[Tumeni]

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

[Tom Bishop]

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

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:



In addition, the configuration of the sandy hill terrain and the upper rocks in green were pushed to the left, to create this result:



Please tell us how this is an innocent overlap error.

[Tumeni]

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?

[AATW]

This is all I have to say to the "dust storm" concept.

Image 2:


Image 1:


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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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?

[Tumeni]

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.

 

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[pj1]

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?

[Tumeni]

Give us an honest answer, Tom.

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.

[markjo]

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?

[I_Joined_Again]

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 (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.

[Tom Bishop]

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:





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 (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



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.

[BillO]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[markjo]

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?

[AATW]

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.

[BillO]

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.

[BillO]

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:


Here is a close up of the middle of that image.  Note the circled rocks:


here are images 4 and 5 of the sequence:



and close ups of where the software got the previously noted rocks:



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.

[HorstFue]

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

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".