Where On Earth Are NASA’s Rovers Sending Pictures From? Devon Island, Canada

[astr0144]

Where On Earth Are NASA's Rovers Sending Pictures From? Devon Island, Canada.

Are the Mars Images also another NASA  Hoax ?






Check Article for more images and videos..

http://www.anonews.co/nasa-mars-hoax/

There is an increasing number of people who believe that NASA's rovers never left the Earth in the first place, and the pictures they are allegedly sending back from Mars are taken in remote areas of our planet.

But if NASA's rovers are not on Mars, then where exactly are they?

First of all, evidence suggests that the pictures that we see on NASA's website are not even taken by the Curiosity and Opportunity rovers.



It is very possible that by now, both rovers are stored in a hangar, somewhere at NASA's JPL headquarters, and have been replaced by their smaller and more practical baby brothers.

Sure, if needed, they can always be taken out for a spin, but other than that, the smaller rovers are more convenient to work with.

One of the known locations where NASA is playing around with these small rovers is Devon Island, Canada.

(It's worth noting that Devon Island is "the largest uninhabited island on Earth," which seems like a pretty good location for a fake Martian photo shoot).

Just take a look at these pictures:



1450852953_devon2bisland2bmars
NASA base in Devon Island, Canada — even without the color filters, it's strikingly similar to Mars, isn't it?



1450852953_devon-island-canada-rovers
NASA's "baby rovers" taking pictures in Devon Island, Canada

Sure, one could think NASA just needed a place where they can simulate the conditions on Mars, but what's the point of simulating those conditions with miniature rovers, that look and work almost nothing like their bigger brothers?

Their shape, size and weight are different and the wheels are worlds apart. It's really impossible to make even remotely accurate tests.

They also don't have the on board laboratories, so what's there to simulate? Except for taking pictures, the "baby rovers" look useless.

Check out the following video for further evidence (please notice the identical terrain as that from NASA's pictures):



(The video says Greenland, but it's in fact Devon Island, Canada)

The cameras mounted on the "baby rovers" have color filters already applied, but the final images — those that we get to download from NASA's website — are color-corrected even further, until they get that fake, reddish color that is so familiar to us.

We have been tricked into believing the myth that Mars is the "red planet" (even though all amateur telescope pictures show otherwise), so NASA is now only perpetuating the lie.

The following is an amateur telescope picture of Mars taken on 2014, 03, 21 (source):

1450852954_mars2bblue2batmosphere2band2bclouds

As you can clearly see for yourself, Mars is not read. It's light and dark brown, similar to what Earth would look like without all the water and vegetation. Here are more amateur pictures of Mars:

1450852954_mars2bamateur2btelescope2bpictures

The following is an image compilation from Antonio Cidadao (1999):

1450852954_mars2btrue2bcolors

Please notice that Mars has clouds and a blue atmosphere, very similar to that of our planet (source for the above and below images here — where you can see more examples of Mars' true colors):

1450852954_mars2b-2bearth-like2batmosphere

Now I'm not saying that we could breath on Mars like we do on Earth, but where are the blue skies in NASA's pictures? That reddish sorry excuse of an atmosphere is obviously fake.

NASA admitted on numerous occasions to alter the colors of their pictures before posting them online, so that they look more like what we would see, if we were on Mars.

Here's something straight from NASA's website:

"Getting the colors right is not an exact science," says Bell. "Giving an approximate view of what we'd see if we were there involves an artistic, visionary element as well – after all, no one's ever been there before." However, great pains are taken to be as accurate as possible, short of going there ourselves.

To give people a sense of being on Mars, scientists combine views through telescopes, data from past Mars missions, and new information from the current mission to create a color-balanced, uniform scene. Color-corrected mosaics simulate the view a person would see if all the images in the mosaic were taken on the same day, at the same moment.

In addition, the rovers can take three pictures in a row of the same surface area on Mars using three different primary color filters – red, green, and blue – to make one color image. "It works a little like an inkjet color printer, which combines primary colors to create various shades on paper," explains Eric De Jong, Lead for the Solar System Visualization Team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Then, we can tweak the color just like you can adjust the color balance on a TV screen at home." —NASA, JPL

So, there you go. NASA is clearly admitting to "color correcting," "color balancing," and even "tweaking the colors" of their images, so you can see whatever they want you to see.

Does it make any sense to you? Why not simply taking pictures of the environment AS IT IS? Why changing its color into something else?

It's the same old "the government knows what's best for you" rhetoric, and the people have been tricked into blindly believing and obeying it without question.

I mean, you haven't heard anyone complaining about the "color tweaking," have you?

But the "color tweaking" is not all they are doing to the original pictures. NASA has been caught, more than once, faking entire environments of — allegedly — Mars.

In the following video (in Spanish), we can clearly see evidence of blatant tampering with the original environment (blurring specific areas and copy-pasting the same rock again and again, in over 75% of the image):



Here are a couple of pictures, for better reference (source):

Mars fake image - rocks blurred

nasa fake mars picture
"Martian" anomalies

Taking all of the above into consideration, it is now easier to understand why enthusiasts find so many inconsistencies and anomalies in NASA's pictures. Let's take the following picture for example:


The media called it the "Mars rat", but this is actually an arctic lemming and it is commonly found on— you've guessed it — Devon Island.

Here is a picture of the arctic lemming, taken on Devon Island:



(This picture is taken in an area with vegetation, but as you can see in the first two pictures of this article, there are plenty of barren landscapes on Devon Island).

NASA's technique of coloring the whole ground so to make it look like Mars (as you will see), made the small creature look like a rock — until someone with a sharp eye spotted it.



In the following video, from minute 3:18 to 5:30, you can see just how easy it is to make any environment look like a Martian desert.

The author of the video, Danny Wilten, takes a random picture from Earth (Ireland, to be more specific), where there is a fair amount of vegetation and even has a road with a white van on it.

In only five minutes of work, he manages to remove the car and the road, and turn all the vegetation into a barren, reddish landscape, similar to NASA's pictures of Mars:


As a final touch, he even adds a portion of the rover in the lower left corner of the edited picture, making it almost almost indistinguishable from the pictures released by NASA:


Now just imagine what a Photoshop expert can do with a picture that already had color filters applied to the camera, and was taken in a controlled environment (location, lighting, exposure, etc.).

I'm sure everyone remembers the following famous photo, in which we can see the rover's shadow and, right next to it, the shadow of a man in a space suit, seemingly making some adjustments:


Of course, this either means that there are already humans on Mars (which I will talk about later), or that this image was taken on Earth.

Here's a picture of NASA scientist Pascal Lee, wearing an astronaut suit on Devon Island, Canada:


Quick recap: On Devon Island there's an identical landscape as the one from NASA's pictures (presented to us as Mars), they have permanent bases there, rovers fitted with cameras roaming around, and people fully geared up in astronaut suits. Corroborate this with NASA's admission about editing the pictures before releasing them to the public and the fact that they have been caught more than once faking the landscapes, and the connection becomes crystal clear: the pictures are NOT from Mars!

NASA's mission to Mars is a sad joke (as you will see later on), the rovers have never left the Earth and The Powers That Be have stolen yet another $2.5 billion from the taxpayers' money, to use for their black projects.

(You should know that NASA has also used a secondary location on Earth for simulating the Martian environment, in the Mojave Desert.

In that location, they train astronauts to walk around and do their daily jobs dressed up in space suits.

It is also possible that NASA is sending their teams to various remote locations around the world, to take pictures of the barren environment — which they will later edit to look like Mars. They can even create fake environments altogether, by combining two or more images, or by adding/removing rocks, hills or even mountains).

NASA's rovers took some really strange pictures in the past — the bright orb changing position,hieroglyphs with pyramids in the background (personally, I suspect this image to be a composition from two or more pictures, and not an original landscape), a dome, etc., — so the following image was received as a yet another piece of evidence that Mars was not only inhabited in the past, but it continues to be even today.

Here's a recent picture, allegedly taken on Mars by the Curiosity Rover, that has caused quite a stir in the UFO community. Posted online by NASA, the following image clearly shows a disc-shaped object flying across the horizon.


Unfortunately for NASA, they cannot discard this as a weather balloon, plane, or even a bird, as they usually do, because the picture was allegedly taken on Mars. So, they either have to admit that flying saucers are real, or that these pictures are taken on Earth. A truly impossible choice!

NASA is a smokescreen for an advanced secret space program

As I have presented in a previous article that you can read here, NASA is just a smokescreen for the real space program, which falls in the military domain, especially the US Navy. These guys are flying extremely advanced "anti-gravitational" space crafts, capable of very fast interstellar travel.

Gary McKinnon is a hacker that managed to break into the computers of the Army, Air Force, Navy and NASA. Among other interesting things, he found out that the US Navy has a fully operational fleet of spaceships.

In his own words, here is what he found out:

"I scanned and looked for documents, I found an Excel spreadsheet which said, 'Non-terrestrial officers'. It had ranks and names. It had tabs for 'material transfer' between ships. I took that to be, they must have a ships based in space – the names started with U.S.S."

McKinnon is now facing a ten-year legal battle that could end up with life in prison. You can watch his interview here.

And the evidence to support McKinnon's claims is truly overwhelming. For example, Ben Rich, CEO of Lockheed Skunk Works, has famously stated in 1993:

"We now have the technology to take ET home." (Read more)

Ben Rich also admitted that the extraterrestrial flying saucers are real, and our space program is built with alien technology:

"There are two types of UFOs — the ones we build and the ones 'they' build. We learned from both crash retrievals and actual 'hand-me-downs.'"

His colleague, Don Phillips, Lockheed design engineer, CIA and USAF backed his claims. (Read more)

Another Senior Scientist for Lockheed Martin and Area 51 scientist, Boyd Bushman, has openly talked about aliens stationed in Area 51 and "anti-gravity" technology, just before passing away in 2014. You can watch his testimony here.

'Captain Kaye' claimed to have spent 17 years on Mars and three years aboard an enormous space carrier.

Andrew Basiago also claimed to have been on Mars 40 times, and corroborates Captain Kaye's claims that there is an established human colony there.

Whistleblower Corey Goode claims to have been recruited through one of the MILAB programs at the age of six and personally traveled on Mars, where the Interplanetary Corporate Conglomerate (ICC)...

"...has an entire industrial infrastructure that includes bases, stations, outposts, mining operations and facilities on Mars, various moons and spread throughout the main Asteroid Belt (where a "Super Earth Planet" once existed). They have facilities to take raw materials and turn them into usable materials to produce both complex metals and composite materials that our material sciences have not dreamt of yet." (Source)

Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, the great-granddaughter of former US President Dwight David Eisenhower, has gone on record and testified that she was targeted for recruitment for a secret space program that would have allowed her to go on Mars, where there's a secret colony of humans. (Source)

Now, corroborating all these accounts, it becomes obvious that 'they' really have an advanced secret space program going on for decades and NASA is just a smokescreen for the public. Do you really think that the previously mentioned ICC would allow NASA to roam around with their rovers, taking pictures?

As an alleged, anonymous, "anti-gravity" insider, known as CaptainS, stated in 2011:

"NASA is just a front for the public. (...) The real space program falls in the military's domain, mainly Air force and Navy. But the nice chemical rockets sure are fun to watch... Very few people from NASA are actually in the loop. They don't know anything."

So, basically, NASA's role is to keep us distracted with their fake pictures from Devon Island,while the big boys have already established human colonies on Mars and who knows on how many other planets.

(On a happier, sarcastic note, I guess NASA's Photoshop experts will have a bright career in tourism, when NASA will eventually be shut down).

Before concluding this article, I leave you to watch NASA's absolutely ridiculous press conference about the alleged touch down of the rovers on Martian soil.

It has bad acting, fake excitement, lots of sweat and numerous in-your-face statements about this being just a movie that you paid for ($2.5 billion, to be specific).

These guys have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, they are unable to answer any scientific questions whatsoever and the journalists definitely know volumes more about this phony mission, but hey, as the guy says, it only cost you $7/person, so you might just as well enjoy it:


http://www.anonews.co/nasa-mars-hoax/

[ArMaP]

The problem with that theory is that things are only relatively similar at some distance, a close up of the rocks on Earth would show signs of water erosion that are not visible on Mars rocks.

Also, where are the mountains and craters on Devon Island?

[funbox]

The problem with that theory is that things are only relatively similar at some distance, a close up of the rocks on Earth would show signs of water erosion that are not visible on Mars rocks.

Also, where are the mountains and craters on Devon Island?

base bricks and a flat horizon your problem ? whats wrong with using cgi to enhance ? seems like it would be entirely plausible to me

funbox

[ArMaP]

base bricks and a flat horizon your problem ?

What do you mean by "base bricks"?

whats wrong with using cgi to enhance ? seems like it would be entirely plausible to me

Enhance, yes, but are you ignoring what I said about the shapes of the rocks? Do you think that enhancing all the rocks in 3D would be plausible? It was easier to have an all CGI environment.

[funbox]

ignoring?

funbox

[funbox]

sorry , I just could resist

base bricks , consider some plasticine or a canvas

enhancing the rocks in 3d is entirely plausible .. give me any rock you want and ill enhance it with cgi

funbox

[funbox]

although something tells me they had problems masking the bits of wood that would occasionally pop up , I suppose you know the ones of which I speak, no need for pictures, they happened

funbox

[ArMaP]

enhancing the rocks in 3d is entirely plausible .. give me any rock you want and ill enhance it with cgi

I know that enhancing one rock is no problem, what I meant was that they would need to enhance all the rocks and in 3D, so they would match when seen from different cameras, with different focal lengths and from different points of view.

[funbox]

I know that enhancing one rock is no problem, what I meant was that they would need to enhance all the rocks and in 3D, so they would match when seen from different cameras, with different focal lengths and from different points of view.

whats so difficult ? none of those conditions ,focal length or perspective or even whether there's color or not, would be a problem . even 3dsmax and middling business 3ds packages can handle and use multiple types of camera , any focal length you choose , many have camera matching tools that can make alignments a synch.

funbox

[robomont]

as an expert in ufo craft,i believe ops post to be 99% factual.my research has shown these craft are real and the germans had the best working models in the 40s.for that era.its all mhd and i always get banned from certain air force psyop ct forum when i mention mhd.which is basically proof its mhd.if the stories of nazis on mars are actual stories from that era then i believe the nazis were there first because the craft designs could have easily made the voyage.the more recent release of the usa arv"alien reproduction vehicle ",is actually a primitive craft to the nazi vril designs butbasic functions are the same.falling in line with mhd technology theory.

[ArMaP]

whats so difficult ?

That part you ignored in your answer, as usual: changing all rocks.

[funbox]

maybe because "changing all the rocks" is meaningless, if by that you mean their geometry ,  faces, edges, and vertices , and changing them ... again, no problem whatsoever


it's quite amusing the different things you could change a rock from,  and vice versa

funbox

[ArMaP]

maybe because "changing all the rocks" is meaningless

How is that meaningless?

When you have a photo taken on Earth that shows, for example, 200 rocks that need to be changed to remove signs of water erosion, how is that meaningless?

[funbox]

I know that enhancing one rock is no problem, what I meant was that they would need to enhance all the rocks and in 3D, so they would match when seen from different cameras, with different focal lengths and from different points of view.

That part you ignored in your answer, as usual: changing all rocks.

so then you're referring to material change , giving a different texture to the environment and the rocks within,

it matters not whether the photos were taken here on earth or mars , altering them and using them to create a 3d environment, which you can then alter the content on both a 3d geometry level and a texture level to alter or mask is entirely feasible

ide imagine they have programmes and algorithm that don't even need human input. to alter the picture in the sequence at which anomalies  arrive in the landscape  and continual modify any subsequent picture where said anomaly appears, *mars*

same applies if the rover was here on earth and driving around on Devon island, alter the environment removing plastic and coke cans , then applying colour filter etc etc , then reducing the entire picture to the equivalent  qualities that a piece of chewing gum, under a desk, evokes

funbox

[ArMaP]

so then you're referring to material change , giving a different texture to the environment and the rocks within,

It's not a question of texture, it's more the general shape, as rocks shaped by water erosion have a different shape, more rounded or, at least, without any sharp edges or corners, while rocks shaped by wind erosion may have smooth faces and even some strange curves but may have sharp edges.

it matters not whether the photos were taken here on earth or mars , altering them and using them to create a 3d environment, which you can then alter the content on both a 3d geometry level and a texture level to alter or mask is entirely feasible

Sure it's feasible, but then why even have physical rovers? The work they would need to make Earth photos look like they were taken on Mars would more more or less the same as if they created a whole CGI version of Mars, no physical rovers needed.

ide imagine they have programmes and algorithm that don't even need human input.

I am a programmer and I don't trust completely automated work done by programs.