Mars from we the people. (and of the Moon, etc)
The "before" picture was taken by Rover Opportunity on Mars Sol day 1105 by the nav cam, and the "after" picture was taken by Rover Opportunity on Sol day 1167 by the pan cam. It is the later Sol day pic representation that have been much shown to the world!!
Even in the "before" pic, evidence of photo tampering of anomalies is rather obvious with significant black smudging, but in the after pic one can see how all of these were handled with the "more professional tampering". :)
The after pic - well just see it for yourselves, as the tampering is so very obvious. Even with the tampering here, there are plenty of the common cliff features that do make it easy for making close comparisons. Of course in the "after" pic, the whole wall of the cape shows it has been given a tampering "textured look"!
At sometime prior, someone seemingly joked about NASA having put the Egyptian statue there, for confusion purposes, and for their laughs when it is discussed - - that and a few other open anomalies there MAY BE just what they have done, to help hide/confuse the real truth. In the before pic, where the statue should be looks more like a stairway, both above and below the statue area.
I will be looking forward to your comment on what you see and think!!
"Before" link - this is a long distance shot, and to actually see the details of the cape, one will need to magnify it significantly. There are many visible features that can be seen in this pic of the cape that are so obviously hidden in the "after" pic. Please notice the "host" of un-before seen anomalies in this "before" pic!! A screenshot from this link is posted below. Be sure to click on the screenshots to better see the detail!!
(http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/1105/1N226282378EFF8041P0682R0M1.JPG)
"After" link - the complete cape is much easier to see in this pic, which does make it easier to see the differences.
(http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/p/1167/1P231798826EFF820TP2420L2M1.JPG)
And another "after" pic link:
(http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/207023main_vincent-20071220.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/Rdunk/Sol_Day_1105_11.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/Vault/Rdunk/Sol_Day_p_1167_Screen_shot_2013-12-05.jpg)
I don't know if this helps or hurts
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/12gif.gif) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/12gif.gif.html)
Deuem
I can see that the images look different. Could you use some lines to point out what features you think have been deliberately obscured? What would the purpose of tampering with these images?
Those two pictures are from 2 different positions and angles, as well as lighting from a different time of day. What is is you're seeing tampered with?
Quote from: WarToad on December 12, 2013, 03:40:24 PM
Those two pictures are from 2 different positions and angles, as well as lighting from a different time of day. What is is you're seeing tampered with?
Not only that, the photo from the Navcam is a visible light photo, the photo from the Pancam is from the ultraviolet filter.
Pimander and WarToad - I have been out today, so am just now getting back to this. If ones looks at the "before" closely, it is just very different in many areas. I can't directly upload photos right now, so I cannot edit these pics. I will try to give a few of the more significant/notable differences, and also add comments for clarity.
1. Pimander, the only logical reason for tampering with these images is to remove/hide the intelligent design and artificiality that would simply prove the existence of humanoid alien life forms, of some level.
2. One of the first areas of the before pic that is absolutely not seen in the after pic is...a very flat surface with seemingly outlined edges, that is located on the mid-level promontory, just to the other side of the "stairway". Obviously no known use of the flat surface area, but might be big enough for a small lander of some sort.
3. The "stairway" - Notice the open area of the rock at the mid-level promontory, where the egyptian statue stands in the "after" pic. In the "before" pic, the statue is not seen, and stairway steps (with mag) can be seen, both at the upper level of the promontory, and at the lower level of the stairway.
4 If you will notice, at the bottom part of the stairway we can see, there is another flat promontory area, with possibly some sort of structures there. Because we cannot see the bottom end of the stairway, it may very well go farther down the cliff. Obviously, stairway steps are made for moving from one place to another - something is here for somebody to come from, and for somebody to go to. The stairway is a very simple KEY for understanding that LIFE was/or is here!!
5. There are two significant smudged anomalies at the bottom right of the cape. The first is right at the front. No way to know what this is, but the bottom of it can still be seen. We can see what look like 3 support beams/legs, so we could assume there is a 4th support beam/leg. At the top of the smudge we can see that something is there, but what it is, is another question. In the after pic, this anomaly just looks like a big textured rock! The other of these two anomalies is right behind and to our left of this one. It also is significantly smudged. Of course, the smudge is done very erratically, but if we look closely, there is big upper smudge, and smaller lower smudge. In between these two smudges, we can see vertical right and left lines that would indicate there to be some sort of standing smooth cylindrical object here. And there is also a piece of white stuff here that may even be smudging too, right at the bottom of this cylindrical anomaly. There is also something at the top of this anomaly, but because of depth perception, I am not sure about it being at the top of this, or farther back. At the base of this "column", there is a very large area that is also blackened, having a somewhat rounded/oval top, and flowing down. All of this too is just textured rock in the "after" pic.
6. Yes, the photo angles are a little different, but that would not have completely eliminated the "nose" of the cape. In the before pic, we can see that the nose of the cape stretches down and forward significantly, with a varied assortment of rocks and etc plainly seen. In the after pic, we can see much the same assortment of rocks at the higher levels, until we get to the nose of the cape, and the nose vanishes, into texture and thin air!
7. In the "before" pic, a little way up from the bottom, and near the left side, there is a shiny object in the rocks that has a metallic silver appearance. Several straight lines can be see in the form of this object. Of course in the "after" pic, this object is just not there.
8. In the before pic, the entire cliffside is just one big loose-jumble of rocks of various sizes, seen as if many of them had fallen down and around each, rock to rock. In the after pic, most all of this is just grossly textured over, with some similarity of some pieces still recognizable.
And numerous other objects in the before and not in the after!
The "after" pic of Cape St Vincent looks nothing like what was photographed earlier. It has obviously been corrected to reflect the established "public story" for Mars! Of course, at present that is my conjecture, on the basis of this and much other similar evidence I have seen!
Quote from: ArMaP on December 13, 2013, 01:07:13 AM
Not only that, the photo from the Navcam is a visible light photo, the photo from the Pancam is from the ultraviolet filter.
Well, I would assume NASA trusts their cams to take good pics, or they would have chosen other equipment. Nope, talking about light and angle is not going to make any difference with this! The differences are absolutely there for anyone to see, that really wants to. NASA just missed getting this before pic "fixed", and it is back to haunt them!!
Quote from: rdunk on December 13, 2013, 01:56:15 AM
Well, I would assume NASA trusts their cams to take good pics, or they would have chosen other equipment.
I agree, but I don't see why you say that. ???
QuoteNope, talking about light and angle is not going to make any difference with this!
Dismissing light when discussing a photo is a little strange...
QuoteThe differences are absolutely there for anyone to see, that really wants to.
It would be easier if you made an image with the differences you see marked, just saying "mid-level promontory", for example, may not be enough, as it depends on the interpretation of the person reading it.
QuoteNASA just missed getting this before pic "fixed", and it is back to haunt them!!
I don't think so, unless they are members of Pegasus. ;)
rdunk, I suggest that you add to your list of things to do an ariel view of where the lander was in both shots and list numbers. It seems to have move hundreds of yards. The perspective on the two photos is very different If you have lander data you can triangulate a lot of data.
Think of it this way. If you had to go infront of the presedent of the USA and explain this to him. What would you show him? Then just show it to us first.
You definitely need to mark on the images what you think is doctored with an explanation. I don't see this as a smoking gun but I might not be seeing something you have spotted. Neither image looks like evidence of anything that exciting to me so why would anyone wish to tamper with it. I can't see what the motive would be for censoring that particular scene.
Rdunk, A question for yea.
Please give us/me your idea on why an Alien race would pick such a spot. Do you think this is a crater or a natural hole in the ground. The rock in that wall has been well fractured and maybe unstable. I would think if they were very advanced they would pick a stable area? Laser dut the rock face an make it a thing of bueaty. Can you help me fill in the missing ideas?
eta typo
Guys, the photos speak for themselves. They are as different as are night and day. The later pic is a totally textured cliff, while the earlier pic shows basically a jumble of rocks, with some smudging. I really said too much in my comment list of things, because conjecture just opens the doors of debate. The "facts" are what we see in the pics.
ArMaP brought up possibility of differences being caused by the nav camera vs the pan camera, so I will post an additional link, which I have. The link is an "after" photo taken by the Rover nav camera on Sol day 1167. This pic is basically identical to the posted pan cam pic - ie, the nav cam now also shows a totally textured cliff face.
(http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/1167/1N231793847EFF820TP0671L0M1.JPG)
Quote from: deuem on December 13, 2013, 11:27:13 AM
Rdunk, A question for yea.
Please give us/me your idea on why an Alien race would oick such a spot. Do you think this is a crater or a natural hole in the ground. The rock in that wall has been well fractured and maybe unstable. I would think if they were very advanced they would pick a stable area? Laser dut the rock face an make it a thing of bueaty. Can you help me fill in the missing ideas?
This place is described as being Victoria crater, so it is not just a hole in the ground. And there is really no way to know their level of advancement of life on Mars, partially because most of what would "teach" us that has been hidden in the photos we have. And, it somewhat depends on whether the humanoids live on Mars, or, are just passing through. Another relative thought is, by our own human experience, there are world-wide differences in intellectual advancement - we do still have people living their lives in jungles on this Earth today, while many others are reaching for the stars.
Since you ask for "ideas"/conjecture, I will try to apply a little "reasonable logic" - if the environment were such that any humanoid life on Mars was best lived underground, then somewhat protected "cliff-wall" entrances might very well make for the best possible way into the underground habitat. Even if an entrance has to be made, and an interior dug-out, starting down at desired depth level would be preferable doncha think? There are numerous places in Mars photos that depict evidence of underground life, because of what is visible on top of the ground - including what has a look of "human waste disposal". :)
Victoria crater is not the only crater on Mars that depicts evidence of life and intelligent design! There are numerous others, some with more concrete evidence life, even with the photo tampering! One crater find I haven't posted anywhere yet, is a very obvious place of community habitation, with one structure that has a "cross" on its top. No way to know why a cross but................................:))
Quote from: rdunk on December 13, 2013, 05:37:49 PM
Guys, the photos speak for themselves.
But, apparently, they do not speak loud enough, as at least 3 readers of this thread have asked for some identification of what you see. :)
ArMaP said, "I don't think so, unless they are members of Pegasus".
I only made the first post here! Thousands of interested people will see this before I am through posting it, so you don't have to worry about that.
Quote from: ArMaP on December 14, 2013, 01:28:10 AM
But, apparently, they do not speak loud enough, as at least 3 readers of this thread have asked for some identification of what you see. :)
As I said I cannot post additional photos. But in this case, additional arrows pointing to detail differences should not be necessary to see the real differences in the two very different photos of the cape. And most likely until today, the cliff side of St Vincent Cape probably has not changed from the Rover pic taken on Sol day 1105. (unless changed by possible life-forms there)
Well Rdunk, you are setting up a senerio that if we can't see it we will never see it. If you just want to post 2 pictures and stay closed to questions from the others it would be very east to just lock your thread to questions. You can do that your self. I don't want you to think any of us would.
When posting a question like this I would expect to do my best to show everyone here just what I was doing. If I hit a wall I would say so. But to circle a difference and present it should be acceptable.
I guess on FB and other sites many Mars people gather and see things together, Here we have people from all walks of life that are not in "Tune" instantly with what you are showing us. The title of this thread is very overwhelming. Like you found GOD on mars and have a photo.
This all depends on how you want your piers here to look at you. I see 4 of them asking for help. It is up to you if you wish to help out or not but I think a few circles and cuts are of little work to help your point. And even before the first reply I went out to NASA on your links and got the originals for myself. This is why I asked the location data. To line up the 2 photos were very difficult and really impossible to get a one on one because of the perspective in the 2.
Adding to that the colors, the time and the different cameras, the chance of this deepens. We all need more data and are asking you for help. It is up to you rdunk.
As far as the underground, I would agree. Living on the surface would be very difficult for inteliget life. Lower levels of life Ok. Even things that go a few inches below the surface in daylight and out at night would be OK. I wonder out loud if any of the cameras can do night vision. It is of my opinion that is the time any life would venture out. So I wonder if the rover has that camera ability and we never see the photos. In this day and age why would it not? It is the size of a car. There is room.
Deuem
QuoteAs I said I cannot post additional photos
Are you having tech problems or just want to let it sit right where it is?
Deuem, no, it is just that I have used my limited photo file space here, and I choose to not us outside photo sites like Photo Bucket & etc. Actually Z provided me links for posting the two pics in this OP. :D
Quote from: rdunk on December 14, 2013, 02:58:41 AM
Deuem, no, it is just that I have used my limited photo file space here, and I choose to not us outside photo sites like Photo Bucket & etc. Actually Z provided me links for posting the two pics in this OP. :D
I did'nt know we had a limited file space. If so thor would have hit it a year ago. Just where are you sticking your prints? Maybe someone can help on this. As far as I know the PRC photo area only has a 1MB file size limit per photo, not a total of 1mb. So a photo of 1,000 pixels x 1,000 pixels should be able to be uploaded. Is that the problem? Deuem
Quote from: deuem on December 14, 2013, 03:13:24 AM
I did'nt know we had a limited file space. If so thor would have hit it a year ago. Just where are you sticking your prints? Maybe someone can help on this. As far as I know the PRC photo area only has a 1MB file size limit per photo, not a total of 1mb. So a photo of 1,000 pixels x 1,000 pixels should be able to be uploaded. Is that the problem? Deuem
This forum has not had any photo storage space for attachments for quite some time. That is why outside photo storage places like Photo Bucket were/are necessary for posting photos here. Just very recently Z has begun a process for setting up a photo storage gallery, using outside software. I have the Gallery information, and have been giving it a try. It works, but the current setting for total photo file space is only 1mb. So, I have already filled that space with just a few prior photo posts. I can't delete any of my "gallery" photos for more useable space, because when pics are deleted from the gallery, they also are deleted from any OP they were used in. Z is still working on this!
something is wrong, where are you putting the photos. The limit is 1mb per photo not total. Are you getting a warning message? maybe he has a limit on that I don't know about. You will have to ask him. See what happens if you add one.
Quote from: deuem on December 14, 2013, 04:01:34 AM
something is wrong, where are you putting the photos. The limit is 1mb per photo not total. Are you getting a warning message? maybe he has a limit on that I don't know about. You will have to ask him. See what happens if you add one.
Using Z's L/M gallery, I upload the photo to the gallery, and then post the link of that photo from the gallery to the OP. The gallery will not take any more, and I get a flag telling me "Disk quota exceeded. You have a space quota of 1024k. Your file currently use 895k. Adding this file would make you exceed this quota".
Z is aware of this, and will deal with it!
Quote from: deuem on December 14, 2013, 03:13:24 AM
I did'nt know we had a limited file space.
Default limit here
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/login.php
Still need an admin to run it :D
QuoteIf so thor would have hit it a year ago.
Thor is set for unlimted as admin here but he is hosting his images elsewhere. Mine are hosted directly on the server (as are the gallery images once set up) and not in the database
Thanks Z
Rdunk, your right. The data base I was talking about is not here like the one you use. Sorry, got mixed up. You would have to use Photobucket for now or another one like it. If you have any other website you can link them into, it would work, even FB prints link in. Just about anywhere you can get an URL.
Deuem, you said "Even Facebook links link in". Thanks much, I didn't know that. That would be some help at times. But, there is no control over what another site might do with their data files, and if they do any deleting, then any pics here that are linked to there will also disappear. (I think?)
I am going to post this on Facebook today. As you said, most there will SEE the photo differences, but, if I end up with something there that I can link over here to help, I will do that.
QuoteThe link is an "after" photo taken by the Rover nav camera on Sol day 1167. This pic is basically identical to the posted pan cam pic - ie, the nav cam now also shows a totally textured cliff face.
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/1167/1N231793847EFF820TP0671L0M1.JPG
Thanks for that. :)
By using two photos from the same camera we remove any difference in field of view and filters used. Only different light conditions (different time of day) and position can make a difference now.
First, to get a three-dimensional idea of the scene here's a "cross-eye" view of the "before" photo.
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img7/9970/fhl6.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/a/img18/4949/f0sl.jpg)
And an anaglyph.
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img208/4347/95hv.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/a/img196/776/suj8.jpg)
Now, about your description of what you see, using the same numbers you used.
2. A flat area.
I'm sorry but I don't understand what flat area is that. I also don't understand what the "mid-level promontory" is supposed to be. The same can be applied to the "stairway", and just saying "just to the other side" doesn't help either, as I don't know which is "this" and which is the "other" side. As for being big enough for a lander of some sort, the whole crater is 730 metres wide, so the promontory is just some metres long.
3. The "stairway"
I don't see it. But you're wrong in saying that the "Egyptian statue" is not visible in the "before" image, as I can see it.
4. "Stairway steps"
As I don't see the stairway I cannot see the steps.
5. "Smudged anomalies"
I don't see any "smudged" area, only places where it looks like the dust accumulates and flows down the crater wall. Is that it?
"Support beams/legs"? I don't see them, and I don't even understand where I am supposed to be looking at to see them or the "standing smooth cylindrical object".
6. Different angles
Yes, the difference in the angle from where the photos were taken is enough to hide the "nose" of the cape.
The image below shows things in both photos, and you can see that what's missing is a result of a different perspective, as the points on the "after" image are closer to each other.
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img850/8124/rp0i.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img534/3838/gwhk.jpg)
7. "metallic silver" looking object
Once more, I don't understand your description, so I cannot see what that object is suppose to be, but if it is on the left side of the "before" photo than it's natural that it doesn't show on the "after" photo, as that photo doesn't show the left side of the "before" photo.
QuoteThe "after" pic of Cape St Vincent looks nothing like what was photographed earlier.
It looks the same to me, the only differences being the different position from where the photo was taken and the direction from where the light was coming.
Quote from: rdunk on December 14, 2013, 05:24:33 PM
I am going to post this on Facebook today. As you said, most there will SEE the photo differences, but, if I end up with something there that I can link over here to help, I will do that.
Facebook is made in a way to get only an idea of who agrees with us, that's why it's easier to get many people saying "I see it", even if they do not.
Facebook is depressing.
Rdunk, what ArMaP just posted above with the lines [nice job by the way] Is similar to what I was thinking about doing from the 2 rover positions so you could determine lines of sight. Use some math. Deuem
Now for the "after" photo. As I couldn't find a left and a right photo from the PanCam I used the left and right photos from the NavCam to make 3D versions of the photos.
A "cross-eye" version
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img32/4574/m8fv.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img843/6928/vdk2.jpg)
An anaglyph version
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img194/5830/y9sr.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img41/2/49hn.jpg)
Now, some data taken from the IMG files found here (http://an.rsl.wustl.edu/mer/merbrowser/default.aspx?m=MERB).
In the "before" photo the camera was point in a direction 126.001 degrees right of north, while in the "after" it was pointing 125.998 degrees right of north, so it was pointing in what can be considered the same direction, which is not that surprising, as it was pointing to the same feature some metres away.
Getting the Rover's position is much more difficult than getting the information about the photo (from what I understand it, only the movement relative to the previous position is recorded, so we need to start from Sol 1 and add all the Sols' data to know where the Rover was on a particular Sol and drive), I looked for traverse maps, and I found these two on the Unmanned Spaceflight forum.
Up to Sol 1105
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img200/8928/hhu6.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img600/6778/0awp.jpg)
Up to Sol 1173 (I couldn't find any closer and after Sol 1167)
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img824/2001/mn19.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img542/1820/oi1g.jpg)
From these I noticed that in Sol 1170 Opportunity was closer to the stop where it was on Sol 1105 than on any other, so, looking at Sol 1170 I found this photo, that really looks much closer to the "before" photo, as expected.
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/1170/1N232046876EFF820TP1907R0M1.JPG
Thanks ArMaP! What you have done with the "lines" drawn between the two pics is to pictorially confirm what I said in the OP ~~~~ "The after pic - well just see it for yourselves, as the tampering is so very obvious. Even with the tampering here, there are plenty of the common cliff features that do make it easy for making close comparisons. Of course in the "after" pic, the whole wall of the cape shows it has been given a tampering "textured look"!
Of course, there is still enough cliff-commmonality to see that the two pics are from the same cliff!! But that in much of the area is the extent of the commonality. There are smudged over anomalies in the before pic that are "either not seen at all or "textured over" in the after pic.
The "flat area" you don't see is at the place of your 4th red dot down, on the left.
From these I noticed that in Sol 1170 Opportunity was closer to the stop where it was on Sol 1105 than on any other, so, looking at Sol 1170 I found this photo, that really looks much closer to the "before" photo, as expected.
(http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/1/n/1170/1N232046876EFF820TP1907R0M1.JPG)
That pic is basically the same as the "after" 1167 pic, except darker. Same!
Quote from: rdunk on December 15, 2013, 05:47:37 PM
Of course in the "after" pic, the whole wall of the cape shows it has been given a tampering "textured look"!
I suppose you know what happens when the light source changes positions over objects that do not have smooth surfaces; the appearance changes because the texture becomes more or less visible because of the different direction of the light.
QuoteThere are smudged over anomalies in the before pic that are "either not seen at all or "textured over" in the after pic.
Then could you please point to them in an image? Post the image to Photobucket, ImageShack or something like that. Even if they may disappear in the future (I use ImageShack for many years and all the images that disappeared were recovered after an email to them) at least we can see
now what you mean.
QuoteThe "flat area" you don't see is at the place of your 4th red dot down, on the left.
Same as the above, to me, saying "4th red dot down, on the left" doesn't make me
know what you mean, as it will be base on my interpretation of what you mean by that.
Quote from: rdunk on December 15, 2013, 05:50:10 PM
That pic is basically the same as the "after" 1167 pic, except darker. Same!
Are you saying that's the same photo, only darker? ???
Ok guys, I have made a little progress. I have figured our how to post a photo link from Facebook, of the "before" photo with "locaters". This is the Sol day 1105 with specific notations.
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1470368_1445119809044031_2029235335_n.jpg)
Quote from: ArMaP on December 15, 2013, 06:20:43 PM
Are you saying that's the same photo, only darker? ???
I am saying that photo is showing the "same cliff" as does Sol 1167, and yes it is darker.
Quote from: rdunk on December 15, 2013, 06:40:51 PM
Ok guys, I have made a little progress. I have figured our how to post a photo link from Facebook, of the "before" photo with "locaters". This is the Sol day 1105 with specific notations.
Now that's better, thanks. :)
Too bad the compression is too high, some parts of the text are difficult to read.
Why don't you use a real image hosting site instead of Facebook? ???
Could you please use the image below (converted from the IMG file) and post it on some image hosting site? :)
I think Facebook is the responsible for all that excessive compression.
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img809/8995/y66n.gif)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img69/6063/38j.gif)
I just simply choose to not use such sites as Photo Bucket , and etc.
Relative to reading the text, the "yellow" should all be readable, and for the other color, it says the same every place, so that should not be a problem either.
Quote from: rdunk on December 15, 2013, 10:08:33 PM
I just simply choose to not use such sites as Photo Bucket , and etc.
You prefer to use Facebook and post (almost) useless photos? ???
Do you want to email me the photo and I'll post it for you? If it goes away sobeit. It will be here long enough to get it.
Deueum, I assure you, the quality of the/a photo is not going to make a peanut's difference in the end, relative to what ArMaP sees. It will be about everything but "what is actually shown in a photo. So, I don't want to waste your time nor mine either.
The photos we have are maybe not the greatest, but they do show everything that we need to see. The "before" photo shows several anomalous objects, and difference of areas on the cliff, while they are not there in the "after" pic, or, are there, but have been "textured" over. And, there is grounds for pre-intent to consider, if a "different angle" were the reason for "some" of the anomalies not being seen - ie, same as tampering, just in a pre-determined way. ::)
Hey redunk, If I thought helping you was a waste of time I would just go sit on my fence. The offer is there if you need it.
I do see the yellow marked up print and can read all colors with little problem. Thanks for posting it. Now I can see the flat spot and others areas you are talking about.
Deuem
Quote from: rdunk on December 16, 2013, 02:13:58 AM
Deueum, I assure you, the quality of the/a photo is not going to make a peanut's difference in the end, relative to what ArMaP sees.
If you use the image I posted it will not make a difference in what I see, obviously, unless you change the photo yourself, but it may make a difference (although I doubt it) in what you see, as, apparently, you keep on using the worst images available and ignore the best.
QuoteThe photos we have are maybe not the greatest, but they do show everything that we need to see.
It's possible they show them because they are not the greatest, working with bad data when you have access to good data makes you look like someone that is not interested in the truth.
QuoteThe "before" photo shows several anomalous objects, and difference of areas on the cliff, while they are not there in the "after" pic, or, are there, but have been "textured" over. And, there is grounds for pre-intent to consider, if a "different angle" were the reason for "some" of the anomalies not being seen - ie, same as tampering, just in a pre-determined way. ::)
You forgot the difference in the direction of the light, and if you think that neither of those makes a difference then you're going in the wrong direction.
Quote from: deuem on December 16, 2013, 12:25:26 PM
Now I can see the flat spot and others areas you are talking about.
So can I, but only on the highly compressed, with too much contrast image, on the better image I see that things are not exactly like that.
ArMaP or Rdunk, can either of you do some math and come up with some numbers for that cliff. Is it 500 meters tall or 5 meters tall. Without any dimensions the stair case could be 2 feet or 200 feet or just perfect. Is there anything we can toss in the salad to make it taste better. How big is this place, how deep is it put some numbers on anything. Even if they need to change later. Right now we are playing in the dark! Light it up with any math...
Deuem
Quote from: ArMaP on December 16, 2013, 01:51:24 PM
So can I, but only on the highly compressed, with too much contrast image, on the better image I see that things are not exactly like that.
OK, at least everyone knows what flat spot rdunk is talking about. There has to be over 50 flat spots on the print. Without knowing perspective and height differences of the 2 shots it is hard to determine how the flat spot should look. I do see the rotation of the stairway area and a lot of details look very different. Rather it is NASA screwing around again or a camera quality problem I don't know yet.
@ rdunk: I would also like to know if rdunk can still see the differences in the higher quality print ArMaP tossed up. At least give a look. If you still see your problems in the better print, then you have a better case to present. If you see a major difference between your first one and the cleaner one then maybe you now have 2 cases. Sounds like a win-win.
I would suggest to at least try it.
Deuem
I can try to get some measurements later, now I have to get back to work. :(
Quote from: deuem on December 16, 2013, 01:58:16 PM
ArMaP or Rdunk, can either of you do some math and come up with some numbers for that cliff. Is it 500 meters tall or 5 meters tall. Without any dimensions the stair case could be 2 feet or 200 feet or just perfect. Is there anything we can toss in the salad to make it taste better. How big is this place, how deep is it put some numbers on anything. Even if they need to change later. Right now we are playing in the dark! Light it up with any math...
Deuem
Deuem, NASA says that Cape St. Vincent is "approximately 12 meters tall". Without knowing just where on the cliff this measurement was approximated (forward edge, middle etc), it still would be somewhat of a guess. But, that is the only real number I have seen, in the over two years I have been looking at this Cape, from time to time.
Here is a link with a pic of the Cape, and in the verbiage with it do mention the 12 meters.
http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10015216-18.html
Also in the words of NASA in this, is a brief discussion of the "meter scale cross bedding" (which I call texturing). There is some "evidence" that might just be "B/S lying" about what has happened to this cliff, relative to the photo tampering. And that evidence would be the very cape "right behind it". I have previously made another post here of a very obvious anomaly on the cape cliff right behind this one, and it certainly shows no "meter cross scale bedding/(texturing)"!!! (Just FYI - no charge :) )
I tried AlgorimancerPG but it gave me inconsistent results. ???
Although I don't like it I will try Google Mars. :)
Ok 12 meters is like a 3 story building. So an astronaut in full gear would be about 2 mrters or 1/6 the hight. how does that fit into your idea?
Using Google Mars I got this:
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img11/2299/kmbx.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img5/3991/qgdh.jpg)
Then I used one of the photos from Opportunity, and got this:
(click for full size)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img29/2403/e4fy.jpg)
(http://imageshack.us/a/img855/7743/i48w.jpg)
Not scientific, but I suppose it gives us a better idea of the size. :)
Rdunk, this is why I always push math of some type to be included. The 12 meters might be from the deepest spot to the rim average or highest point. If ArMaPs' 3 meters for what is showing then the conversation seems to go mute. It would be a staircase for ants or very small creatures. What say ye?
I always try to get some kind of number before saying it is! This information is out there to be found. So is it a miniature city? or do you want to rethink this with the new data presented?
Neither of us are here to hinder you, we are helping the research. See, we want to know maybe more than you do but we are willing to take many more steps to figure out the puzzle. So please take this in a very positive manner and let us know what you think about the size. Are the numbers also bogus, what numbers will you come up with, you don't care, what ever your opinion is now.
Thanks, Deuem
rdunk,
Did the scale help support or hinder your theory?
Hi Pimander! If you are asking about the measurements that ARMAP made just above, for me it is not representative of the actual height of the cape. But, size/height of the cape has nothing to do directly with what can be seen as obvious intentional photo tampering, relative to anomalous objects/areas at this cape.
In the later photos of this St Vincent's Cape, there is enough commonality remaining that one can see where the anomalies should be, even with a bit of a different photo angle. But, mostly what is seen is how obviously different they are, with the texturing application, however that gets applied. But whether it is the texturing or photo angle, for sure the primary anomalous aspects of the initial pic are nor recognizable after the tampering.
And this from the OP remains pertinent - Even in the "before" pic, evidence of photo tampering of anomalies is rather obvious with significant black smudging, but in the after pic one can see how all of these were handled with the "more professional tampering".
Even with the tampering in the later photos, there is still much anomaly to be seen here, including two statues. So, even their tampering did not hide everything, or they left a little to be found?? But, some of the real "bangers" they did wipe out!
I would guess that somewhere, NASA has more really good natural pics of this cape, because surely with their knowing what is actually here, doncha think they would have taken more? :)
Quote from: rdunk on January 10, 2014, 06:23:47 PM
I would guess that somewhere, NASA has more really good natural pics of this cape, because surely with their knowing what is actually here, doncha think they would have taken more? :)
I expect that there are pictures that have not been put on public view. I'm not convinced this is the "Holy Grail Proof" though to be honest but will keep the site in mind in case we get more pictures. :)
Well Pi, can you actually see the anomalous areas in the original first pic? Even though they are partially hidden, can you see the "legs/designed base" on the large anomaly at the front edge - likely has 4 lower leg assemblies, two of which are on the side nearest us, and are clearly seen, and a third where we can see the upper part of the leg, but not the foot.. The "thing" actually has a chair-type square base, with maybe a "chair-back" behind the smudge. :)
I think it interesting, to see still many similarities remaining in the photos, and yet such drastic differences. For instance, one can make one on one comparisons of the rocks on the top edge of the cliff in the photos, all of the way out to near the nose of the cliff, and then the commonality stops. On the original pic the nose of the cliff shows a very clear sloping dropping landscape, while in the later pic the later cliff just becomes a drop-off. One should just know that even the different angle should be showing more of the slope, and more of the anomalous area.
To many differences to not strongly suspect the tampering. Photo tampering in a situation like this is synonymous with LYING, and should somehow be dealt with !!! :o Many many other examples of tampering, with some more blatant than others.
Quote from: rdunk on January 10, 2014, 06:23:47 PMAt sometime prior, someone seemingly joked about NASA having put the Egyptian statue there, for confusion purposes, and for their laughs when it is discussed - - that and a few other open anomalies there MAY BE just what they have done, to help hide/confuse the real truth. In the before pic, where the statue should be looks more like a stairway, both above and below the statue area.
"Egyptian statue"LOL Is that what the thread is about? Hmmm Seems no one spotted that...
sigh... okay let's play
first though... when you post a NASA image link just put the link into the image tag and it will post as image not as link. I edited your posts
You mean THIS area?
Victoria Crater's Cape St. Vincent
Color Version Normal Resolution
Sol 1167
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Vincent_color_01.JPG)
And before ArMaP jumps in about COLOR :P here is the coresponding color wheel for the day
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Vincent_color_dial_01.JPG)
Statue is HERE
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Egypt_001.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/piaet6.jpg)
High Res Jpeg
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA10210.jpg
Full-Res TIFF: (15.99 MB)
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA10210.tif
Enhanced sepia tones
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/marsstatuecopy.gif)
Cliff scale
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Height.png)
Some other curious items there (An ArMaP was on that thread :P)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/15gyyz6.jpg)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Spheres_001a.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Rings_001.png)
Egyptian Statue on Mars? http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Mars_Images_29.html
Interrestng rock. Wish I could attach..If interrested, look to the left of statue,
at the bottom of the rock face, near the center of image. Looks to me like a
mountain lion, or smaller cat in the cave like opening..
nrubicon
Yes Z, even now there are anomalous objects, along with the statues, on this cape. However on this OP, the anomalies are noted more for their differences seen from an earlier sol day photo to their later sol days photos. Thus this thread is more about "is it photo tampering, or is it not".
In any case, this Cape St Vincent remains a prime Mars example of humanoid activity and intelligent design, photo tampering or not!!
Z, thanks for your support with the Egyptian!!!
(http://www.echoesofenoch.com/clipart_scifi_spaceships_005.gif)
OK, what about the fence post on top of the bluff, slightly to the left of the statue? it is casting a distinct shadow...
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on January 11, 2014, 11:52:53 AM
OK, what about the fence post on top of the bluff, slightly to the left of the statue?
???
I can't find the large thread that exists on this on the ATS site. I do remember it.
rdunk, I can see why people think the formation has a statue in it. It could obviously be a joke but it may also be naturally occurring simulacra.
Quotesimulacrum
noun [C] /?s?m.j??le?.kr?m/ (plural simulacrums or simulacra) formal
› something that looks like or represents something else
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/simulacrum
Fence posts really do interest me if they are visible in pictures taken on more than one occasion. A fence post like object to me is less likely than rocks that look like a statue but that is only my opinion. I am poor at image identification based on RAF tests but supposedly very good at analysis of data and quick decision making (think fighter controller or intelligence analyst). For image analysis I am not the best person even though I find it fascinating.
I don't think there are steps there. The surrounding rocks have evenly spaced beds just like that. They could be cut out using the evenly spaced bedding of the rocks for a joke or be naturally cut out of the rock by wind erosion.
It does look amazingly similar to the type of geology found at Giza. Make of that what you will. :)
I remain open minded about the possibility of buildings elsewhere in the solar system but have not seen proof.
All I see is a little Deuem bunny,
(http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa458/deuem/MarsBunny.jpg) (http://s1198.photobucket.com/user/deuem/media/MarsBunny.jpg.html)
Deuem
eta: ps, that bunny is in the original, I did not add it, just colored it
Quote from: the seeker on January 11, 2014, 11:52:53 AM
OK, what about the fence post on top of the bluff, slightly to the left of the statue? it is casting a distinct shadow...
seeker
Hey seeker! There is a lot to see on this cape, but it is hard to see it all! :) After your question, I have gone back and looked for the "fence post" you are seeing, but I haven't found it yet. I will keep looking.
What do you think about the photo differences noted in the OP and comments following - photo tampering or not?
rdunk, look at the photo Z posted with the measure scale on it on it; at the top left of the scale you will see this one post sticking up, it is curved to the left and then upwards again; it is also casting a shadow
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Height.png
look directly above the F in the top 10FT marker...
seeker
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Height.png)
Quote from: Pimander on January 11, 2014, 01:34:19 PM
rdunk, I can see why people think the formation has a statue in it. It could obviously be a joke but it may also be naturally occurring simulacra.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/simulacrum
I don't think there are steps there. The surrounding rocks have evenly spaced beds just like that. They could be cut out using the evenly spaced bedding of the rocks for a joke or be naturally cut out of the rock by wind erosion.
It does look amazingly similar to the type of geology found at Giza. Make of that what you will. :)
I remain open minded about the possibility of buildings elsewhere in the solar system but have not seen proof.
Pimander, actually, as said earlier, there are two statues - one the Egyptian, and the other can be see on the ridge pretty much directly above the Egyptian. The 2nd is a little weird looking, but obviously not just "a jumble of rocks".
Regarding the "steps", yes, they are a little hard to see. But, with everything just right (screen resolution, photo magnification, screen brightness, and maybe a hand magnifier), one can see the side edges of two or three white steps at the top of the stairway, directly above the Egyptian statue, and at least one step, maybe two, at the bottom, below the Egyptian statue. Now to see these steps, you do need to be using the untampered photo, Sol day 1105, because the steps have been "tampered out" in the later photos!!!!
Pi, re: your having not seen any convincing buildings on Mars: one of these days.............I will post details of a community/very small city I have found on Mars, that does have "buildings". The photos of this community seem to have serious tampering too, but enough is left to see very obvious evidence of humanoid existence, with small buildings. :)
Quote from: zorgon on January 10, 2014, 11:55:04 PM
And before ArMaP jumps in about COLOR :P here is the coresponding color wheel for the day
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Vincent_color_dial_01.JPG)
There's no such photo on Sol 1167. ???
Quote from: the seeker on January 11, 2014, 05:15:00 PM
rdunk, look at the photo Z posted with the measure scale on it on it; at the top left of the scale you will see this one post sticking up, it is curved to the left and then upwards again; it is also casting a shadow
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Height.png
look directly above the F in the top 10FT marker...
seeker
That's a "break" (I cannot think of other word) in the cape, separating that V-shaped area from the rest, not an object.
Quote from: ArMaP on January 11, 2014, 05:32:24 PM
That's a "break" (I cannot think of other word) in the cape, separating that V-shaped area from the rest, not an object.
Armap, I am going to disagree with you, for it is a vertical object and casts a perpendicular shadow to the left... just my opinion, of course :D
perhaps it is a trick of light and shadow, but I think not...
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on January 11, 2014, 05:37:20 PM
Armap, I am going to disagree with you, for it is a vertical object and casts a perpendicular shadow to the left... just my opinion, of course :D
perhaps it is a trick of light and shadow, but I think not...
seeker
Look at the other shadows, then look at photos from other Sols, at different times and with different shadows, and you will see that what you call a "shadow" remains in the same position.
Quote from: the seeker on January 11, 2014, 05:15:00 PM
rdunk, look at the photo Z posted with the measure scale on it on it; at the top left of the scale you will see this one post sticking up, it is curved to the left and then upwards again; it is also casting a shadow
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars5/Egypt/Height.png
look directly above the F in the top 10FT marker...
seeker
Thanks seeker, I can see the "fence post" you are referring to now. But, there is a bit of a problem with that - we are seeing this "fence post" in a photo of one of the latter sol day tampered shots. When I look for this post in the untampered photo sol day 1105, so far, I don't see it. The earlier photo is a little darker, but also in the earlier photo, there is a lot more stuff on the upper nose of this cape, including a slope, that is not there in the tampered photo. So, I don't know if the "post looking feature" is actually there or not??
Quote from: ArMaP on January 11, 2014, 05:39:22 PM
Look at the other shadows, then look at photos from other Sols, at different times and with different shadows, and you will see that what you call a "shadow" remains in the same position.
ArMaP, I believe the "post" seeker is referring to, is not connected with the "V" rock. Rather it is a little farther to the right of the "V". on top of the cliff nose. At least that is where I see it, along with its shadow on the tampered photo. :)
Quote from: rdunk on January 11, 2014, 05:46:54 PM
ArMaP, I believe the "post" seeker is referring to, is not connected with the "V" rock. Rather it is a little farther to the right of the "V". on top of the cliff nose. At least that is where I see it, along with its shadow on the tampered photo. :)
That's why I was making this image: :)
(http://imageshack.com/a/img823/6789/8kir.png)
Is this the "post"?
No, it is directly above and a little right of the point of your arrow - see the black shadow. Yes, as you said earlier, the V is a "break" in the rocks.
Quote from: rdunk on January 11, 2014, 05:56:45 PM
No, it is directly above and a little right of the point of your arrow - see the black shadow. Yes, as you said earlier, the V is a "break" in the rocks.
What I want is seeker's opinion if that yellow arrow is pointing to what he calls a "post", as he was the one talking about it. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 11, 2014, 06:04:10 PM
What I want is seeker's opinion if that yellow arrow is pointing to what he calls a "post", as he was the one talking about it. :)
Yes I know, but, you did reply using my quote, so, I thought maybe you were asking both of us. Yes, I don't positively know if the "post" I am seeing is the one seeker is referring to..........but I am pretty sure that it is, because what you are pointing out is not a post.
Quote from: rdunk on January 11, 2014, 06:10:31 PM
Yes I know, but, you did reply using my quote, so, I thought maybe you were asking both of us.
Sorry for the confusion, but why would I ask somebody else about what seeker said? It's his opinion, not anyone else's. :)
QuoteYes, I don't positively know if the "post" I am seeing is the one seeker is referring to
None of us do, we have to wait for seeker. :)
Quotebut I am pretty sure that it is, because what you are pointing out is not a post.
I know (as far as I can know any thing about what's on Mars) it's not a post, but I don't see anything that looks like a post. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 11, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
That's why I was making this image: :)
(http://imageshack.com/a/img823/6789/8kir.png)
Is this the "post"?
yes, armap, that is what I perceive as a post; perhaps it is just a v shaped crack in the rock and my perceptions of it are off; but I would like to see more photos of this if any are available... after all, it is what it is, and until we can put boots on the ground and examine it in detail, it is just a point of debate...
seeker
Quote from: the seeker on January 12, 2014, 03:53:39 AM
yes, armap, that is what I perceive as a post;
Good, at least now we know that we are talking about the same thing. :)
Quotebut I would like to see more photos of this if any are available...
I think these two may be enough.
First, photo 1P231787746MRD820TP2417L2M1. As the page for that photo on the Analyst's Notebook (http://an.rsl.wustl.edu/mer/merbrowser/product.aspx?prod=1P231787746EFF820TP2417L2C1) says, it was taken at 13:38:15 (local Solar time).
(http://imageshack.com/a/img69/9111/nssa.jpg)
Below you have the photo. Click for full size.
(The photo looks different because I downloaded the IMG file and converted it to a PNG, and when doing that I had to chose a value for the radiometric conversion, as I always download the radiometrically calibrated images, if available)(http://imageshack.com/a/img707/3018/rqij.png) (http://imageshack.com/a/img24/9131/8bvk.png)
The other photo is photo 1P231798826MRD820TP2420L2M1. The page for that photo (http://an.rsl.wustl.edu/mer/merbrowser/product.aspx?prod=1P231798826ILF820TP2420L2M1) tells us that it was taken at 16:37:55 (local Solar time).
(http://imageshack.com/a/img547/2030/9xea.jpg)
And here is the photo. Click for full size.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img856/332/kagl.png) (http://imageshack.com/a/img823/1251/jbyu.png)
You can see that there are many differences in the shadows, so if that was a pole projecting a shadow the shadow would have moved in the same way as all the others, but it didn't. To make it easier to see, I made an animation. It may take some time to load, sorry.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img6/7934/k1i.gif)
I hope that helps. :)
PS: I could try to make both photos have the same colour for the ground, as that would make it easier to compare the shadows, but I don't really know if the ground changes colour with the Sun's position or not.
ArMaP, I guess it makes no difference to you, that you are using very tampered-with photos?
Yes seeker, I thought you were seeing something like a post/shadow a little higher up. Some of these shadows and rocks do run together sometimes. :))
And seeker, if and when we "get boots on the ground there", we are really going to find out just how really tall lies are in the photos we have been given by NASA. Actually though, with the photos we have, the height of their lying is quite obvious to those of us who are willing and able to accept what the photos actually reveal to us!!
Quote from: rdunk on January 12, 2014, 09:21:04 PM
ArMaP, I guess it makes no difference to you, that you are using very tampered-with photos?
Prove it first, then we talk. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 12, 2014, 09:31:20 PM
Prove it first, then we talk. :)
Will NASA proof be good enough for you?
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Toons/NASA_Life_01.png)
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Mars4/Color/Lander_01.jpg)
:o
::)
Quote from: zorgon on January 12, 2014, 09:50:17 PM
Will NASA proof be good enough for you?
That's no proof that I am using "very tampered-with photos".
PS: what do you think about the photo in question, is it tampered-with or not? :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 12, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
That's no proof that I am using "very tampered-with photos".
It is an in your face admission from NASA that they hide stuff :D In America and Russia such graphics speak volumes :D
QuotePS: what do you think about the photo in question, is it tampered-with or not? :)
Trick question :P
IF NASA is NOT tampering with any images at all I would say NOT
IF, however NASA tampers with SOME images, whether for aesthetic reasons or to obfuscate, than ALL images become suspect by default...
And you helped prove that THIS image at least was tampered with :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Full_Moon/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552Small.png)
Quote from: zorgon on January 12, 2014, 10:34:37 PM
IF, however NASA tampers with SOME images, whether for aesthetic reasons or to obfuscate, than ALL images become suspect by default...
I partly agree, as I can never trust a person that I catch lying.
But as I have never seen any sign of tampered images on the science sites I still believe in
those photos, and that's why I use only those.
QuoteAnd you helped prove that THIS image at least was tampered with :P
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/04images/Moon7/Full_Moon/ISD_highres_AS11_AS11-44-6552Small.png)
Yes, I remember that one. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on January 12, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
That's no proof that I am using "very tampered-with photos".
PS: what do you think about the photo in question, is it tampered-with or not? :)
ArMaP, the proof of tampering is not so obvious for some in the photo you continue to use, because it is what it is. But, when one compares it directly to the earlier Sol day 1105 photo, also in the OP, it makes the tampering in the later Sol day photos absolutely obvious for me, and hopefully for some of the others here too. And it is not a slightly different that causes all of the differences, as you proposed prior.
Yes, NASA et al left enough, so some comparison of rocks to rocks can be made, but some of the primary anomalies are no longer visible in the latter photos.
By the way ArMaP, in the Sol day 1105 Op photo, how would you describe that anomalous 4-legged object that is sitting down below the Egyptian statue - I assume you can see it, even though it is pretty blackened with smudgery-tampering too?? And, in the later photos, it is still there, even with the different photo angle, but it has been completely "textured" over by the tampering.
A 4 legged thingy needs a least a red circle photo. Thanks Seeker, now all I can see is fence posts.
Deuem
A different view of the 'post' may be had on sol 1108, panaromic cam. I
understand that no one wants to cosider that the images we see from mars
may not have origionated from a camera on mars, but from a computer
program here on earth.That may be why they look like they have been
altered..
rubicon
Quote from: deuem on January 13, 2014, 01:46:01 PM
A 4 legged thingy needs a least a red circle photo. Thanks Seeker, now all I can see is fence posts.
Deuem
Deuem, if you go back here - http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=5810.30 - in my pic with locater arrows, the four legged anomaly is pointed out - our lower right near bottom of the pic.
Quote from: rdunk on January 13, 2014, 06:49:48 AM
ArMaP, the proof of tampering is not so obvious for some in the photo you continue to use, because it is what it is. But, when one compares it directly to the earlier Sol day 1105 photo, also in the OP, it makes the tampering in the later Sol day photos absolutely obvious for me, and hopefully for some of the others here too. And it is not a slightly different that causes all of the differences, as you proposed prior.
I suppose this is something we can only agree when we get there and see for ourselves. :)
QuoteBy the way ArMaP, in the Sol day 1105 Op photo, how would you describe that anomalous 4-legged object that is sitting down below the Egyptian statue
This?
(http://imageshack.com/a/img199/5356/kmv.gif)
It looks like part of the "cape", and I don't see any legs, just smaller rocks below it.
- I assume you can see it, even though it is pretty blackened with smudgery-tampering too?? And, in the later photos, it is still there, even with the different photo angle, but it has been completely "textured" over by the tampering.