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

[ArMaP]

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.

[rdunk]

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.

[ArMaP]

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.

Yes, 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.

but 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.

[The Seeker]

That's why I was making this image:



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

[ArMaP]

yes, armap, that is what I perceive as a post;

Good, at least now we know that we are talking about the same thing.

but 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 says, it was taken at 13:38:15 (local Solar time).



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)


The other photo is photo 1P231798826MRD820TP2420L2M1. The page for that photo tells us that it was taken at 16:37:55  (local Solar time).



And here is the photo. Click for full size.


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.



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.

[rdunk]

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!!

[ArMaP]

ArMaP, I guess it makes no difference to you, that you are using very tampered-with photos?

Prove it first, then we talk.

[zorgon]

Prove it first, then we talk.

Will NASA proof be good enough for you?

[ArMaP]

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? 

[zorgon]

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 In America and Russia such graphics speak volumes

PS: what do you think about the photo in question, is it tampered-with or not? 

Trick question

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

[ArMaP]

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.

And you helped prove that THIS image at least was tampered with

Yes, I remember that one.

[rdunk]

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.

[deuem]

A 4 legged thingy needs a least a red circle photo. Thanks Seeker, now all I can see is fence posts.

Deuem

[08rubicon]

  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

[rdunk]

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.