Yes, this photo has been messed with by somebody. Not only has the detail of the anomalous object been messed with, the entire photo now is shown as having been rotated about 180 degrees from its original looooong standing presentation - what was at the top of the photo is now down at the bottom of the photo.
The CTX photo number is still identical to the original photo, but the anomaly, while still there is shown to be considerably different from the original. The CTX photo number is - P11_005338_0878_XI_87S084W http://viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/ctx/P11_005338_0878_XI_87S084W#P=P11_005338_0878_XI_87S084W&T=2&start=
I am very familiar with this anomaly, as I found it in my research, and did post it here - http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=1745.0 - Mars Disc Shaped Anomaly Near the South Pole. For "some reason", the primary OP photos of the anomaly not do not open on the forum post either??
Of course, one's suspicion might be, that the photo was changed to make the anomaly appear to be LESS ANOMALOUS!!??
Maybe ArMaP can explain the photo differences for us!! ?? ;)
So, I will post again the original photos, and then post the messed-with photo so that anyone interested can see the differences.
(https://s29.postimg.org/dtiddtayv/Screen_shot_2011_08_11_at_6_39_36_PM_jpg.jpg)
(https://s29.postimg.org/ze2jpif93/Top_of_CTX_Screen_shot_2011_11_30_at_10_08_35_P.jpg)
And an original HIRISE pic similar to the original CTX:
(https://s23.postimg.org/m6aicpjiz/HIRSE_Screen_shot_2011_12_01_at_8_08_39_PM.jpg)
The next pic screenshots show how the "changed" photo now appears:
(https://s28.postimg.org/na7zxyogd/Screen_Shot_2016_12_20_at_9_28_53_AM.jpg)
(https://s23.postimg.org/5sdisdnvv/Screen_Shot_2016_12_20_at_9_10_53_PM.jpg)
Rdunk, I would hang on to the copies that you have; the majority of the people have very little short term cognizance; unless it is an event that leaves a very strong memory imprint Joe Sixpack will glance at the original and then the retouched pic and never notice the difference while the original high detail pics fade away...
my son is a professional wedding photographer, does on average 45+ wedding shoots a year at a 1,000 shots per wedding; I have watched him edit and touch up photos that started off as mediocre and hide blemishes, scars, what have you, and produce top quality results 8)
"Oh,crap, we missed that one, George, better airbrush one up to replace it with while I can the originals; no one pays attention anyways"
::)
Seeker
Yes seeker, you are right! I certainly do keep files on all of the anomalies that I find and post, including whatever photos/screenshots I select. Doing so with the data can make any subsequent photo changes pretty obvious, if ones "pareidolia" is still working good!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: rdunk on December 21, 2016, 03:16:49 AM
Yes, this photo has been messed with by somebody. Not only has the detail of the anomalous object been messed with, the entire photo now is shown as having been rotated about 180 degrees from its original looooong standing presentation - what was at the top of the photo is now down at the bottom of the photo.
That means that the older version was not map projected and this one was. Did you get your copy from that site? I think I remember they made some changes two or three years ago.
QuoteFor "some reason", the primary OP photos of the anomaly not do not open on the forum post either??
I suppose that's because the old thread was originally posted on the old version of the forum and we lost the attachments since then.
QuoteMaybe ArMaP can explain the photo differences for us!! ?? ;)
One of the differences is that the original photos have a very low contrast, so any contrast correction can result if a different look.
ArMaP, the most significant difference in "the look" is, the disc looking object looks much less like a "disc looking object........the revised same-number CTX photo is significantly different relative to the what we were seeing and should be still seeing with the disc object. The supposedly higher quality HIRISE photo of that same area does still show the anomaly just like it did originally.
This does certainly give us/me the impression that there is "something rotten in Denmark", to use an old expressive term that conveys that notion that what has been done to the CTX photo kinda "stinks"!!
Here is a current link and TIFF screenshot of the HIRISE photo of this anomaly -
http://themis-data.asu.edu/planetview/inst/hirise/ESP_014436_0920_RED#P=ESP_014436_0920_RED&T=2&start=
(https://s29.postimg.org/e529qfjjb/Screen_Shot_2016_12_21_at_4_34_52_PM.jpg)
Rdunk, it resembles a caldera. along the lines of Mt Saint Helens after it blew...
still a good find 8)
Seeker
Quote from: rdunk on December 21, 2016, 10:48:20 PM
ArMaP, the most significant difference in "the look" is, the disc looking object looks much less like a "disc looking object........the revised same-number CTX photo is significantly different relative to the what we were seeing and should be still seeing with the disc object.
It's not a revised photo, it's the same photo, but without any changes.
I downloaded the JP2 file from that page, and this is how it looks with no changes.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/P11_005338_0878_XI_87S084W_1~0.jpg)
Now, if I use the Dynamic Range Adjustment tool on IAS Viewer, using the Min and Max values for the Min Stretch and Max Stretch (basically telling the program that it should show use the minimum value as black and the maximum value as white and "stretch" all other shades of grey between them), this is what I get:
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/P11_005338_0878_XI_87S084W_2.jpg)
And this is a similar stretch done to the unprocessed IMG file in QView, part of the ISIS suit.
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/P11_005338_0878_XI_87S084W_IMG_cub.png)
QuoteThis does certainly give us/me the impression that there is "something rotten in Denmark", to use an old expressive term that conveys that notion that what has been done to the CTX photo kinda "stinks"!!
Nothing rotten, they are now showing the original image but map-projected (with North at the top).
QuoteHere is a current link and TIFF screenshot of the HIRISE photo of this anomaly -
Your TIFF is a JPG.
Edited to add that, as you can see, the original IMG image shows a mirror image.
Felicitations ArMaP! 8)
One of your best replies to date.
Thank you.
(http://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/570/animated-merry-christmas-image-0252.gif)
ArMaP, it is very obvious that the subject photo HAS CHANGED relative to what was presented/posted by NASA for several years. It is also obvious that the now changed CTX photo of the anomaly is now very different from the HIRISE photo of that very same area, and the HIRISE photo basically has the same appearance of the original CTX photo.
It is very obvious that the CTX photo has been "messed with" by somebody" - maybe it was you!! ?? :o
Quote from: rdunk on December 22, 2016, 03:20:30 PM
ArMaP, it is very obvious that the subject photo HAS CHANGED relative to what was presented/posted by NASA for several years.
First of all, did you find the first version of that photo on that site or on a different site?
Quote from: ArMaP on December 22, 2016, 09:26:38 PM
First of all, did you find the first version of that photo on that site or on a different site?
ArMaP, I found this anomaly while looking at CTX photos at the icy Arctic surface of Mars in August 2011. My simply clicking on an individual CTX photo noted then brought up the NASA website with the photo. I did save that link, and it still brings up that same photo number, but it is now somewhat different, as has been noted! Also as I have said prior, the today's NASA HIRISE photo of the same anomaly area is still the same as in 2011!
Quote from: rdunk on December 23, 2016, 04:54:21 AM
ArMaP, I found this anomaly while looking at CTX photos at the icy Arctic surface of Mars in August 2011. My simply clicking on an individual CTX photo noted then brought up the NASA website with the photo. I did save that link, and it still brings up that same photo number, but it is now somewhat different, as has been noted!
I suppose that's a "yes", but I'm not sure. :-\
QuoteAlso as I have said prior, the today's NASA HIRISE photo of the same anomaly area is still the same as in 2011!
That's irrelevant, at least for now. :)
Quote from: ArMaP on December 23, 2016, 10:57:00 AM
I suppose that's a "yes", but I'm not sure. :-\
That's irrelevant, at least for now. :)
Well ArMaP, we do view things quite differently. IMO the term "irrelevant" does not accurately describe the changes that have been made to the original CTX photo. Nor does the term apply to the now significant differences in the look of this anomalous disc feature seen clearly in the original CTX photo and in the HIRISE photo.
This CTX photo has been modified, and the anomalous feature is significantly less obvious/less seeable!! :o
Quote from: ArMaP on December 21, 2016, 07:23:14 PM
I suppose that's because the old thread was originally posted on the old version of the forum and we lost the attachments since then.
They are not lost... they are merely not attached to the forum as the pointers changed As far as I know I have the old attachments saved in a folder somewhere
I can maybe post them to the gallary and we can sort them
Quote from: rdunk on December 21, 2016, 03:16:49 AM
And an original HIRISE pic similar to the original CTX:
(https://s23.postimg.org/m6aicpjiz/HIRSE_Screen_shot_2011_12_01_at_8_08_39_PM.jpg)
The next pic screenshots show how the "changed" photo now appears:
(https://s28.postimg.org/na7zxyogd/Screen_Shot_2016_12_20_at_9_28_53_AM.jpg)
The only difference I see between the two photos is the contrast setting
Looks like a crashed spacecraft to me... you can see the blackend impact scar and the pushed up dirt on the edge opposite the black streaks...
Yup crashed spacecraft is my guess :P
I will put this on a web page
But would help if you put it all together in a nice neat post or three that I can copy paste to save time
Quote from: rdunk on December 23, 2016, 04:07:05 PM
Well ArMaP, we do view things quite differently.
In that we agree. :)
QuoteIMO the term "irrelevant" does not accurately describe the changes that have been made to the original CTX photo. Nor does the term apply to the now significant differences in the look of this anomalous disc feature seen clearly in the original CTX photo and in the HIRISE photo.
Sometimes I think that people would understand me better if I wrote in Portuguese, as when I write in English people answer about a completely different thing. ::)
What I said was irrelevant was the HiRISE image. When you have two different versions of the same photo, talking about a third photo is irrelevant.
QuoteThis CTX photo has been modified, and the anomalous feature is significantly less obvious/less seeable!! :o
No, the
original CTX photo was not modified, and that's one of the reasons I prefer to look at the original photo and not at the "browser" versions.
As you can see on this (http://web.archive.org/web/20120508062246/http://viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/ctx/P11_005338_0878_XI_87S084W#start) Internet Archive version of the page, from May 2012, and as I said above, they changed that site some time ago, you can even see that the context image was "upside down" when compared to how they show it now.
One thing they changed was the image they use in that "zoom box", now they use the original, map-projected photo, while before they used a lower resolution, processed version, sometimes not map-projected (if I'm not mistaken).
Another thing they changed is that IAS Viewer was replaced by HiView, which is not as good as IAS Viewer, but this was discontinued by its makers, ITT.
If, when you first found the image, you had downloaded the IMG file you would see now that the original photo wasn't changed.
PS: I find it interesting to see that you think that things look less anomalous when the images are changed, I interpret the two images in exactly the same way.