The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on August 01, 2018, 04:57:33 AM
-
Take a look at the rocks in the upper left of these two images. Some of the rocks are clearly identical, albeit with sightly different lighting, but the rocks around them seem to be different in each picture.
Sources
Image 1: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16239
Image 2: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16174
Image 1
(https://i.imgur.com/dVWKVVI.jpg)
Image 2
(https://i.imgur.com/E0rGirC.jpg)
To verify that these rocks are the same, look at the little white rocks that surround them in the foreground beneath them, and around them.
What happened to the bigger rocks around them?
-
Here we see a rock outcrop dubbed "Missoula," near Marias Pass on Mars.
Source
Image 3: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=pia19829
Image 3
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GHqDMvKgJnA/Vcfp6_-bToI/AAAAAAAAd_w/m8cZ_zM7SeU/s1600/UFO%252C%2BUFOs%252C%2Bsighting%252C%2Bsightings%252C%2BJustin%2BBieber%252C%2BMoscow%252C%2Blightning%252C%2Bsun%252C%2Bbeach%252C%2Bphoto%252C%2Bnasa%252C%2Btop%2Bsecret%252C%2BET%252C%2Bsnoopy%252C%2Batlantis%252C%2BW56%252C%2Buredda%252C%2Bscott%2Bc.%2Bwaring%252C%2BBatman%252C%2Borb%252C%2Bball%252C%2B%2BCeres%252C%2Bgarfield%252C%2Bwiz%2Bkhalifa%252C%2Bfathers%2Bday%252C%2Bancient%252C%2Bstorm%252C%2Bpillar%252C%2B131.jpg)
-
My opinion is that aiming to demonstrate some pictures are fake is about as valuable as trying to verify that pictures are real.
Wiki:
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence.
I understand that a "faked" image could contribute to the conspiracy argument but, really, if you wan't to dismiss photography as evidence then do so. Don't just cherry pick.
-
The rocks are sitting in and on sand. Sand blows around in the wind. It's windy on Mars. The rover was shut down recently to wait out a big storm.
The two pics were taken at different times, the wind blew the sand around between each picture.
End of.
-
If we're going to do this... it's also worth noting that the pictures were taken from different heights / angles. So it's not entirely surprising that some rocks might be obscured from view.
Uncropped version:
https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA16239.jpg
-
If we're going to do this... it's also worth noting that the pictures were taken from different heights / angles. So it's not entirely surprising that some rocks might be obscured from view.
Uncropped version:
https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA16239.jpg
..and also that PIA16239 is a mosaic assembled from a selection of smaller pictures, so it's perfectly reasonable that the sand shifted between these exposures, too ...
-
The rocks are sitting in and on sand. Sand blows around in the wind. It's windy on Mars. The rover was shut down recently
to wait out a big storm.
The two pics were taken at different times, the wind blew the sand around between each picture.
End of.
There are significant differences of the rocks and rock formations which appear around the two rocks in question in Image 1 and 2, yet the shape of the sand does not indicate any storm.
From Image 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/xY8XfVH.jpg)
From Image 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/X7JMvG2.jpg)
Yet there was a storm big enough to bury the rocks that appear in the OP?
In the full size images there are plenty of other discrepancies.
-
There are significant differences of the rocks and rock formations which appear around the two rocks in question in Image 1 and 2, yet the shape of the sand does not indicate any storm.
What 'shape' should it be?
Yet there was a storm big enough to bury the rocks that appear in the OP?
Maybe. Maybe not. It seems reasonable enough to me. Can you prove otherwise?
In the full size images there are plenty of other discrepancies.
Such as?
-
I took the liberty of marking the rocks and rock formations that seem to appear and disappear.
Green = Seen in both images
Red = Disappearing rocks
Image 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/FDiDy5g.jpg)
Image 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/8IEkkz3.jpg)
Untouched Versions of the above:
Image 1: https://i.imgur.com/CTOnapE.jpg
Image 2: https://i.imgur.com/csaHZnX.jpg
Sources again:
Image 1: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16239
Image 2: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16174
-
Tom Bishop, have you ever taken the subject of astronomy as well as physics seriously at any point in your life? It is very important to me that you know that Mars has sand storms that cover the planet very frequently. Also how does one become a member of the council?
-
Lets look at the big rock log that is connected to the left side of one of the rock formations.
(https://i.imgur.com/oED8f7A.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/iUwZfWp.jpg)
Where did it go?
-
Tom Bishop, have you ever taken the subject of astronomy as well as physics seriously at any point in your life? It is very important to me that you know that Mars has sand storms that cover the planet very frequently. Also how does one become a member of the council?
There are numerous issues with these scenes. Rock formations appear out of nowhere (see the top left red formation in this image (https://i.imgur.com/8IEkkz3.jpg))
Where did these rock formations go?
Where did the rock log in my previous post go?
And again, if we zoom in to the sandy peaks we can see that the sand formations near the copy-pasted rocks we can see that the sand appears undisturbed. It makes very specific shapes that appears in both images.
The rocks are sitting in and on sand. Sand blows around in the wind. It's windy on Mars. The rover was shut down recently
to wait out a big storm.
The two pics were taken at different times, the wind blew the sand around between each picture.
End of.
There are significant differences of the rocks and rock formations which appear around the two rocks in question in Image 1 and 2, yet the shape of the sand does not indicate any storm.
From Image 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/xY8XfVH.jpg)
From Image 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/X7JMvG2.jpg)
Yet there was a storm big enough to bury the rocks that appear in the OP?
In the full size images there are plenty of other discrepancies.
-
I don't get it.
https://ibb.co/bSpRGK
https://ibb.co/cTnriz
-
I don't get it.
https://ibb.co/bSpRGK
https://ibb.co/cTnriz
The vertically laid "rock log" on the left hand side of the yellow area that is connected to the rock formation is missing. Where did it go?
-
I don't get it.
https://ibb.co/bSpRGK
https://ibb.co/cTnriz
The vertically laid "rock log" on the left hand side of the yellow area is missing. Where did it go?
Are you being serious? It's in the top left of your second image, just seen from a slightly different angle.
-
The rocks are sitting in and on sand. Sand blows around in the wind. It's windy on Mars. The rover was shut down recently
to wait out a big storm.
The two pics were taken at different times, the wind blew the sand around between each picture.
End of.
You don't get storms on Mars. The air pressure is too low ... 0.6% of earth's atmosphere reportedly. It would be like being breathed on by an asthmatic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Mars
Astronauts living on Mars, for instance, would struggle if caught outside in a fierce dust storm, where winds can reach 113kph (70mph).
70mph wind at 0.6% of earth's pressure? That wouldn't blow over a playing card pyramid.
F=ma.
Force = mass * acceleration.
The mass flow rate at such low pressures wouldn't even blow dust about.
You also are going to get less wind than on earth ... according to RET. There is no ocean / land mass temperature differential and Mars is a lot further from the sun. So much less heating and therefore energy to make wind. It is also a small planet unlike Jupiter, so less surface area to get wind up to speed - Wind on Jupiter won't stop, its dense and has lots of momentum. This is where the fairy tale starts to unravel. Tom's pictures only cement doubt on an already absurd claim made by NASA.
-
Rock log
EDIT: may have been hasty with the highlighter. Will review on big monitor at home :-)
-
Thork is, of course, just asserting this. There is plenty of evidence for dust storms on Mars. Looks like a good opportunity for him to use his favorite mass-flow equation?
-
Where did it go?
Out of frame. It's the source of the shadow 1/3 - 1/2 way up the LHS of pic 2, isn't it?
-
If you superimpose the edges of pic 1 onto pic 2, it's clear that the two were taken from markedly different angles and (possibly) distances. Pic 2 doesn't contain the left-hand portion of pic 1, so this portion is out of frame on pic 2, taking your 'log rock' with it.
Pic upload to follow.
-
This is all I have to say to the "dust storm" concept.
Image 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/wl4zqzD.jpg)
Image 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/PrY0X7k.jpg)
Untouched Versions of the above:
Image 1: https://i.imgur.com/CTOnapE.jpg
Image 2: https://i.imgur.com/csaHZnX.jpg
Sources again:
Image 1: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16239
Image 2: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16174
-
This is all I have to say to the "dust storm" concept.
What do you have to say about the "different point of view" concept? You do realize that it's quite obvious that the photos were not taken from the same spot, don't you?
-
There's sand-crests in both images, yes. What if I were to suggest that sand-crests in both images - but with the disappearance of a rock - prove the sandstorm theory?
-
Yes, Tom, but can you prove them to be the SAME sand crests? Of the same height?
You do realise the numbering implies your second photo was taken first, thus implying that the rocks were UNcovered by wind/storm, not covered...?
-
The discrepancy between photo's is simply an artefact of PIA239 being a composite image.
PIA16239 clearly states :-
On Sol 84 (Oct. 31, 2012), NASA's Curiosity rover used the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) to capture this set of 55 high-resolution images, which were stitched together to create this full-color self-portrait.
The set of 55 images are here :-
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI (https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI)
The missing rocks are here :-
https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00084/mhli/0084MH0000710000100913E01_DXXX.jpg (https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00084/mhli/0084MH0000710000100913E01_DXXX.jpg)
Sorry, no NASA lies on this one.
-
The discrepancy between photo's is simply an artefact of PIA239 being a composite image.
PIA16239 clearly states :-
On Sol 84 (Oct. 31, 2012), NASA's Curiosity rover used the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) to capture this set of 55 high-resolution images, which were stitched together to create this full-color self-portrait.
The set of 55 images are here :-
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI (https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI)
The missing rocks are here :-
https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00084/mhli/0084MH0000710000100913E01_DXXX.jpg (https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00084/mhli/0084MH0000710000100913E01_DXXX.jpg)
Sorry, no NASA lies on this one.
I've been puzzling over this since Tom posted this topic. I was feeling a bit like Vinny Gambini in "My Cousin Vinny" trying to convince myself that it must be an illusion since I'm convinced of the authenticity of Mars Rover images.
But I couldn't see how anything other than image manipulation was responsible for those "discrepancies" Tom was pointing out. The notion that the sand had shifted wasn't jiving. And the varying perspectives weren't lining up to resolve it either.
I still need to sift through those raw images to understand how/why they were stitched together to leave out segments altogether. I'm guessing it was done to rectify straight lines and avoid panoramic distortion. Basically done to make the pictures look prettier.
Thanks, 1x hit-and-run poster JustPostingThis, for just posting this.
-
The discrepancy between photo's is simply an artefact of PIA239 being a composite image.
PIA16239 clearly states :-
On Sol 84 (Oct. 31, 2012), NASA's Curiosity rover used the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) to capture this set of 55 high-resolution images, which were stitched together to create this full-color self-portrait.
The set of 55 images are here :-
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI (https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI)
The missing rocks are here :-
https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00084/mhli/0084MH0000710000100913E01_DXXX.jpg (https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00084/mhli/0084MH0000710000100913E01_DXXX.jpg)
Sorry, no NASA lies on this one.
Here is that image flipped around:
(https://i.imgur.com/34TlSux.jpg)
It is showing the same scene as Image Number 2 (https://i.imgur.com/csaHZnX.jpg).
In Image 2, as seen earlier in the thread, they would have had to copy-paste, warp, and photoshop out the red outlined rocks to make what they want:
(https://i.imgur.com/8IEkkz3.jpg)
Result (Image 1):
(https://i.imgur.com/CTOnapE.jpg)
It's not an "overlap" issue. The explanation is that NASA photoshopped the rocks around to make what they wanted to make. Case closed.
-
When you look at the full mosaic picture, it's not difficult to see the perspective 'stretch', with one wheel disproportionate to the others.
(https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA16239_modest.jpg)
As I said, when you superimpose the border of one on the other (in red) and join up the significant features, you can also see the stretch marks....
(https://i.imgur.com/UifP1lh.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/kxnBg7K.jpg)
(I used Tom's uploads with the green and yellow boxes)
The log rock is out of frame to the left.
-
It's not an "overlap" issue. The explanation is that NASA photoshopped the rocks around to make what they want to make. Case closed.
But what is your case? In order to photoshop something, you have to have source material. Are you casting doubt on the source?
-
It's not an "overlap" issue. The explanation is that NASA photoshopped the rocks around to make what they wanted to make. Case closed.
I hate to ask such an obviously stupid question, but why would anyone go to the bother of photoshopping rocks, especially such uninteresting rocks?
-
There was clearly something behind the rover that they were trying to hide.
The rover allegedly just stuck its arm out to a stationary position and took 55 photos that were stitched together side-by-side. This image manipulation is deliberate, and goes beyond a simple "overlap" error.
-
There was clearly something behind the rover that they were trying to hide.
Such as ... what?
The rover allegedly just stuck its arm out to a stationary position and took 55 photos that were stitched together side-by-side.
Can't be done from a stationary arm. The arm would have to move, surely?
-
This Tom Bishop guy has some comprehension issues.
Image PIA16174 is not photoshopped. It was taken with a different camera, the Mastcam.
Image PIA16239 is a composite of 55 images taken with the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI).
-
There was clearly something behind the rover that they were trying to hide.
The rover allegedly just stuck its arm out to a stationary position and took 55 photos that were stitched together side-by-side. This image manipulation is deliberate, and goes beyond a simple "overlap" error.
No, it stuck its arm out and took 55 pictures from a variety of positions and angles. Or do all 55 of these pictures look like they were taken from a stationary position?
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI
-
Have you considered, Tom, that the person or persons assembling the composite simply made an error, over what is, after all, a small section of the whole?
Someone else tried the same approach as you in 2014, but clearly couldn't tell which rock was which. The green one is wrong.
-
There was clearly something behind the rover that they were trying to hide.
Such as ... what?
It could be a person. It could be a piece of supporting equipment for the project that they were using. It could be anything they were trying to hide.
This Tom Bishop guy has some comprehension issues.
Image PIA16174 is not photoshopped. It was taken with a different camera, the Mastcam.
Image PIA16239 is a composite of 55 images taken with the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI).
It is you who has reading comprehension issues. PIA16174 is Image 2 in the OP. I didn't say it was photoshopped. It was the different example. The image you showed from the 55 images is the same as Image 2 and was clearly photoshopped to end up in its final state. It is not an image overlap issue. They manipulated the rocks and scenery.
There was clearly something behind the rover that they were trying to hide.
The rover allegedly just stuck its arm out to a stationary position and took 55 photos that were stitched together side-by-side. This image manipulation is deliberate, and goes beyond a simple "overlap" error.
No, it stuck its arm out and took 55 pictures from a variety of positions and angles. Or do all 55 of these pictures look like they were taken from a stationary position?
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI
NASA explains how they did it right here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20121211b.html
The robot stuck its arm out and then angled it to take pictures of the scene around it. It's not a bunch of pictures that they happened to make a selfie out of. It was a choreographed automated routine. NASA claims in the above link that they practiced the automated routine on the ground.
There is a video of the arm movement here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw4Y0jouKGc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw4Y0jouKGc)
The craft is not moving between locations, and the pictures are not taken from widely different spots that a selfie happened to be created from. The selfie arm is basically just rotating in the same general area for its automated mosaic.
They supposedly had the selfie method worked out in the lab:
(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/713478main_pia16458b-43_946-710.jpg)
Did NASA then need to go and photoshop things around the lab? No.
An automated choreographed routine to make a mosaic that requires one to go in afterwards and Photoshop rocks and scenery around? Funny.
The photoshopped rocks and scenery clearly suggests that there was something that needed to be hidden.
-
If there was something to hide it would be seen either in one of the 55 images used to create PIA16239 or in PIA16174 which was taken with a different camera.
If you wish you could create your own version of PIA16239 by stitching together an image using the 55 separate images and could include anything photoshopped out of PIA16239.
-
(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/713478main_pia16458b-43_946-710.jpg)
Did NASA then need to go and photoshop things around the lab? No.
They had to do something to put the separate shots together. That's why this image has the raggy edges.
So, if you isolate the upper left area of the lab photo and enlarge it the way you did with the Mars one, what does that area look like?
-
There was clearly something behind the rover that they were trying to hide.
The rover allegedly just stuck its arm out to a stationary position and took 55 photos that were stitched together side-by-side. This image manipulation is deliberate, and goes beyond a simple "overlap" error.
No, it stuck its arm out and took 55 pictures from a variety of positions and angles. Or do all 55 of these pictures look like they were taken from a stationary position?
https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI
NASA explains how they did it right here: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/news/msl20121211b.html
The robot stuck its arm out and then angled it to take pictures of the scene around it. It's not a bunch of pictures that they happened to make a selfie out of. It was a choreographed automated routine. NASA claims in the above link that they practiced the automated routine on the ground.
There is a video of the arm movement here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw4Y0jouKGc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw4Y0jouKGc)
The craft is not moving between locations, and the pictures are not taken from widely different spots that a selfie happened to be created from. The selfie arm is basically just rotating in the same general area for its automated mosaic.
I didn't say that the rover moved, but it sure looks like the camera moved quite a bit, hence the "various positions and angles" remark.
They supposedly had the selfie method worked out in the lab:
(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/713478main_pia16458b-43_946-710.jpg)
Did NASA then need to go and photoshop things around the lab? No.
An automated choreographed routine to make a mosaic that requires one to go in afterwards and Photoshop rocks and scenery around? Funny.
They already had the rocks and scenery in the photos. The only photoshopping they needed to do was to stitch everything together. Or are you saying that rocks were added to the final mosaic that are missing from the original photos?
The photoshopped rocks and scenery clearly suggests that there was something that needed to be hidden.
Only to someone who doesn't understand some of the quirks of stitching together mosaics.
-
If there was something to hide it would be seen either in one of the 55 images used to create PIA16239 or in PIA16174 which was taken with a different camera.
If you wish you could create your own version of PIA16239 by stitching together an image using the 55 separate images and could include anything photoshopped out of PIA16239.
What does it matter what camera Image 1 and 2 were taken with? The rocks and scenery was manipulated. Are you guys just pointing out irrelevant points as a defense now?
They had to do something to put the separate shots together. That's why this image has the raggy edges.
So, if you isolate the upper left area of the lab photo and enlarge it the way you did with the Mars one, what does that area look like?
Here is Image 1 again: https://i.imgur.com/6Nx80CB.jpg
Here is the full size Lab Selfie image: https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/713481main_pia16458b-full_full.jpg
I don't see any similar manipulated cloning, air brushing, or scenery changes to any of the items or textures. Do you?
They already had the rocks and scenery in the photos. The only photoshopping they needed to do was to stitch everything together. Or are you saying that rocks were added to the final mosaic that are missing from the original photos?
The photo from the 55 image is not merely stitched together. There are many areas and rocks that were manipulated. The scenery was manipulated.
Only to someone who doesn't understand some of the quirks of stitching together mosaics.
What quirks? This is an automated process. This can't be an innocent overlap issue. The scene changes in very odd, and very clearly deliberate ways that is beyond an innocent overlap of photos.
-
Now look at the second selfie that was created around that time:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16457.html#.W2Nh2aLpVqJ
On the 84th and 85th Martian days of the NASA Mars rover Curiosity's mission on Mars (Oct. 31 and Nov. 1, 2012), NASA's Curiosity rover used the Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) to capture dozens of high-resolution images to be combined into self-portrait images of the rover. This version of the full-color self-portrait includes more of the surrounding terrain than a version produced earlier (PIA16239 (http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16239)). [this is a link to the same Image 1 Selfie in the OP]
Full Size Direct Link: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/images/713264main_pia16457-full_full.jpg
In the second selfie the rocks did NOT have the photoshopping issue seen. The rocks are there, the terrain reflects the other images exactly, and is not modified or photoshopped out.
Image 1 Selfie from OP (Left) vs Second Selfie (Right)
(https://i.imgur.com/U3EqEE6.jpg)
What were they hiding?
-
Have you looked for a catalog or analysis of the site, as opposed to simply looking at photos?
Do you really think you've found something that all these folk have missed?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/341/6153/1239505.full
D. F. Blake 1,*,
R. V. Morris 2,
G. Kocurek 3,
S. M. Morrison 4,
R. T. Downs4,
D. Bish 5,
D. W. Ming 2,
K. S. Edgett 6,
D. Rubin 7,†,
W. Goetz 8,
M. B. Madsen 9,
R. Sullivan 10,
R. Gellert 11,
I. Campbell 11,
A. H. Treiman 12,
S. M. McLennan 13,
A. S. Yen 14,
J. Grotzinger 15,
D. T. Vaniman 16,
S. J. Chipera 17,
C. N. Achilles 2,
E. B. Rampe 2,
D. Sumner 18,
P.Y. Meslin 19,
S. Maurice 19,
O. Forni 19,
O. Gasnault 19,
M. Fisk 20,
M. Schmidt 21,
P. Mahaffy 22,
L. A. Leshin 23,
D. Glavin 22,
A. Steele 24,
C. Freissinet 22,
R. Navarro-González 25,
R. A. Yingst 16,
L. C. Kah 26,
N. Bridges 27,
K. W. Lewis 28,
T. F. Bristow 1,
J. D. Farmer 29,
J. A. Crisp 14,
E. M. Stolper 15,
D. J. Des Marais 1,
P. Sarrazin 30,
MSL Science Team‡
from
1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035, USA.
2 NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058, USA.
3 Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
4 Department of Geology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
5 Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
6 Malin Space Science Systems, San Diego, CA 92191, USA.
7 U.S. Geological Survey, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, USA.
8 Max-Planck-Institut für Sonnensystemforschung, 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany.
9 Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
10 Center for Radiophysics and Space Research, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA.
11 University of Guelf, Guelph, Ontario, N1G2W1, Canada.
12 Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX 77058, USA.
13 State University of New York–Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11790, USA.
14 Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA.
15 California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA.
16 Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, AZ 85719, USA.
17 Chesapeake Energy, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, USA.
18 University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA.
19 Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planétologie (IRAP), UPS-OMP-CNRS, 31028 Toulouse, France.
20 Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
21 Finnish Meteorological Institute, Fl-00101 Helsinki, Finland.
22 NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA.
23 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180, USA.
24 Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USA.
25 University Nacional Autonóma de México, Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 México D.F. 04510, Mexico.
26 Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.
27 The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD 20723, USA.
28 Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA.
29 Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
30 SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA.
-
Take a look at the rocks in the upper left of these two images. Some of the rocks are clearly identical, albeit with sightly different lighting, but the rocks around them seem to be different in each picture.
Sources
Image 1: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16239
Image 2: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16174
Image 1
(https://i.imgur.com/dVWKVVI.jpg)
Image 2
(https://i.imgur.com/E0rGirC.jpg)
To verify that these rocks are the same, look at the little white rocks that surround them in the foreground beneath them, and around them.
What happened to the bigger rocks around them?
I still don't understand what you think is conspiratorial here.
If NASA was trying to hide something, why did they publish the raw images that allowed you to see that the mosaic was missing some elements of the raw images? If there's something NASA was trying to hide, it would be in the images where the rocks aren't missing, right? What's there that NASA wouldn't want us to see?
-
I still don't understand what you think is conspiratorial here.
If NASA was trying to hide something, why did they publish the raw images that allowed you to see that the mosaic was missing some elements of the raw images? If there's something NASA was trying to hide, it would be in the images where the rocks aren't missing, right? What's there that NASA wouldn't want us to see?
Selfie #1 had a person or piece of equipment behind the rover so they copy-pasted elements from other sources of the background images over him or it. They did a poor job of it too.
-
Selfie #1 had a person or piece of equipment behind the rover so they copy-pasted elements from other sources of the background images over him or it. They did a poor job of it too.
Selfie #1 is a mosaic, right? Did they stitch it together, realize they made a mistake and left some evidence of fakery in it and then copy-pasted other source elements over it to cover it up?
Or are you saying the raw images used to create the mosaic had some fakery evidence in them and it is those that were photoshopped (and then left out of the mosaic for some reason)?
Do you understand what I'm asking? You've found (or someone found, and you're relaying) two versions of a space that's supposed to be on Mars. One has rocks (the raw images) where the other is missing those rocks (the mosaic). If there's a conspiracy to hide non-Mars elements, the raw images would be the ones manipulated, yeah?
-
Selfie #1 had a person or piece of equipment behind the rover so they copy-pasted elements from other sources of the background images over him or it. They did a poor job of it too.
Wouldn't it have been easier to just take the picture again once the person had moved?
However, you do realise that no human is on Mars, though, don't you?
-
Selfie #1 had a person or piece of equipment behind the rover so they copy-pasted elements from other sources of the background images over him or it. They did a poor job of it too.
Selfie #1 is a mosaic, right? Did they stitch it together, realize they made a mistake and left some evidence of fakery in it and then copy-pasted other source elements over it to cover it up?
Or are you saying the raw images used to create the mosaic had some fakery evidence in them and it is those that were photoshopped (and then left out of the mosaic for some reason)?
Do you understand what I'm asking? You've found (or someone found, and you're relaying) two versions of a space that's supposed to be on Mars. One has rocks (the raw images) where the other is missing those rocks (the mosaic). If there's a conspiracy to hide non-Mars elements, the raw images would be the ones manipulated, yeah?
As we have read, the creation of the final mosaic is an automated process. They took the final image and then photoshopped it to remove whatever it is they were trying to remove behind the rover.
Clearly they could not put the man or equipment that they erased into the raw image archive, however. What did they do about the raw images, one might ask? Maybe the took it from the other Selfie #2 raw image collection as an afterthought.
Lets look at the Raw Images for Sol 84 and Sol 85, the days of the two Curiosity Selfies.
Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) images for Sol 84 images
Gallery Link to Sol 84: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=84&camera=MAHLI
RAW image of the rocks in question for Sol 84: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0084MH0000710000100921E01_DXXX&s=84
Caption from the above link: "NASA's Mars rover Curiosity acquired this image using its Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI), located on the turret at the end of the rover's robotic arm, on October 31, 2012, Sol 84 of the Mars Science Laboratory Mission, at 09:35:23 UTC."
Flipped and cropped version: https://i.imgur.com/168GTqa.jpg
Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI) images for Sol 85 images
Gallery Link to Sol 85: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?s=85&camera=MAHLI
RAW image of the rocks in question for Sol 85: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0085MH0001130000100990E01_DXXX&s=85
Caption from the above link: "NASA's Mars rover Curiosity acquired this image using its Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI), located on the turret at the end of the rover's robotic arm, on November 1, 2012, Sol 85 of the Mars Science Laboratory Mission, at 10:14:59 UTC."
Flipped and cropped version: https://i.imgur.com/gqcXYtP.jpg
Flipped and Cropped Versions Side by Side (Click for Bigger)
(https://i.imgur.com/168GTqa.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/s2wLYdy.jpg)
Take away:
- The lighting is exactly the same
- The shadows on the rocks are exactly the same
- The sand patterns and texture is all exactly the same
- The dust and dirt on the rocks is all exactly the same
- The pictures are listed as being taken almost exactly one Mars day apart from each other (One Martian day is 24h 37m).
They don't have anything better to do with that expensive science lab on wheels than to take a picture of the same thing near exactly one Martian day apart? The picture is merely listed to be taken one day apart as a way to explain why the shadows are the same if anyone were to look. The lighting and shadows are exactly the same. There must not be much wind on Martian nights because the patterns in the sand and the grit on the rocks is the same as well. The dates are listed at almost exactly one Martian day apart to cover up why its the same image, or at least an image which was taken almost immediately after the other from the collection.
-
I still don't understand what you think is conspiratorial here.
If NASA was trying to hide something, why did they publish the raw images that allowed you to see that the mosaic was missing some elements of the raw images? If there's something NASA was trying to hide, it would be in the images where the rocks aren't missing, right? What's there that NASA wouldn't want us to see?
Selfie #1 had a person or piece of equipment behind the rover so they copy-pasted elements from other sources of the background images over him or it. They did a poor job of it too.
So why is the person or piece of equipment not in any of the raw images?
-
Markjo, look at the raw images I provided above from Selfie #1 and Selfie #2 that were allegedly taken on different days. The lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns, are exactly the same.
In fact, the ONLY differences between the two images are a few black specks that move, which can be assumed to be specks on the lens.
Click for bigger:
(https://i.imgur.com/4P6LExL.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GkAxAAF.jpg)
Raw images here:
Sol 84: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0084MH0000710000100921E01_DXXX&s=84
Sol 85: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0085MH0001130000100990E01_DXXX&s=85
The lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns, are all the same. These are images that were taken immediately after each other from the same collection, not different days.
-
I agree. Other than field of view and scaling, those look the same.
Edit to add that I don't have the same take-away from that as Tom, but that IS curious how what appears to be identical images are listed as days apart. The accompanying descriptions are copy/paste except for the sol dating.
-
Markjo, look at the raw images I provided above from Selfie #1 and Selfie #2 that were allegedly taken on different days. The lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns, are exactly the same.
In fact, the ONLY differences between the two images are a few black specks that move, which can be assumed to be specks on the lens.
Click for bigger:
(https://mars.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00085/mhli/0085MH0001130000100990E01_DXXX-br2.jpg)
(https://mars.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00084/mhli/0084MH0000710000100921E01_DXXX-br2.jpg)
Raw images here:
Sol 84: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0084MH0000710000100921E01_DXXX&s=84
Sol 85: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0085MH0001130000100990E01_DXXX&s=85
The lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns, are all the same. These are images that were taken immediately after each other from the same collection, not different days.
Tom, I replaced your cropped and edited photos with the raw images. Why don't we compare those?
The photos were taken one day (sol) apart at about the same time of day from the same location and using the same camera settings. Why shouldn't the lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns all look pretty much the same?
-
Tom, I replaced your cropped and edited photos with the raw images. Why don't we compare those?
The photos were taken one day (sol) apart at about the same time of day from the same location and using the same camera settings. Why shouldn't the lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns all look pretty much the same?
I didn't edit the images at all, except to crop and rotate to see the rocks in question, with the obvious overlays.
Mars has wind:
Surface winds typically move about 16 to 32 kilometers (10 to 20 miles) per hour. The Viking Landers measured speeds of up to 113 kilometers (70 miles) per hour during dust storms.
Mars has clouds in the sky:
(https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/279786main_16405.gif)
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/phoenix/images/press/16405.html
The Surface Stereo Imager onboard NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander observed clouds drifting across the horizon in the early morning on the 119th sol, or Martian day, since landing (September 25, 2008). Clouds were observed each night after Sol 80 (August 15, 2008) as the atmospheric temperature decreased.
Mars has haze:
(http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000014000E1_DXXX.jpg)
http://news.discovery.com/space/big-pic-mars-curiosity-mojave-desert-120808.html
The panoramic image shows what appears to be "haze" at the base of the mountains in the distance in Gale crater.
Yet the lighting is EXACTLY the same?
-
Tom, you've never seen 2 sunny days in a row? ???
-
Tom, you've never seen 2 sunny days in a row? ???
Any slight modification to the atmosphere changes lighting conditions. Sunny days are not all the same. You can't take a picture from one day to the next and expect the results to be the same.
The fact that they tried to list out the raw pictures as one Martian Day apart for this indisputably the hack photoshop job, and that these pictures in the raw images are EXACTLY THE SAME, is a dead giveaway.
Exactly the same lighting, dust on the rocks, patterns in the sand, shadows, features in the darkness of the shadows, highlighted textures, colors to the rocks, and colors to the sand, features and patterns in the sand, etc. etc.
Show us something that is different about the images.
-
As we have read, the creation of the final mosaic is an automated process. They took the final image and then photoshopped it to remove whatever it is they were trying to remove behind the rover.
A mosaic made with the automated process looks like this :-
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16457.html#.W2PFTdIzZPa (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16457.html#.W2PFTdIzZPa)
PIA16239 has been modified to look rectangular, or was not stitched by the automated process.
-
As we have read, the creation of the final mosaic is an automated process. They took the final image and then photoshopped it to remove whatever it is they were trying to remove behind the rover.
A mosaic made with the automated process looks like this :-
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16457.html#.W2PFTdIzZPa (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16457.html#.W2PFTdIzZPa)
PIA16239 has been modified to look rectangular, or was not stitched by the automated process.
Of course it was cropped to look rectangular. Refrain from trying to divert the issue. The background is indisputably photoshopped. It is not an innocent overlay error.
-
Comparing the raw images. They are not the same image, there is a difference in angle. Open them both and switch between them.
Raw images here:
Sol 84: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0084MH0000710000100921E01_DXXX&s=84
Sol 85: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0085MH0001130000100990E01_DXXX&s=85
Therefore Sol 84 is not a copy of Sol 85.
-
Comparing the raw images. They are not the same image, there is a difference in angle. Open them both and switch between them.
Raw images here:
Sol 84: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0084MH0000710000100921E01_DXXX&s=84
Sol 85: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0085MH0001130000100990E01_DXXX&s=85
Therefore Sol 84 is not a copy of Sol 85.
look at the raw images I provided above from Selfie #1 and Selfie #2 that were allegedly taken on different days. The lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns, are exactly the same.
In fact, the ONLY differences between the two images are a few black specks that move, which can be assumed to be specks on the lens.
Click for bigger:
(https://i.imgur.com/4P6LExL.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GkAxAAF.jpg)
Raw images here:
Sol 84: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0084MH0000710000100921E01_DXXX&s=84
Sol 85: https://mars.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/raw/?rawid=0085MH0001130000100990E01_DXXX&s=85
The lighting, the shadows, the dust and dirt on the rocks, the sand patterns, are all the same. These are images that were taken immediately after each other from the same collection, not different days.
-
As we have read, the creation of the final mosaic is an automated process.
Read where? I haven't read that anywhere except where you wrote it.
I think you're misreading - the taking of the pictures was automated, not the assembly of the raw into finished image.
Clearly they could not put the man or equipment that they erased into the raw image archive, however. What did they do about the raw images, one might ask? Maybe the took it from the other Selfie #2 raw image collection as an afterthought.
So we're acting as though there WAS something there, even though this is still just supposition and assumption on your part ...?
-
Mars has wind:
Mars has clouds in the sky:
Mars has haze:
Yet the lighting is EXACTLY the same?
So Tom is acknowledging that the photos were taken on Mars. I'm sure this contradicts his assertion that space travel is not possible.
To quote Tom ; "NASA's intent is to fake the concept of space travel, is not running a real space agency, and is merely mistaken about the round shape of the earth"
-
The background is indisputably photoshopped. It is not an innocent overlay error.
Of course, it IS perfectly possible for it to be an innocent mistake. Some poor photo technician burning the midnight oil after a long day of stitching mistakes one rock for another - like this guy did, singling out the totally wrong (green) rock....
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1042435/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1042435/pg1)
-
As we have read, the creation of the final mosaic is an automated process.
Read where? I haven't read that anywhere except where you wrote it.
I think you're misreading - the taking of the pictures was automated, not the assembly of the raw into finished image.
It is claimed that the mosaic is automated.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219
P 414
A camera model facilitates accurate monoscopic and stereoscopic measurement of points in an image or images, precise mosaicking of images, and creation of “linearized” (i.e., geometrically corrected) image products (section 5.2.9) for which lens distortion has been removed. To accommodate multiple kinds of existing end user software for geometric analyses, two kinds of initial, mathematically similar camera models have been developed for Mastcam and are described here.
The background is indisputably photoshopped. It is not an innocent overlay error.
Of course, it IS perfectly possible for it to be an innocent mistake. Some poor photo technician burning the midnight oil after a long day of stitching mistakes one rock for another - like this guy did, singling out the totally wrong (green) rock....
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1042435/pg1 (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1042435/pg1)
As said above, it's an automated process. There is a camera model that does the precise mosaicing of images.
Even if one were to paste together the images by hand, it would still take deliberate editing of the rocks to create the result of what we saw. There are multiple spots in the image that were edited which prevents any straight ovelap. Your arguments are not strong at all.
These rocks were changed in red:
(https://i.imgur.com/8IEkkz3.jpg)
In addition, the configuration of the sandy hill terrain and the upper rocks in green were pushed to the left, to create this result:
(https://i.imgur.com/FDiDy5g.jpg)
Please tell us how this is an innocent overlap error.
-
OK, let's say, merely for the purpose of discourse, that this was not an innocent error, and that you have all your rocks labelled and matched correctly. Folks disagree with you on this, but to speed things up;
What is your base point or assertion?
1. That the photos were taken on Mars but there was a man/martian/piece of martian gear/whatever in the photo?
2. That the photos weren't actually taken on Mars?
3. Another option?
-
This is all I have to say to the "dust storm" concept.
Image 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/wl4zqzD.jpg)
Image 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/PrY0X7k.jpg)
Untouched Versions of the above:
Image 1: https://i.imgur.com/CTOnapE.jpg
Image 2: https://i.imgur.com/csaHZnX.jpg
Sources again:
Image 1: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16239
Image 2: https://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16174
Most of this seems to be differences in lighting, you can see how different shadow lengths are.
I'd agree that dust storms is not the explanation here, it's angle and lighting.
-
It is claimed that the mosaic is automated.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219
P 414
Read your quote in conjunction with the preceding paragraph;
A geometric camera model is a set of equations that transform a 3-D point in space to a 2-D position in an image
(pixel location). The model can also be inverted to transform a pixel in the image to a set of points in space that would map to that pixel (the imaging locus). The model contains the camera position and pointing vector, and it also models lens distortion and the interior geometry of the instrument. A camera model facilitates accurate monoscopic and stereoscopic measurement of points in an image or images, precise mosaicking of images, and creation of “linearized” (i.e., geometrically corrected) image products (section 5.2.9) for which lens distortion has been removed. To accommodate multiple kinds of existing end user software for geometric analyses, two kinds of initial, mathematically similar camera models have been developed for Mastcam and are described here.
I see nothing here which reinforces your claim that the mosaic-ing process is automated.
-
Mars has wind:
Mars has clouds in the sky:
Mars has haze:
Yet the lighting is EXACTLY the same?
So Tom is acknowledging that the photos were taken on Mars. I'm sure this contradicts his assertion that space travel is not possible.
To quote Tom ; "NASA's intent is to fake the concept of space travel, is not running a real space agency, and is merely mistaken about the round shape of the earth"
That was the alleged version of Mars, clearly. The context was clear enough. Do I really have to say "alleged" every time I talk about NASA things?
What is your base point or assertion?
1. That the photos were taken on Mars but there was a man/martian/piece of martian gear/whatever in the photo?
2. That the photos weren't actually taken on Mars?
3. Another option?
The point is that the it is indisputably photoshopped. They are clearly changing the configuration of rocks and scenery around; likely to hide something rather than doing it for no reason at all.
It is claimed that the mosaic is automated.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219
P 414
Read your quote in conjunction with the preceding paragraph;
A geometric camera model is a set of equations that transform a 3-D point in space to a 2-D position in an image
(pixel location). The model can also be inverted to transform a pixel in the image to a set of points in space that would map to that pixel (the imaging locus). The model contains the camera position and pointing vector, and it also models lens distortion and the interior geometry of the instrument. A camera model facilitates accurate monoscopic and stereoscopic measurement of points in an image or images, precise mosaicking of images, and creation of “linearized” (i.e., geometrically corrected) image products (section 5.2.9) for which lens distortion has been removed. To accommodate multiple kinds of existing end user software for geometric analyses, two kinds of initial, mathematically similar camera models have been developed for Mastcam and are described here.
I see nothing here which reinforces your claim that the mosaic-ing process is automated.
A camera model facilitates accurate monoscopic and stereoscopic measurement of points in an image or images, precise mosaicking of images, and creation of “linearized” (i.e., geometrically corrected) image products (section 5.2.9) for which lens distortion has been removed.
A camera model is a "set of equations" which facilitates the "precise mosaicking of images." I don't see what you are talking about. That makes perfect sense.
You don't think it takes any sort of equations to match up the edge features of an image perfectly in a programming language?
-
Facilitate - "make (an action or process) easy or easier"
Automate - "convert (a process or facility) to be operated by largely automatic equipment"
Again, there's nothing which explicitly states it was automated. You're filling the gaps with what you want to see or hear.
-
Facilitate - "make (an action or process) easy or easier"
Automate - "convert (a process or facility) to be operated by largely automatic equipment"
Again, there's nothing which explicitly states it was automated. You're filling the gaps with what you want to see or hear.
From the previous posts we read that a camera model is comprised of a set of equations to facilitate the precise mosaicking of images.
"Equations" is clearly talking about programming algorithms. This is a programmatic software process. Point out where it really means that the images are given to an intern with Paint Shop Pro.
-
Point out where it really means that the images are given to an intern with Paint Shop Pro.
Reductio ad absurdum. Be serious, Tom.
There's all kinds of things that can cause these errors (with regards to the background of the composite images) surely.
Here's a question for photography pro's... if you photograph a nearby object a number of times, from slightly different locations/angles, then stitch them together, might it be possible that the background images must overlap or repeat to allow the nearby objects to stitch properly?
-
Give us an honest answer, Tom.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219) (The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover Mastcam instruments: Preflight and in-flight calibration, validation, and data archiving)
Had you seen that document before today or yesterday? Had you spent any time reading any part of it other than this section?
Or, as I suspect, did you call it up from a quick google search, because it looked like something which would support your case?
Also .....
The paras we're talking about are under section 3.3. Preflight Geometric/Camera Model Testing and Validation, which is in turn under section 3. Preflight Camera Testing and Calibration: Methods, Data Sets, and Results
Preflight.
Pre. Flight.
Before. the. flight.
-
Tom, you've never seen 2 sunny days in a row? ???
Any slight modification to the atmosphere changes lighting conditions. Sunny days are not all the same. You can't take a picture from one day to the next and expect the results to be the same.
The fact that they tried to list out the raw pictures as one Martian Day apart for this indisputably the hack photoshop job, and that these pictures in the raw images are EXACTLY THE SAME, is a dead giveaway.
Exactly the same lighting, dust on the rocks, patterns in the sand, shadows, features in the darkness of the shadows, highlighted textures, colors to the rocks, and colors to the sand, features and patterns in the sand, etc. etc.
Did you ever consider the possibility that the exposure control of the camera could compensate for subtle variations in lighting to produce the same exposure? You do realize that's what light meters are for, don't you?
Show us something that is different about the images.
Do you mean other than the angle from which they were taken? Have you tried comparing parts of the rest of the images?
-
Mars has wind:
Mars has clouds in the sky:
Mars has haze:
Yet the lighting is EXACTLY the same?
So Tom is acknowledging that the photos were taken on Mars. I'm sure this contradicts his assertion that space travel is not possible.
To quote Tom ; "NASA's intent is to fake the concept of space travel, is not running a real space agency, and is merely mistaken about the round shape of the earth"
That was the alleged version of Mars, clearly. The context was clear enough. Do I really have to say "alleged" every time I talk about NASA things?
Why would the weather on Mars effect a photo that was not taken on Mars?
Your proof that the images should be different is based on the conditions on Mars, but you allege the photo's weren't taken on Mars. This is a very weak argument.
Give us an honest answer, Tom.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219) (The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover Mastcam instruments: Preflight and in-flight calibration, validation, and data archiving)
Had you seen that document before today or yesterday? Had you spent any time reading any part of it other than this section?
Tom stop posting irrelevant nonsense. This document only covers the Mastcam instruments and makes little reference to the MAHLI camera. Stop posting irrelevant nonsense.
YES the image PIA16239 was 'photoshopped', the automated/facilitated mosaic images are not rectangular, so either it was distorted to make it rectangular or it was stitched together 'by hand'. That is why it appears different from PIA16174 that was taken from a different camera.
The fact that they tried to list out the raw pictures as one Martian Day apart for this indisputably the hack photoshop job, and that these pictures in the raw images are EXACTLY THE SAME, is a dead giveaway.
Show us something that is different about the images.
The photo's are taken from different angles, therefore they are different.
You are alleging that there was something in the background that they managed to hide whilst leaving no trace at all. You can not even see a difference between Raw Image Sol 84 and image Sol 85. In fact you were able to crop and rotate these images to match in an effort to deceive.
Your evidence that PIA16239 has been photoshopped to hide something is that it doesn't match PIA16174. Therefore anything hidden would appear in PIA16174. It really is that simple.
Tom you should prefix every post you make with "allegedly" or more correctly "I allege" until you can substantiate anything with actual evidence.
-
Point out where it really means that the images are given to an intern with Paint Shop Pro.
Reductio ad absurdum. Be serious, Tom.
There's all kinds of things that can cause these errors (with regards to the background of the composite images) surely.
Here's a question for photography pro's... if you photograph a nearby object a number of times, from slightly different locations/angles, then stitch them together, might it be possible that the background images must overlap or repeat to allow the nearby objects to stitch properly?
It is more than an innocent overlap issue. The following rocks are modified:
(https://i.imgur.com/8IEkkz3.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/FDiDy5g.jpg)
Are you going to address how this can be a simple overlap issue?
Give us an honest answer, Tom.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016EA000219) (The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover Mastcam instruments: Preflight and in-flight calibration, validation, and data archiving)
Had you seen that document before today or yesterday? Had you spent any time reading any part of it other than this section?
Or, as I suspect, did you call it up from a quick google search, because it looked like something which would support your case?
Also .....
The paras we're talking about are under section 3.3. Preflight Geometric/Camera Model Testing and Validation, which is in turn under section 3. Preflight Camera Testing and Calibration: Methods, Data Sets, and Results
Preflight.
Pre. Flight.
Before. the. flight.
It's saying that they programmed and validated the camera model before they allegedly sent the Curiosity Rover to Mars.
This document only covers the Mastcam instruments and makes little reference to the MAHLI camera.
The mosaicing was done automatically with the first rovers, and the technology was only improved since. Did NASA "lose" this technology?
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221940102_The_use_of_cluster_computer_systems_for_NASAJPL_applications
(https://i.imgur.com/RDjQhEO.png)
Mosaicing algorithms have existed for a long time, and are typical projects by computer programming students at universities. Why wouldn't NASA have them for the Curiosity Rover like they did for the rovers that occurred right before the Curiosity? That is a bad argument.
-
The mosaicing was done automatically with the first rovers, and the technology was only improved since. Did NASA "lose" this technology?
I agree with you, there is image data missing. However I see no reason to assume a conspiracy.
The way those mosaic algorithms work is to try locate similar objects and key objects in the different frames and try to place those objects in the correct place. Each object identified in one frame is ranked against all the objects in an adjacent frame then the registration between highly ranked 'pairs' is also checked. THe images have to be calibrated for perspective changes, lens distortions and magnification changes. If the lighting, which affects shadows and outlines, changes along with perspective and magnification changes from moving a camera about it is quite common for the software to fooled into mistaking one object for another. Especially when you are dealing with objects of nearly the same same and very irregular shapes.
You must be assuming this software is infallible. It certainly is not.
-
As far as I can see it is pasting the edges of the images together, or overlapping and resizing them if necessary to get a good fit.
It's not cutting out the rocks individually. What makes you think that? The changes in the scene are quite odd, and go far beyond a simple overlap issue. The mosaic software isn't taking liberty to recreate the entire martian surface, one rock at a time. It's fitting together images.
-
Tom, just out of curiosity (no pun intended), have you tried downloading the 55 raw images to make your own mosaic to see if there are any other discrepancies?
-
As far as I can see it is pasting the edges of the images together, or overlapping and resizing them if necessary to get a good fit.
It's not cutting out the rocks individually. What makes you think that? The changes in the scene are quite odd, and go far beyond a simple overlap issue. The mosaic software isn't taking liberty to recreate the entire martian surface, one rock at a time. It's fitting together images.
OK. So in your world there is no Curiosity Rover on Mars, yes? So these pictures are faked.
How do you imagine they did that? Do you think it's purely CGI or on a sound stage? In either case you seriously think they'd just move some of the rocks (or virtual rocks) or they'd duplicate virtual rocks in between shots. Why would they do that? It's weird you think they are smart enough to fake a space programme well enough to fool most of the population of earth but dumb enough to make basic errors like this. This whole thread is confirmation bias writ large.
-
As far as I can see it is pasting the edges of the images together, or overlapping and resizing them if necessary to get a good fit.
Essentially, but they do more than that. Also, they may trim the edges arbitrarily - at an angel, in a curved, or even squiggly line.
It's not cutting out the rocks individually. What makes you think that?
They will cut out rocks, or use them more than once or get the spacing between them worng. It is inadvertent. As I said, if the perspective changes, or the lighting changes, or even the magnification changes and the software can no longer recognize key points it may delete them, miss align them, or duplicate them. I could demonstrate if you like. Almost every time I have let software automate the stitching process this sort of thing happens.
The changes in the scene are quite odd, and go far beyond a simple overlap issue. The mosaic software isn't taking liberty to recreate the entire martian surface, one rock at a time. It's fitting together images.
No, not one rock at a time. It's fitting together images but it makes mistakes.
-
Well I'll provide and example anyway.
I used the on-line app here: https://www.dermandar.com/create/
Here is a composite image of rock outcropping. It is composed of 6 different images that were combined automatically at the above site:
(https://i.imgur.com/r9OQrTq.jpg)
Here is a close up of the middle of that image. Note the circled rocks:
(https://i.imgur.com/CoSnoSk.jpg)
here are images 4 and 5 of the sequence:
(https://i.imgur.com/uw50LNc.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/IADyX1d.jpg)
and close ups of where the software got the previously noted rocks:
(https://i.imgur.com/d6cIdZE.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/ZD5SRv0.jpg)
There are many more errors in that composite. this is just one example. If anyone wants to explore it a bit more I can provide the other 4 frames. It's pretty easy to see how these automated image stitching routines can easily make errors like the ones Tom claims are the result of some fancy conspiracy. Of course Occam's Razor tells us this without all the hoopla in the fist place.
-
Here we see a rock outcrop dubbed "Missoula," near Marias Pass on Mars.
Source
Image 3: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=pia19829
Image 3
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GHqDMvKgJnA/Vcfp6_-bToI/AAAAAAAAd_w/m8cZ_zM7SeU/s1600/UFO%252C%2BUFOs%252C%2Bsighting%252C%2Bsightings%252C%2BJustin%2BBieber%252C%2BMoscow%252C%2Blightning%252C%2Bsun%252C%2Bbeach%252C%2Bphoto%252C%2Bnasa%252C%2Btop%2Bsecret%252C%2BET%252C%2Bsnoopy%252C%2Batlantis%252C%2BW56%252C%2Buredda%252C%2Bscott%2Bc.%2Bwaring%252C%2BBatman%252C%2Borb%252C%2Bball%252C%2B%2BCeres%252C%2Bgarfield%252C%2Bwiz%2Bkhalifa%252C%2Bfathers%2Bday%252C%2Bancient%252C%2Bstorm%252C%2Bpillar%252C%2B131.jpg)
That's an easy one:
If observers location is changed, e.g. moving in a parallel line to that cliff in the foreground, the foreground of the images appears to move with higher "speed" than the background. If you watch closely, the marked rocks in the background are slowly moving within the image frames, but are still in all the frames, due to the greater distance.
If you now combine these pictures taking the foreground as reference, the background may appear to be "copied".
-
Well I'll provide and example anyway.
I used the on-line app here: https://www.dermandar.com/create/
Here is a composite image of rock outcropping. It is composed of 6 different images that were combined automatically at the above site:
https://i.imgur.com/r9OQrTq.jpg
Here is a close up of the middle of that image. Note the circled rocks:
https://i.imgur.com/CoSnoSk.jpg
here are images 4 and 5 of the sequence:
https://i.imgur.com/uw50LNc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/IADyX1d.jpg
and close ups of where the software got the previously noted rocks:
https://i.imgur.com/d6cIdZE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZD5SRv0.jpg
There are many more errors in that composite. this is just one example. If anyone wants to explore it a bit more I can provide the other 4 frames. It's pretty easy to see how these automated image stitching routines can easily make errors like the ones Tom claims are the result of some fancy conspiracy. Of course Occam's Razor tells us this without all the hoopla in the fist place.
It didn't delete or rearrange any rocks individuallly, it just chose to overlay one version of the rocks (image 4) in preference of the other image. Its an overlay issue.
Those rock arrangements still exist in both raw images.
The rocks in the curiosity selfie have been rearranged in odd ways that is difficult to attribute to an overlay issue. Unlike your example, the arrangement doesn't even exist in the raw images.
-
ever thought that the image could be taken at different angles