Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Abramelin

Copy & Pasted Images at Gale Crater,

19 posts in this topic

"I have come across obvious image manipulation for the image composite of Gale crater. I want to be clear that I am not attacking NASA, but addressing what I found disappointing in the Gale crater composite. I am and always have been a big fan of NASA. If I worked for NASA on oversight, I would be equally upset to find the flaws in the image. When NASA puts their finished homework out there for the public to grade I expect better. I realize that this image is probably the result of a small handful of people at NASA and this should not reflect on NASA as a whole. The point of the video is that when you see even one area that is not accurate, it opens up the entire image for question."...

http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=21870

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curiosoty_Gale.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've seen examples of this with many NASA photos from both the moon and Mars. Quite disapointing isn't it?

Edited to add that JPL image processors have gone on record stating that they make photos of mars more red than they really are.

Edited by OverSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish they would just show them in their natural color instead of adding more color.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen examples of this with many NASA photos from both the moon and Mars. Quite disapointing isn't it?

Edited to add that JPL image processors have gone on record stating that they make photos of mars more red than they really are.

It IS disappointing. They must assume we are blind or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with just posting them as a natural color ?

I would rather see it for what it is .... not for what NASA thinks it should be !

TiP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited to add that JPL image processors have gone on record stating that they make photos of mars more red than they really are.

You need to remember that these expensive missions are scientific NOT artistic endeavours. NASA images are taken to got the maximum scientific information not to look pretty. The reason colours are enhanced is because it shows more detail. What would be disappointing is if NASA pandered to a few moaners on the internet and missed a major discovery.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to remember that these expensive missions are scientific NOT artistic endeavours. NASA images are taken to got the maximum scientific information not to look pretty. The reason colours are enhanced is because it shows more detail. What would be disappointing is if NASA pandered to a few moaners on the internet and missed a major discovery.

This was the topic I was trying to find Waspie ! The orig,release on this was on the Internet and a video ,showing a guy talking about all the manlipulation ! THat NASA did ? I think not right.NASA has no reason whats so ever to alter the images !

I wonder when all this will end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to remember that these expensive missions are scientific NOT artistic endeavours. NASA images are taken to got the maximum scientific information not to look pretty. The reason colours are enhanced is because it shows more detail. What would be disappointing is if NASA pandered to a few moaners on the internet and missed a major discovery.

Posting a true color photo wouldn't hurt, wouldn't it? Just to give people an impression how Mars really looks like. They can still use their color enhanced photos for their research.

And, btw, the OP is not about mere color enhancement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, let me see if I get this straight.. Sadly I'm using a very slow connection now, so can't view the original video.

1. This is a secondhand report, of a video at Youtube.

2. Did either that site, or the linked youtube page reference the source images?

3. Did either that site, or the linked youtube page discuss whether the images were single frames, or stitched? (I'm guessing the latter)

4. Did either that site, or the linked youtube page discuss the topics of stitching, panoramic techniques, perspective errors? (hint, are the 'copies' truly identical, or somewhat distorted in any way?)

5. Did either that site, or the linked youtube page discuss whether this was NASA's work, or whether it was done by either outside agencies or automated software?

6. Did either that site, or the linked youtube page discuss what NASA had said when they simply ASKED them to explain? They DID do that, didn't they?

7. Did either that site, or the linked youtube page discuss the FAQs or general information about the images?

8. Did either that site, or the linked youtube page discuss access to the original imagery, ie the stuff that is used by REAL researchers, rather than the stuff that is presented on the web in easy-to-use formats?

I think you can see where I am heading.. I've made a few wild guesses up there, but I'll lay odds that one or more of them will reveal that there is no mystery or cover up. I don't know how many times I've heard this lame "I'm not attacking NASA, but.. look at this!!!!" stuff posted by folks without a clue about the images they are looking at, and in every single case there was absolutely (and easily proved) NO cover up by NASA, and the original images had always been freely available and could be checked. The accusers hadn't bothered to do that, and/or didn't even know how.

NASA (or their contractors or third parties) do screw up their images sometimes (as do Google and every other agency that does a lot of image stitching, analysis, presentations on the web, etc), but I've found them to be totally up front about their stuff, and in fact are very happy to have anomalies pointed out to them. Did these folk do that?

I'm happy to look into this properly when I'm at a better connection, but what I saw at that page gave me very good reason to suspect that the owner may have an aluminium hat...

Abramelin & Tipotep, may I ask you a question - what do you *define* as 'true colour'? Can you point me to an example? Space or earthly, doesn't matter... A hint on why I ask - do you understand why cameras have 'white balance' functions?

Oversword, can you post the 'worst' example you have found, of NASA manipulation? And can you point me to the JPL 'red enhancement' quote, please? I'd like to see it in full context, thanks all the same..

Edited by Chrlzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should ask you first, Chrlzs: are you not able to read the site and watch the video at all, or just not now?

Btw, about that true color:

The UNcorrected images of Mars look quite red, while the corrected (filtered) images look less red:

http://mars-news.de/color/blue.html

So it's just the other way round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since a couple of weeks I am using FireFox, and I found out I was unable to copy the YouTube link from that site.

OK, so I tried IE again, and it worked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhWCC1xPRF4

Then I read a comment below that video:

Ummm... Am I the only one that noticed your source link is to a nasa similator? See a similator means similar, not actual. It's kind of like a game nasa put out to let people get an idea of operating the rover. No where on the source does nasa claim exact terrain of mars, just similar with known terrain entered for better enjoyment.

There you go, lol.

.

Edited by Abramelin
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manipulating colour for a better appearance is fine, that's not the issue here, and NASA do post examples of unaltered images also often stating if colours have been enhanced.

Was Abramelin not referring to the image being manipulated in other ways? Such as cutting and pasting of portions of the image?

I don't have time to watch the video, but if that is the case it is disappointing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just sad that people can run with such an Idea that NASA has something up there sleve ! Its not the Case ! Im sure of that ! The Mars photos are as they are ,Real, When will all this CT crud stop? :cry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manipulating colour for a better appearance is fine, that's not the issue here, and NASA do post examples of unaltered images also often stating if colours have been enhanced.

Was Abramelin not referring to the image being manipulated in other ways? Such as cutting and pasting of portions of the image?

I don't have time to watch the video, but if that is the case it is disappointing...

You really need to watch the Copy & Past Video Tim tell me what you think about it? If it was released to the public then why do such a job like in the video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manipulating colour for a better appearance is fine, that's not the issue here, and NASA do post examples of unaltered images also often stating if colours have been enhanced.

Was Abramelin not referring to the image being manipulated in other ways? Such as cutting and pasting of portions of the image?

I don't have time to watch the video, but if that is the case it is disappointing...

Well, read the comment I copied from YouTube: it was a NASA Simulator the guy used for his 'analysis', not actual photos.

But yes, cutting and pasting did happen, as you can see from my second post in this thread, an example even that guy had missed:

Curiosoty_Gale.jpg

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should ask you first, Chrlzs: are you not able to read the site and watch the video at all, or just not now?

I don't really have time to be finding other solutions right now and currently I'd say my chances of viewing anything that involves more than a few bytes per minute are very low while I'm fighting with VODAFONE in Australia who have to offer the WORST broadband service I've ever seen or heard of. It's an absolute disgrace. </rant>

Btw, about that true color:

The UNcorrected images of Mars look quite red, while the corrected (filtered) images look less red..

But if you take a photo in daytime using incandescent white balance, the image will be very yellow. At sunset, reddish. Or bluish if in sunny shadows, or perhaps greenish under fluorescent lighting, or something else under a different sun in a different solar system or on Mars thru a different atmosphere at various times of day. Which of those are 'true'?

The thing is, if you genuinely wish to look at the image in some way that you can define as 'true' (eg compared to a sunlit day on terra firma), you will simply go to the technical documentation for the camera sensors and filters, examine their characteristics and transmission curves (see below), then download the 'raw' (ie unprocessed) images, then apply the white balance settings you want. There IS NO true colour. And if you want to actually study the colour balance in great detail, you CAN. NASA documents all of this, but of course most folks just use the simplified 'prettied up' images, which can be adjusted to the taste of whomever is presenting them.

Let me spell this out - the only people who claim that NASA are hiding or doctoring stuff are those who:

- don't have any idea of how to get the raw images or the technical documentation about sensors, filters & transmission curves

- can't be bothered to do so

- deliberately wish to sling off at NASA

or any combination thereof..

Frankly, it gets up my nose a bit - so forgive me if I seem a bit short.. On several occasions I've investigated these claims of cover ups and doctoring, and it's always the same story. The person hasn't bothered to make the simple effort required to find out what it is actually going on, or what the images they are looking at are actually for, or how to get the original images... and if they did they probably wouldn't understand what to do with them anyway. They are simply interested in adding to their silly list of things they think Nasa are hiding (leading up to the inevitable NASA-knows-about-aliens-but-won't-tell-us, of course..)

Tipotep and Oversword, I'm still waiting for some answers.. It's gone rather quiet..

I think Donteatus might want to hear them too! So let's not wait and supply a couple of hints and examples... Here's the sort of page I can almost guarantee that those who criticise NASA have NEVER been to, and won't want to - it sorta destroys the coverup fantasy. Before you visit the link below, how many images do you guess are in this 'Opportunity' raw image download area? 100? 500? 1000? 5000? Go on, take a look..

http://marsrover.nas...pportunity.html

Any questions? Then go here, and scroll down to item 25, - do you understand what that stuff means? Yep, that's all about getting whatever 'true colour' you would like. FTR, there is another level further of 'rawness' (ie unprocessed imagery) that we haven't yet descended to.. and I might mention that there are not only more sources for the unprocessed images but also much much more technical information that REAL researchers are using. In the meantime the sad tinfoil hat brigade wear their floaties and flounder about in the shallow pool looking at 'similators' where the images have been roughly (and probably automatedly) patched together for a theme-park-ride experience. Do you see them giving links to the archives, or to information about filtering? Of course not. They (very likely deliberately) mislead you and point at patched-up panoramas in which such repeated artefacts from image stitching are almost inevitable. No real researcher would do that... But neither that youtube channel or the other site spamming it contains any real researchers - they just want hits.

Yes, I'm a little jaded - can you tell? <_<

Finally, in regard to the actual artefact being shown here, note how the two areas that are supposedly copied and pasted do NOT in fact match? That's almost certainly NOT a copy-paste - it is likely two areas where the camera has moved and imaged the same area first at the left of frame, then at the right and then when the images were combined, they were not aligned properly. Alternatively, it might be the result of automated software that has tried (rather poorly) to blend in the overlapping areas, and has distorted them to try to match up the features. It's a common problem that is often displayed in NON-CRITICAL applications - Google Earth being a perfect example - you can see these same duplicated areas EVERYWHERE.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll (very patiently) ask again:

Tipotep, would you please explain what you mean by 'true colour' and then provide an example of what you mean?

Oversword, can you post the 'worst' example you have found, of NASA manipulation? And can you point me to the JPL 'red enhancement' quote, please? I'd like to see it in full context, thanks..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, read the comment I copied from YouTube: it was a NASA Simulator the guy used for his 'analysis', not actual photos.

But yes, cutting and pasting did happen, as you can see from my second post in this thread, an example even that guy had missed:

Curiosoty_Gale.jpg

OK all good then ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.