13 replies to this topic

[dragon15066]

It's a shame that researchers get this program Google Space and think that the photos or images they see are not tampered with. I cannot imagine how many people work to alter these images, blacking out or blurring objects in space like the moon. It's so big now that it's not even worth it. It's impossible to think they are honest. You see ONLY what they want you to see. Like Google Earth and Google Sky have images of locations where objects are blurred or pixilate over the image. If even Google Earth will not let you see the poles, if they do, the pixilation needed would be and IS a huge priority . We just cannot believe what we see using these programs are real ! I wonder what involvement the "powers that be" must have in this project, to keep things of importance or evidence covered . You think they really let you go viewing the Moon to the very surface where bases are, or Mars pyramids and ships as well as bases. I guess I'm just saying that with programs like Google Space,  the military IS involved and will always be the final word EVERY time.

[pallidin]

Uh... ok.

[Imaginarynumber1]

[Waspie_Dwarf]

This seems to have very little to do with space exploration. As it is alleging a cover up I think it would be better placed in the conspiracies section.

[RaptorBites]

dragon15066, on 15 December 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

It's a shame that researchers get this program Google Space and think that the photos or images they see are not tampered with. I cannot imagine how many people work to alter these images, blacking out or blurring objects in space like the moon. It's so big now that it's not even worth it. It's impossible to think they are honest. You see ONLY what they want you to see. Like Google Earth and Google Sky have images of locations where objects are blurred or pixilate over the image. If even Google Earth will not let you see the poles, if they do, the pixilation needed would be and IS a huge priority . We just cannot believe what we see using these programs are real ! I wonder what involvement the "powers that be" must have in this project, to keep things of importance or evidence covered . You think they really let you go viewing the Moon to the very surface where bases are, or Mars pyramids and ships as well as bases. I guess I'm just saying that with programs like Google Space,  the military IS involved and will always be the final word EVERY time.

No

[Rafterman]

dragon15066, on 15 December 2012 - 03:53 AM, said:

It's a shame that researchers get this program Google Space and think that the photos or images they see are not tampered with. I cannot imagine how many people work to alter these images, blacking out or blurring objects in space like the moon. It's so big now that it's not even worth it. It's impossible to think they are honest. You see ONLY what they want you to see. Like Google Earth and Google Sky have images of locations where objects are blurred or pixilate over the image. If even Google Earth will not let you see the poles, if they do, the pixilation needed would be and IS a huge priority . We just cannot believe what we see using these programs are real ! I wonder what involvement the "powers that be" must have in this project, to keep things of importance or evidence covered . You think they really let you go viewing the Moon to the very surface where bases are, or Mars pyramids and ships as well as bases. I guess I'm just saying that with programs like Google Space,  the military IS involved and will always be the final word EVERY time.

Thanks for protecting us bro.

Keep up the good work!

[Chrlzs]

Only an un-informed amateur would use a system like Google Space to examine such imagery for any serious purpose.  As those who do this sort of stuff *know*, they go back to the original source files, most of which are very freely available to *anyone*, and all of which are available to genuine researchers who need them.  The original files are always available, some of the stuff can even be intercepted by radio enthusiasts as they arrive, before the space agencies even get hold of it..  Plus, much of astronomy imaging is done by amateurs..

As for the 'tampering' claims - programs like Google Earth and Space all have to use simplified automated patching/matching and stretching software to overcome perspective problems, and sometimes the operators will intervene and manually edit problematic areas - usually without much care as they KNOW that no researcher worth a dime would ever use these stitched images for serious work.  Also, sometimes a camera will catch a passing planet, satellite, aircraft, meteor or comet that obliterates detail, in which case they will block it out so as not to mislead anyone who might folishly think it was part of the background sphere of stars...

Those types of 'tampering' have abosutely nothing to do with hiding anything and most of it is the inevitable result of mapping images that are two dimensional onto a 3d sphere (ie the 360 sphere around your viewing location).  If you have had anything to with mapping, you would know about this - if not, look up Map Projection to understand the issues.

Or if you'd rather laugh, try this XKCD cartoon (I love xkcd..).

To anyone who wants to claim that things are being deliberately altered, please show your very best example.  But before doing so, I would strongly suggest you go back to the ORIGINAL SOURCE images and look at the entire process - you may find that a simple check or two will reveal the reason for the edit.

Don't know how to do that?  Well, let's just say it will be embarrassing if you make such a claim and others have to show you what you should have done...

[Archimedes]

Chrlzs, on 16 December 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

To anyone who wants to claim that things are being deliberately altered, please show your very best example.  But before doing so, I would strongly suggest you go back to the ORIGINAL SOURCE images and look at the entire process - you may find that a simple check or two will reveal the reason for the edit.

Yup, I usually find that what's online in the original image databases is cleaner, higher resolution and far better than what's on Google Mars/Moon.

It's also important for would be Martian hunters to know that even on just Google Mars, you can overlay better quality imagery than the default.  Turn on the CTX layer and most of the planet is cover in crisp clear high-resolution images better than what most of the planet is shown by default.

Quote

Don't know how to do that?  Well, let's just say it will be embarrassing if you make such a claim and others have to show you what you should have done...

When I first came across the topic of bases, pyramids, etc. on the Moon and Mars, and how the images were blurred using sophisticated algorithms, etc. it took a couple of questions of web forums and some Google searches to find that there is a wealth of freely available stuff online that's easy to browse through.  And inevitably, the pyramids, moon bases, cityscapes, etc. turn out to be rocks, sand, craters, etc.  Some reading and studying of the subject (nothing heavy, just wanted a layman's understanding of what's going on) and most of the claims about cities and pyramids on the Moon and Mars are easy to debunk.

To the OP, can you point us towards a particular Mars or Moon structure you believe to be covered up or blurred out?  Tell us what you think is there and at what co-ordinates.  I'd like to have a look.

The big problem in this area of "research" is people looking at poor quality evidence that they don't understand when they should be looking at the high quality evidence with some understanding of it.

Edited by Archimedes, 16 December 2012 - 08:05 PM.

[dragon15066]

The info you requested for photoshop videos from NASA fro
a reliable source...

[Corp]

YouTube is a reliable source? In what universe?

[RaptorBites]

dragon15066, on 17 December 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

The info you requested for photoshop videos from NASA fro
a reliable source...

No, youtube videos can hardly be described as a "reliable source".

Just recently, Chang-e 2 lunar probe from China was able to photograph the surface of the moon at high resolution.  Had these "structures" been visable from the photographs the lunar probe took it would have been reported already.

And just an FYI none of those photographs of the supposed "blurred out" structures were taken from the dark side of the moon, so those structures would have been visable and reported by the many countries that have sent up lunar probes.

So no, the video is nothing but complete nonsense.

Edited by RaptorBites, 17 December 2012 - 02:34 AM.

[Archimedes]

So, no actual co-ordinates for others to check?

You say that source is reliable.  Why is the guy talking during that video a reliable source?  Has he been vetted as a reliable source?  Do you know something about him that we don't?

All we have are really blurry photos?  No links to the co-ordinates of these mysterious buildings that have been edited out?

Just stuff that is supposedly from old enough photographs that they were still supposedly using 35mm film.  Nothing from the LRO orbiter currently taking far higher resolution pictures than ever before?

Bah, I want something I can my teeth into myself, not just unsubstantiated vague claims on a YouTube video.

Edited by Archimedes, 17 December 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[Chrlzs]

dragon15066, on 17 December 2012 - 01:31 AM, said:

The info you requested for photoshop videos from NASA fro
a reliable source...

Escamilla??????  Oh dear deity...  Take a look here (long thread at the 'Bad Astronomy and Universe Today' forum, in which I took part..)

Notably, Escamilla began withdrawing his claims on that thread even before getting a well-deserved roasting, and also proved he knows nothing whatsoever about image analysis, and is a foul-mouthed self-promoter to boot..  There is also an in-depth analysis of another equally stupid Escamilla video here.

So, in summary, you regard someone called "Iwantobelievexfiles", who posts a debunked Escamilla video on Youtube with little or no information to back up the claims and allow cross-checking, and who doesn't have a clue about the stitching of imagery and the reasons for blurred areas, as 'reliable'..?

And you have no actual information of your own to present.

Got it...  Now, may I suggest you do the following:

1. Post your VERY BEST still image that shows exactly what you mean.

2. With that image, please provide the information regarding where you got it and what mission/date/time and coordinates it shows.


I suspect that you may have a little difficulty with Part 2, which is how idiots like Escamilla and that Youtube poster (if they are in fact two different people) suck in naive and uninformed people..

[AsteroidX]

If you dont believe then why click it. Theres better apps out there today