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

[rdunk]

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)

[deuem]

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

[deuem]

As I said I cannot post additional photos

Are you having tech problems or just want to let it sit right where it is?

[rdunk]

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.   

[deuem]

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.   

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

[rdunk]

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!

[deuem]

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.

[rdunk]

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!

[zorgon]

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

If 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

[deuem]

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.

[rdunk]

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. 

[ArMaP]

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

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)


And an anaglyph.
(click for full size)


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)



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.

The "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.

[ArMaP]

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.

[deuem]

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

[ArMaP]

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)




An anaglyph version
(click for full size)



Now, some data taken from the IMG files found here.

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)



Up to Sol 1173 (I couldn't find any closer and after Sol 1167)
(click for full size)



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