Here comes the tip of the iceberg..

http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK.htm

Have you ever heard of electron overflow on a CCD? It looks like overexposure to me. They should have had the camera subframe the intended target to prevent CCD washout from brighter sunlit areas. Maybe they were just working off of smaller energy constraints.

blackholesun, are you speaking of blooming? That doesn't look like blooming to me. I
do not know why, but the images were tampered with. Neither overexposure nor
blooming would present the type of jagged rim nor the smooth 'sky' in the images.
Did you look at the side-by-side images on page 2? Here is a link:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm

Fluid, it has been discussed on these pages ad nauseum, and still you don't grasp it. NASA don't send probes all that way to snap .jpg's for the likes of you to drool over.

They send probes to do science, which means they gather data, using filters, and then, to give the public something to show for their money, make a colour composite from the data they have. The images will have been put together as an approximation from three other filtered images at least.

There's no cover up, it's just how SCIENCE is done, it isn't landscape photography.

Smething else that should be analysed is what communications system is outputting the images and what array is transporting that data back to earth. It's not as simple as a mobile phone network surrounding the planet which will have a delay of milliseconds for distance. When dealing with "a call from Mars" the planets could be in a particular rotation, their orbits around the sun could be increasing the distance between the send and receive points and the satellite have to then align.

At any point through this telecommunication things can "Float" through the datastream which potentially causes the drop in data quality. For instance a dense cloud of gas could streamby that would distort the datastream or even make it drop out all together. (Understand that that gas cloud will have different physics to an atmspheric cloud on earth, although Thunderstorms when lightening is present tend to knock out uplinks)

It's been mentioned over and over again, NASA isn't editing the images, if they had something they didn't want you to see then it would be easier to withdraw it than doctor it. NASA would probably love to find some reminants of life elsewhere in the universe and would probably love to prove that it exists because it would mean their funding would be increased and a common goal set for a Spacial Archeological dig, however it's not too promising at present with the barren wastelands of Mars.

I have inside information in respect to the deception of the rover imagery. A disgruntle NASA employ corrupted the fake environment. This person has been eliminated (accident report Incident # ORCC04CAD092153 7/30/2004 ORANGE county police).



Warning don't probe, or rove..


:)

blackholesun, are you speaking of blooming? That doesn't look like blooming to me. I
do not know why, but the images were tampered with. Neither overexposure nor
blooming would present the type of jagged rim nor the smooth 'sky' in the images.
Did you look at the side-by-side images on page 2? Here is a link:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm


Well I'm guessing there are some sort of anti-blooming drains on the ccd itself or some sort of algorithm that protects adjacent ccd elements if the elements above it are overexposed.

These aren’t the first pictures NASA has edited, nor will they be the last. May they all rot in hell that perpetrate these deceptions and lies.

Thank you to those inside NASA that are trying to get this information out and make the public aware of the tampering.

...and make the public aware of the tampering.

What tampering?

blackholesun, are you speaking of blooming? That doesn't look like blooming to me. I
do not know why, but the images were tampered with. Neither overexposure nor
blooming would present the type of jagged rim nor the smooth 'sky' in the images.
Did you look at the side-by-side images on page 2? Here is a link:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm

That's a very interesting page. I believe that the sky is certainly fake, but as for that signature, i opened the image in paint, and used the fill effect on the sky, and no signature was to be found.

http://sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3057&stc=1

Each camera picture is taken at different times, what if in one frame the sun is illuminating a part of the crater directly and this overloads the CCD and makes the image look like it has a white horizon and sky? This would explain the effects we see in some of these photos.

As for the spots in the sky that could have been do to cosmic rays discharging the pixels in that spot before it was read, resulting in a black spot.

As for signal black out that happens, sorry you try communicating to a robot from millions of km way.

Ya Nasa Scientist would have to be pretty dumb to tamper with photos and make it this obvious. Which is why electronic errors seem more likely. Let alone the fact that If Nasa ever had proof of aliens it funding would go through the ceiling and they would have a man on mars in just a few years, plus spare change, but instead they decide to cover it up, yep brainless.

Blindman provided the answer, can't you guys read? It was not data drop-out, that
is common with many images that are recieved and is entirely different. NASA itself
did not alter the images, but a disgruntled employee. But the fact remains that those
particular images were altered. The rhetoric spouted by some only shows your blind
'faith' in what you see as the unquestionable reporting of the 'whole truth' by the government and its branches. Even when looking at the altered images themselves,
some still propose inane excuses as to why the images weren't tampered with. And
Fetus, I don't believe anyone has suggested 'a little green Martian' has been edited
out of the images. The time stamps on the images were the same. The link again to
the side-by-side images at the bottom of the linked page:
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASAHACK2.htm

All I was saying is that at least some of it looked like it could have been overexposure. If Blindman was serious well then the man responsible is an asshole for being slanderous.

You're right about the side by side comparison as there can be no other explaination. But why just the left camera and not the right? Both used the same filters.

This is a free country - yes. otherwise you'd be in a looney bin.
We have a free press - which you are making us of right now. Even the tabloids are 'press'
Department of Defense..(Nasa) would never cover up anything. - DoD most certainly would. Nasa would have little reason, as this is their lifeblood.
Bush was voted into office - um, he was. Just not by the majority.
No such thing as Ufo's - nombody has said that. We simply said that UFO doesn't equal flying saucers from Venus.
Iraq - completely unrelated, but what should I expect.

Do you have ANYTHING to offer?

Fluid, it seems that since NASA is under the umbrella of the DoD and any NASA investigation or research would be under the watchful eye of the Department of Defense for the United States, it can be concluded all information released by NASA and related sources will be skewed. Keeping this skew in mind does not mean one cannot pick out what these research teams are really looking for or investigating including the research done between NASA and cooperating countries.

It just seems that over time this manipulation is blatant and the persistence by ones like yourself and NASA's own artists with their signature watermarks is unique.
:D

Measuring Stick... It doesn't take a genious to see theses images have been genuinely
tampered with..


and it certainly doesn't take a genius to speculate they have been!

Get a clue, and actually go DO some research rather than flinging mud at others. Just because you are too stupid to ever get inside NASA, dosn't mean you are allowed to bad mouth those people that do work there, in honest pursuit of their research.

Oh Phlogi,
That is priceless coming from you.

There is so much proof of tampering that it is becomming like the old saying show me a picture of a UFO. FOCL

Where is the evidence of "tampering" then Norval? What is your definition of tampering?

Oh Phlogi,
That is priceless coming from you.

Yes it is, considering I used to work with a bunch of astronomers and have seen how these composite images are created. I understand the process, that's the difference Norv. NASA don't go all that way to snap pretty pictures, they go to do science. They then try and give the public a pretty pic to satisfy their curiosity. The general public don't want data, they want pretty piccies, and that suffices. The only issue, is when underachieving pseudo-scientists start doing 'research' with .jpg's!

I don't know what format NASA use for planetary images, but for all other astronomical data, , Hubble data, EUVE, etc, they use FITS, and a piece of software called FTOOLS. If they could do science with a few .jpg's and MS 'Paint', they wouldn't spend all that time and effort designing their own
file format and software, would they?

There is so much proof of tampering that it is becomming like the old saying show me a picture of a UFO.

Show me tampering. Really. tell me how the image was created.Tell me what filters were used, and when th eimages were taken, and how they were composited. Then tell me how the image _should_ look (by comparing to each individual filtered image from the raw data) and show me where the 'tampering' occurs post composite. Go on, should be easy, you're so sure of yourself.

FOCL

Why do you bother with a chair?

Phlogger you just contradicted yourself:

seen how these composite images are created. I understand the process...I don't know what format

Try again Phlogger, you might get it right next time.
:D

I do think all your questions were answered all ready Phlogi by the first post. It helps if you can read besides slam dancing or slam posting.

Phlogger you just contradicted yourself:


Try again Phlogger, you might get it right next time.
:D

Read it again, and try not to quote parts of different sentences to deliberately misconstrue the overall meaning.

I'm not sure if terrestrial data is held as FITS files, that's all. I know that data from particular telescopes is. This doesn't change the fact that I am full cognizant of the methods used to prepare such images, does it?

So, tell me what direct experience you have of real astronomical research, and what tools _you_ have used. MS Paint, perchance?

Our experience, or research we have done jointly, was requested by NASA for perusal. They accepted our methodology of research along with our theory. It has yet to be disproved. :)

We never had to resort to any picture manipulation to prove our theory. :D

Our experience, or research we have done jointly, was requested by NASA for perusal. They accepted our methodology of research along with our theory. It has yet to be disproved. :)

We never had to resort to any picture manipulation to prove our theory. :D


You haven't proved a thing. You don't even have a theory per se...you hypothesised this whole deal. It's as good as calling it make believe.

NASA support you? More lies and ignorance Norval...that's all you do at this point can't you.

Denial is so unbecoming of you BHS

We have posted the evidence BHS,,, give up the denial.

We have posted the evidence BHS,,, give up the denial.

Um..since when?

Our experience, or research we have done jointly, was requested by NASA for perusal. They accepted our methodology of research along with our theory. It has yet to be disproved. :)

We never had to resort to any picture manipulation to prove our theory. :D

'requested' by NASA? Really? I'd love to see a scan of that letter, please link it.

Or did you send them a copy, and they filed it in the round mesh file under their desks ;-) .

It was Phlogi, it is the threads here.
Go fish. :)

So you are saying NASA contacted you and asked you for details about your research after reading your posts on this board?

Or you think that NASA must have read what you;ve posted heer, and because they haven't told you it's untrue, it still might be right?

Please explain in more detail.

No. :rolleyes:

No. (FOCLMAO)

No. Go read our web site Phlogi. :D

Wow, now those are constructive comments!

They are also probably the most supportable ones you have made. The shorter your posts, the more accurate they seem to be. You should try to optomize this accuracy... hmmm.... now how would you do that? Shorter postmore accurate, so the most accurate would be....

To Persol

.!..

Is that short enough for you? :D

That is the question after all isn’t it?
Why IS NASA editing the images and not disclosing all of the images being sent back?

This is to be discussed and explored in a new thread being started soon.
:m:

Why IS NASA editing the images and not disclosing all of the images being sent back?


What images are they not "disclosing" that you see as hiding? So just because images are processed means horrible editing is going on?

Okay lets ascertain this, Firstly People will always question what images are supposedly edited, because the same point is always pointed out;

"Why release an edited picture when you can just with-hold an image altogether?".

I know that Blackholesun might seem Repetative to you Norval but if he's not going to ask those questions, it will be someone else. I will state though that the personal attacks have been on the increase again which should halt post haste. This is not directed at any one individual since a number of you have been "inciting to riot" again.

(This is why I have edited a few posts and deleted one)

No. :rolleyes:

No. (FOCLMAO)

No. Go read our web site Phlogi. :D

I'd rather you explain yourself here, thanks.

Stryder
"Why release an edited picture when you can just with-hold an image altogether?".

Obviously, since NASA does all the hype about their magnificent projects they have to follow thru with some form of hype or results from their magnificent projects.

Stryder, continue editing so you can stay in your comfort zone, have some blueberry muffins with your coffee and editor.
:D

Decades later we start to get the rest of the story.

:D

Sir Charles Shultz..

Although he is leading the charges against a Nasa that Tampers with Data .. He still is clueless to the over all reality of the deception..


http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASASKIES.htm

Poor Sir Charles..

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/opportunity/20040506a/04-SS-04-Burns-B101R1.jpg

Poor Sir Charles he says he feels there is no intelligent life on mars only biological..

And he looks at images so close as to discover urchins.. Yet I am amazed at how both he and I look at the same image and see something totally different..

He looks at this image .. and wondered why they were altering the sky..?

And yet there on the ground before him, he can't see the forest through the trees..

http://www.longislandlan.com/sol97sircharles1.jpg
http://www.longislandlan.com/sol97sircharles2.jpg

'Sir Charles Shultz'? Interestingly, Burkes Peerage have no listing for a 'Shultz'.

Where's he from?

http://www.marsnews.com/articles/20021108-did_nasa_prove_their_own_fraud_in_cydonia_releases .html

Sorry for the poor spelling

Charles Shults III

http://www.longislandlan.com/shults.wma

Looks to me like two seperate images taken at two different timepoints. Alteration in what is actually in the picture is caused by an orbit change as the satellite comes around to take a picture at that coordinate again.

Maybe Global warming is causing us to melt the tip of the Iceberg faster?


http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata1.html

Sol 180

http://www.longislandlan.com/sol180.jpg

OH NO! There's a big red arrow on Mars!!!!!

This can't be good!

sol 285

http://www.longislandlan.com/sol285.jpg

fluid1959,

this is a open forum, anyone can comment... and laugh at you. :D

to be laughed at by the likes of you .. Is an honor...
As you have nothing to offer.. And many here know.. that you have nothing to offer.. So keep laughing... I am...

Geez this Forum is filled with the people that designed the pancam camera's on the Rovers.. No wonder the pictures are so sharp lol

I have offer a lot to this forum, my services are in fact needed, unlike you.

http://www.longislandlan.com/sol285.jpgOh oh... let me guess, they forgot to cover up the picture of the ocean of oil on Mars.

Do you think Bush knows?

LOL

Darn your so funny Persol.. Thank you for your genius and insight .. your great.. A legend..
Everyone here at Sciforums is marveled by your brilliance..

Keep up the good work.... Cause your really smart..

>>>>Everyone here at Sciforums is marveled by your brilliance..

well he is pretty sensible....which is nice to see.

:-)

If you really want a battle of wits...

Stop showing up unarmed....

Come on now... at least be original.

Sol 162
http://www.longislandlan.com/pancamsol162.jpg

The unbelievable clarity of the Pancam images.. Can only be surpassed by the clarity of genius in you "persol" and others here that share your genius and insight....


http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_instru_pancam.html

When I look up at the sky and see shapes in the clouds it does not mean that the clouds become these faces, birds, whatever. The same goes for the mars images. In a mars image most of us could find something familiar, but just because it looks like a bone does not make it a bone.

Im also amazed that people who claim to know a lot about digital images, can't identify jpg artifacts. In one of the links in this thread, it looks like the person playing with the images is saving them each step as jpg, and thus adding more noise at each step. Then in the end highlighting the artifacts as evidence of a cover up.

Also the images from mars are HDR (High Dynamic Range) images. That is the colour information for each pixel is stashed as ether 16bit interger (281,474 billion colours)or 32bit float (79 Billion Billion Billion colours). Only the latest graphic cards can display these images correctly and most software including photoshop can not handle these images. There is definitely no support for these types of images in web browsers. So taking a jpg from the net and adjusting the contrast / brightness / saturation and then combining them into a single images will produce incorrect results.

I suggest that you net picture hackers learn a little about HDR images.

http://www.ict.usc.edu/graphics/HDRShop/main-pages/intro.html

Correction Pancam is 12bits per pixel, not 16.

More info on pancam
http://athena.cornell.edu/pdf/tb_pancam.pdf

If every color is 12 bit then it comes in at 36bits! Each color is taken with a different filter, for a color image 3 picture are needed at red, green and blue spectra.

[QUOTE=Blindman] When I look up at the sky and see shapes in the clouds it does not mean that the clouds become these faces, birds,

There is your problem... When most people look up in the sky at clouds they see things that resemble things.. And they know they are looking at clouds...

Blindness is only one of your symptoms.. Unlike you... Us Image Hackers know when we are looking at clouds and know when we are not..

But those issues have nothing to do with why NASA is Tampering and distorting Facts and Data..

If you feel they are not doing this .. You must be deafman as well...

Every comment by NASA is meant to deceive .. for instance..these are some of NASA's Favorite adjectives..

"The world gets to see the rusty, dusty martian terrain as if humans themselves were riding atop the rovers

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/opportunity/20040709.html


Ever stop to think 287 sol days for a rover designed for 90 days..

No dust at all on the solar panels .. None .. Zilch.. Try to include some facts based in reality when you make statements.. "not NASA's Version of reality " of course...

A few articles ..
http://www.marsnews.com/articles/20021108-did_nasa_prove_their_own_fraud_in_cydonia_releases .html
http://www.xenotechresearch.com/NASASKIES.htm
http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata1.html
http://mars-news.de/life/
http://www.anomalous-images.com/
http://marsanomalyresearch.com/

You zoom in on a picture and then wonder why it's distorted. What an idiot. Hasn't Marsha fired you yet?

I personally find this funny: Now I took this sample and selected a spot of the brown sky at random. I then did a "selective replacement" of that one color value with red. Normal images will have thousands of different shades in them, not a single uniform shade. What happened?Have you EVER taken a picture of a clear day? Or a foggy day? Guess what, same results. The image is obviously smoothed, what do you expect?

Thanks again Persol , your a legend ...
Thanks for the input


Unfortunately calling people idiots.. Is the biggest sign of ignorance..

I will e-mail the moderator in an attempt to keep you following the rules that others here seem to follow..

As always you never surprise me with your level of genius. You are the Winner
the first person to resort to name calling in this thread.. ( but I understand,, Your frustration in trying to communicate your genius.

These kinds of issues must often lead you down that path of name calling..

Ah yes, don't actually address any points. Just complain that I called you an idiot.

Idiot.

Goading people into namecalling is just as bad as actual name calling.

What I ca't understand is why you people waste your time looking at pictures NASA has outputted and defiantly suggesting they have been doctoring images, purely because you don't work for NASA and therefore don't get to deal with them first hand.

It's been stated multiple times why the images are like that, for one you are looking at images they wanted "cleaned up" for Press releases like tabloid publications and magazines, even televised news reports. All of those need pictures of Clarity, not murky blank and whites, or images with an odd skyline but ones that could be classed "A postcard from Mars".

It's even been explained that their image's are a higher quality in their lab as aposed to images that are released upon the internet, this is because of the sizes on the internet, and the fact that they have already sifted through the images for interesting information by that point so there is no point keeping the images in their full quality (and of course own extension).

What also has been mentioned is the loss of quality in JPEG this is caused by the way the size of the file is manipulated through the information being stored in a Vector format. This means generating smallers sizes at the expense of the loss of quality.

It's also been mentioned that if NASA was to hide something, they wouldn't output doctored images since the individuals that would have seen anything that would have to be doctored would have to undergo some form of secrecy bill. Therefore both the "witnesses" would be silent, and the images would never see light in a doctored or undoctored form.

If you or your conspiracy buff friends are going to say NASA is covering things up, then confront NASA rather than continuing your conspiracy since you lack credible proof.

Persol wasn't right to call you an idiot, however that doesn't mean you haven't been acting like one with this dillusion.

And, this is why we call this place scifoolems forums. NASA constantly doctors images and releases them. There have been enough whistle blowers that if one doesn’t comprehend the magnitude of this cover up or chooses to ignore it, go figure? One has to ask why any sentient intelligent being could just ignore all that is now known?

Or is there a reason for such activities that would undermine those that would want the truth?

No dust at all on the solar panels .. None .. Zilch.. Try to include some facts based in reality when you make statements.. "not NASA's Version of reality " of course...

And this is because you did the tests to determine the specula index of the solar panels and compared them to early ones thus determining that no dust has settled. Or maybe you have direct readings of the power output, was able to do the math to allow for time of sol and orientation of the rover to determine that apart from the natural decay of the solar cells there is no power reduction due to dust.
Or did you just look at a picture a say that's not dusty. May be a alien should place "Please clean me !' in the dust for you to make it out.
To look for dust on the panels you need to view the image that has used the L2 or R2 filter because these are the ones tuned to the mars dust.
Once again all images from NASA have been edited because most of you don't know how to view the raw data.

The one point you do make is .. This advanced pancam camera isn't advanced enough to image its own solar panels.. And maybe the reason you can't make anything out .. Is because that dark tunnel up ahead is the rear entrance to NASA.. And you can't seem to pull your head free.. Or maybe your dyslexic and you just can't help getting the facts backwards.. Or maybe your some religious partisan nut, that clutches his bible at night with the sheets over your head and can't face reality....

Or maybe your just waiting for Good Ol George W Bush to tell ya everything is fine.. they found the WMD's

Maybe you should do some research learn and grow,, Instead of building your
little house on stilts..

This advanced pancam camera isn't advanced enough to image its own solar panels
Looks dusty to me.
Left pancam filter 2 sol 273.http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/273/2P150603497EDN8953P2102L2M1.JPG

You should at least attempt a little research before stating the facts..

Hiding behind your brilliance.. Is an amazing feat..

http://www.longislandlan.com/optics.jpg

When you do wake up ... your going to feel real lonely..

fluid1959,

Your logic is so flawed that I seriously doubt you believe what your saying.

I beg to differ about who's logic is flawed.. In fact I would go so far as to say.. Logic is not part of your equations..

http://www.longislandlan.com/sol285x.jpg

If my logic was flawed, I would be argeeing with you :p

Read this! Full pdf document here.. If you have any scientific credentials.. lol

http://www.agu.org/journals/je/je0311/2003JE002070/2003JE002070.pdf


2. Pancam Investigation Objectives
The primary science goal of the MER Athena investigation is to determine the aqueous, climatic,
and geologic history of sites on Mars where conditions may have been favorable to the
preservation of evidence of pre-biotic or biotic processes (Squyres et al., 2003). Pancam has
been designed and will be operated on Mars with the aim of supporting this primary goal and a
number of related scientific and measurement objectives.



2.1.1. Geology/Geomorphology. Substantial information useful for the interpretation of
the past history of a landing site can come from simply acquiring images of the surroundings.
The MER mission rovers are highly capable in this regard because each is endowed with 9
cameras (4 stereo pairs and one micro-imager) plus a descent imaging system on the lander itself.
Pancam is the highest spatial resolution stereo imaging system on the rovers. Like the Viking
and Pathfinder imaging systems, Pancam has the capability to generate panoramas of the
surrounding terrain spanning the full 360° of azimuth. However, the high-resolution capabilities
of Pancam (0.27 mrad/pixel IFOV, corresponding to ~1 mm/pixel at a range of 3 m from the
rover) provide approximately a factor of three better resolving power than the Viking Lander
cameras or Mars Pathfinder IMP imaging system.


First, it provides the equivalent of
20/20 human vision. (what human Mr. Magoo)

We know that 20/20 vision in the field, when coupled with surface mobility,
provides a good capability for a human geologist to make observations and to formulate and test
hypotheses based on these observations. Second, a resolution of 0.28±0.02 mrad/pixel is an
appropriate value for assessment of distant rover obstacles. Pancam provides a spatial resolution
of 2.8 cm/pixel at a range of 100 meters, which is the maximum distance that the MER rovers
can be expected to traverse in one sol.

Are they talking about the same camera?

In case math isn't your thing 1 in = 2.54 cm

http://www.longislandlan.com/magoo.jpg

Your not to bright are you. Nice pictures but what they have to do with your argument alludes me.
A normal human 6/6 vision = 1arc minute at 6 meters = 1.745mm
Pancam has 6/6.23 vision witch is slightly better then a normal human.
PS 6/6 vision is the metric version of 20/20

http://www.longislandlan.com/sol180.jpg

LOL

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA06881.jpg

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg/PIA05197.jpg

It's the Moessbauer spectrometer's imprint in the soil.......idiot.....

Well what seems to allude you.. is common sense..
the camera specs = 1 pixel represents approx 1 inch at 100 meters..

When in fact at aproximately at fifty meters all is just a blurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..
But you couldn't deduce that.. Because your too smart for me..

I am yet to look at any image (set of images) Stereo (not mosaics IE pia4995.tif that even comes close to half the resolution of the specs..

Specs read as the pancam images are Equal to a human's 20/20 vision or slightly better..

When someone looks down at their feet with advanced stages of cateracts they would see clearer than this Pancam... Blurry Muted images (do not constute 20/20 vision..



Your not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you.?

fluid1959,

the picture you have posted is not a raw image.

Fluid still doesn't grasp that .jpegs are not the raw data gathered from the camera.

Sad, infuriating, but that's what we have to work with.

I dunno how it works with NASA data, but with European missions, the PI (Principle Investigator, for Fluid, and anybody else that doesn't know how science works), only gets exclusive rights to the data for one year. They have a one year headstart to analyse and publish their data, then it becomes available to the public, via some archive. I helped set up one of the first astronomical databases which was open to the public, when we first realised the power of the fusion of databases, and web servers, in the '90s. Previously we'd used anonymous ftp, over academic networks, so access was restricted to Universities etc. Now, anybody can get astronomial data, and analyse it.

If NASA dont allow the general pubic access to it's data, the answer is simple, Fluid. Get a degree, start a PhD, and apply for access. You'll get the data, it could be yours in three years or thereabouts. Isn't three years worth of study worth it, to answer all your questions? How curious are you? Enough to read a real science book for a few years?

Fluid1959, for the benefit of people like me - who haven't been following all of your your posts - could you possibly state your opinion of what NASA are hiding and how they're doing it?

Cheers

Some things to consider:

1. NASA is barely scraping by with its budget. If anything, I would expect them to fake evidence in favor of life on Mars, rather than cover it up. At least then they might get some funding.

2. Why would NASA even bother editing out things that they don’t want people to see in their photographs? It would be a lot easier to simply not release them, wouldn’t it? Surely they could manage a few photos that didn’t have any sensitive things in them for public consumption.

3. JPL has some of the most sophisticated image processing and analysis facilities in the world. If they wanted to alter pictures, I’m sure they could do a lot better than using Adobe Photoshop. Frankly, if the JPL people wanted to start faking photos I doubt that anyone would be able to catch them at it.

Most people realize that NASA compresses pictures they release to the public, and that you can't zoom in on a compressed picture... let along a jpeg.

idiot here doesn't understand that, which is the sole basis of all his posts.

Most people realize that NASA compresses pictures they release to the public, and that you can't zoom in on a compressed picture... let along a jpeg.

idiot here doesn't understand that, which is the sole basis of all his posts.

Correction the sole Basis for my posts is to show other readers here how ignorant you and your comrads really are... That you neither have fact nor understanding of anything, let alone a complex issue about NASA forgeries..

And I consider it my duty to keep informing everyone here at Essence of Science Forum of your complete and utter incompetence.... Maybe you should run for president..

Maybe I should.

"Vote for Persol. He'll send the kooks to prison camp."

The union of concerned scientists, over 5000 folks, some of them with Nobel prizes have filed a petition because science is being {manipulated}..

Listen to show about petition free..


"What's Next:Earth Is Flat?

Bush administration officials have continued to spin, manipulate, and suppress scientific facts in pursuit of political goals—despite a plea from 5,000 top U.S. scientists to restore scientific integrity to the policy making process. "
http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm

Persol some day when you grow up .. you will still be stupid..


http://www.npr.org/programs/tavis/ press listen to tuesday`s show

Still you cant find proof. The article made no mention of NASA or images, and nothing in regard to space exploration.
from article
Given the lack of serious consideration and response by the administration to concerns raised by scores of prominent scientists
Sound like cry baby cry. Disenfranchised greenies try to make noise.

You are the one that should grow up, and when you do you will realize how gullible you are.

Valid questions, Why is Nasa editing Rover Images

It is very simple, their extreme fear and extensive ignorance.

This is all getting very "Paul W. Dixon".
See y'all in five years:)

Dee Cee

It is very simple, their extreme fear and extensive ignorance.

Did you mean NASA or Persol/Blindone/stryderunknowledgeble.. Well I guess it wouldn't matter since your right on both accounts..

Blurry Images from 480 million dollars worth of rolling camera.. And they only seem concerned with justifying why those blurry images are just great...

Don't doubt the hand that feeds you..... With the free thinking discussions that happen here.. I now understand how bush was put in office in the first place..

As Bush stated so clearly wmd, wmd ,wmd wmd .. Ties to Alquida WMD WmD

No weapons of Mass distruction found ? .. Well Saddam is a BAD MAN........

He killed is own people.. Bad Bad Bad.. News Flash

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

Thats 100,000 unarmed civilian families joining the I hate America Club......

Fluid it's because you have a long history of seeing things that aren't there, notibly in rock formations to begin with, now the pictures that you attempt to ridicule without any real proof.

Have you attempted to ask NASA for true pictures as apposed to PR/web ones? I guess not, of course if you take to them the attitude you've shown here then that is probably why they wouldn't let you see the higher quality files.

Nowadays if people wanted to fake things it would be simple, they would just use CGI and run some filters over the top to make it look real. (UNREAL<SUP>TM</SUP> for you)

I mention this for two simple reasons:
1: Why release images that have something that needs to be doctored?
2: Why not fake images that don't need doctoring?

Due to this becoming a Farce, in the sense that the same stuff is said over and over again, and the fact that your taking the post into Politics which there is a seperate forum for, I'm closing this thread, until you can actually find real proof to substantiate your claim.