Two Seemingly Identical Anomalies, Victoria Crater

[rdunk]

At the request of one of our members, I am posting two anomalous objects found at the Mars Victoria Crater on/near Cape St Vincent. (I have been using one of these as my avatar). These two anomalous objects have the appearance of being the same, however one of them is bent-up, while the other is partially covered. It is fairly obvious that these two objects are the result of intelligent design and manufacturing process.

One of these objects is found at the bottom of the Cape St Vincent cliff face, near the right end/nose of the cape. The other object (bent) is found on the face of the cliff behind Cape St Vincent.  I will post a pic of each, and a link that shows both.

Of course, Cape St Vincent is fraught with various anomalies, as well as obvious photo tampering

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/207023main_vincent-20071220.jpg

[ArMaP]

We have a geologist on this forum, but he usually doesn't post in threads like this, I don't know why.

[rdunk]

We have a geologist on this forum, but he usually doesn't post in threads like this, I don't know why.

Well, if he happens to see this post, he likely would not reply, because it is fairly obvious that these anomalies are not "geological".

Now, it is broad opinion that the entire geological face of the St Vincent Cape has been messed with/tampered with in the photographs. So, I would love to hear his geological thoughts on that!

[ArMaP]

Well, if he happens to see this post, he likely would not reply, because it is fairly obvious that these anomalies are not "geological".

Obvious to some people, not obvious to other people.

Now, it is broad opinion that the entire geological face of the St Vincent Cape has been messed with/tampered with in the photographs.

"Broad opinion"?

So, I would love to hear his geological thoughts on that!

Ask him.

[deuem]

'What is this" looks like the back side of a crushed toy/real van.
#2, have no idea yet

[rdunk]

Obvious to some people, not obvious to other people.
"Broad opinion"?
Ask him.

And I say, "obvious to some people", and some people "not willing to admit it is obvious".

"Broad opinion" means a whole lot of people, ie, not just a few. Everywhere one goes in this arena of research, it is the general opinion of many, on the basis of individual research and NASA photo study, that these photos have been tampered with, some more significantly than others. For instance, both Victoria crater photos and Concepcion Craters are fraught with evidence of being messed with!!! Of course, the whole face of Cape St Vincent appears has been messed with.

[ArMaP]

And I say, "obvious to some people", and some people "not willing to admit it is obvious".

Obviously, and that applies to all sides.

"Broad opinion" means a whole lot of people, ie, not just a few.

I get that part.

Everywhere one goes in this arena of research, it is the general opinion of many, on the basis of individual research and NASA photo study, that these photos have been tampered with, some more significantly than others.

Well, my individual research tells me the opposite.

From what I have seen, all people complaining about image tampering don't understand a thing about photography or digital images, and they are not capable of distinguishing a really tampered photo from a non tampered one.

For instance, both Victoria crater photos and Concepcion Craters are fraught with evidence of being messed with!!! Of course, the whole face of Cape St Vincent appears has been messed with.

Can you show us some examples? Thanks in advance.

[rdunk]

ArMaP, if you want to start a photo tampering post I can provide a few very specific examples, but I will not bastardize this post off topic any further to do that. A general skeptics approach is, when anomalies are hard to dispell, take it off-topic, I am just not going in that direction!

The anomalies in this post are real, and they are easily recognized as being so. If you would like to discuss the anomalies, I would look forward to that conversation.

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, if you want to start a photo tampering post I can provide a few very specific examples, but I will not bastardize this post off topic any further to do that.

I wasn't the one who started talking about image tampering.

A general skeptics approach is, when anomalies are hard to dispell, take it off-topic, I am just not going in that direction!

If you say so it must be true, at least for you.

The anomalies in this post are real, and they are easily recognized as being so. If you would like to discuss the anomalies, I would look forward to that conversation.

To me they are not anomalous, so I will stop posting on this thread.

[deuem]

Wow, this thread went sour in 4 posts, come on guys, this is a team effort, No?
rdunk, please always go for the best possible photo you can get your hands on. Jpgs have a lot of problems in compression issues. They are night and day from pngs or bits or even tiffs.

I myself would like to see more proof of the tamppering. Like why? And can it be removed from the photo. For me if a photo has cloning on it the sun rays and patterns get broken up. It is hard to fool mother nature. It can be done but takes a lot of time to get the right blends and pass me. The lines get cut and out of place.

Is it possible for creatures to get frozen in the last seconds of life? Yes. It has happened here on the Earth. Was there life on Mars at one time. I would say yes. Is there still life now?  That is what treads are for. To look into that possibility with out NASA telling us what to think.

Deuem

[rdunk]

OK deuem, here is a link to Victoria Crater, Cape St Vincent tif photo. This is a relatively high quality photo. Certainly the two posted anomalies are shown clearly.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA10210.tif

I assume you are somewhat aware of this photo, as it does have anomalies all over it, including the 5 or 6 foot tall Egyptian statue. Also, if you will just look around the face of it, you will likely see that it looks like it has been "hand-troweled" (likely was done by computerization). In several places, the troweling goes around corners and into cracks. In some places, the troweling just goes down and folds over! Also, you can see shadows intersecting shadows, as if some of them have even been hand applied. And, there is for sure at least one or two places where the troweling is done in "thin-air, as there is no wall behind it!

deuem, I am sure you are aware that general use of most any other photo types than .jpg are memory hogs when posting. Certainly posting the better file-type photo links are great for forum hosts, but not generally for posting photos and screenshots. I started out posting png's, and often those would be rejected because of too many kb's.

[deuem]

Yes, I have to do this all the time. I just try to start with the best photo I can and not use a jpeg for my work if I can help it. So a reference to the original in a better fromat is always needed and send them out to look at it otherwise people will work off of your work and the problems atart to grow quickly.

Deuem.

Ok that photo just loaded and I have seen it many time before.

[deuem]

Here is an actual pixel cut from that cliff photo. it is 648 x 573  The original is 4000 x 3993 so it would take 36 of thes cuts to present the entire original in the correct scale of pixels. If your printer can not handle the large print then you could always print smaller sections and tape them together. 

I have done this. Print a huge file in the poster option in my printer preferences and taped them together. If I like it I then go to a plotter company and have them do it in a larger scale. If you printed this out on a letter size the DPI would need to be around 500, If you wanted it to be 72 dpi like your sreen might be then you need 55 inches.

My screen is 90 dpi It is about 11 1/2 inches tall [the monitor section not the plastic] So I would need to have a 44 inch screen to see this full photo at 90 dpi.  {should I spend about 10,000 rmb?}  A nice scale to print things out at is at least 300 dpi.

So this photo should be at least 13 inches square to start with. But bigger is better. 150 dpi 26.66 square and 72 , 55 inches square and you need a wall to see it. A 55 inch color plot from a printer place will set you back a few bucks but I have done that before also.

[Amaterasu]

Wow, this thread went sour in 4 posts, come on guys, this is a team effort, No?
rdunk, please always go for the best possible photo you can get your hands on. Jpgs have a lot of problems in compression issues. They are night and day from pngs or bits or even tiffs.

I myself would like to see more proof of the tamppering. Like why? And can it be removed from the photo. For me if a photo has cloning on it the sun rays and patterns get broken up. It is hard to fool mother nature. It can be done but takes a lot of time to get the right blends and pass me. The lines get cut and out of place.

Is it possible for creatures to get frozen in the last seconds of life? Yes. It has happened here on the Earth. Was there life on Mars at one time. I would say yes. Is there still life now?  That is what treads are for. To look into that possibility with out NASA telling us what to think.

Deuem

Gonna say that a soft-edged clone tool can look pretty good.  Also want to say that whoever worked that pic over knew what They were doing.

Here's a pic that shows that someOne was pushing pixels around - this is the right edge of the image about 1/2 way down:

[ArMaP]

OK deuem, here is a link to Victoria Crater, Cape St Vincent tif photo. This is a relatively high quality photo. Certainly the two posted anomalies are shown clearly.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/tiff/PIA10210.tif

I'm back because there's something about that image that must be said, and that's what they say in the description: this is not only a mosaic of several images, with the usual stitching problems, it's a "superresolution" image, meaning that they used several photos of the same area to try to get a higher resolution image.

That works, but any problems in the images used (like missing pixels or compression artefacts) are replicated in the final image, that's why we can see places with groups of dots, those dots are failed pixels in the individual photos used to make the superresolution image.