Possible "Holy Grail Proof" of NASA Et Al Photo Tampering

[deuem]

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

[ArMaP]

I can try to get some measurements later, now I have to get back to work.

[rdunk]

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 )

[ArMaP]

I tried AlgorimancerPG but it gave me inconsistent results. 

Although I don't like it I will try Google Mars.

[deuem]

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?

[ArMaP]

Using Google Mars I got this:
(click for full size)



Then I used one of the photos from Opportunity, and got this:
(click for full size)



Not scientific, but I suppose it gives us a better idea of the size.

[deuem]

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

[Pimander]

rdunk,

Did the scale help support or hinder your theory?

[rdunk]

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?

[Pimander]

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.

[rdunk]

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 !!!  Many many other examples of tampering, with some more blatant than others.

[zorgon]

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.

"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



And before ArMaP jumps in about COLOR here is the coresponding color wheel for the day



Statue is HERE






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



Cliff scale




Some other curious items there (An ArMaP was on that thread )







Egyptian Statue on Mars?
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Mars_Images_29.html

[08rubicon]

   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

[rdunk]

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!!!


                                                           

[The Seeker]

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