"Skull statue" on Mars, very detailed object !

a reply to: Number17

It doesn't look like anything to me

originally posted by: LABTECH767

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LABTECH767

You can always check the individual images which make up the mosaic.
mars.nasa.gov...

Superb link and you may have just stopped me making a monkey of myself.

To late YOU accused NASA of something but again YOU are at fault why don't you post links to your other claims but I would double then triple check your claims first

a reply to: wmd_2008


Right I would just like to clarify that remark which, It was removed rightly because It looked like I was making a joke about the artefact, I was not it was actually a reference to the Air Brush monkey's.

I do not accuse NASA but rather whom or whatever is behind them and that is apparently not the US government at a public level but may have more to do with the wish to hide site's of potential technology by some defence or industry controlling cartel - CARTEL.

Why, well it is simple really, you know about it you may be able if not now then some day to recover and potentially reverse engineer any technology, for example a ruined alien city or base on the moon or mars WOULD be a potential site for multiple new technology's and if you know anything about the US department of Defence then you know that a hell of a lot of inventor's in the US have had there patent's seized under the pretence of national security though very few of those patent's have then ever been actually used in said field while a lot more of them have been used in non military application's and ended up being marketed back in the Civilian sector by company's' that are related to or part of the MIC with little or absolutely no recognition given to the original inventor's or them receiving a small amount in exchange for signing there right's away after the fact with a threat of that or nothing.

However as far as this image is concerned if it is made up of a mosaic then it remains' a possibility that some images would be out of focus, if however it have been a single image not a mosaic then I would have stood by my comment.

Here is more on the Air Brush MONKEY's,
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

You yourself already know about these claim's, and if it had been a single image the fuzzy messed up AIR BRUSH like section of the image would have been almost definite proof of an Air Brush type technique although a more up to date digital one having been used to obfuscate that section and hide what it really showed from the public.

Even though because of the nature of this image that can not be Realistically claimed due to there being other potential reason's for this area of image artefact it is still worth considering.

Remember when all logical explanation's are exhausted only the illogical explanation's remain as valid one's BUT unfortunately in this case despite how Air Brushed it look's that can not be claimed as the only solution and the logical one's are still on the board which pushes it into third or fourth place in that hierarchy of potential explanation's with Stretching and lower resolution mosaic imagery being a more logical explanation if not one that I personally like.

I hope that clear's up my point.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Donna Hare a conspiracy cliche if there ever was one, claims with NOTHING to back them up.

You claim to have seen examples start a thread and lets see what you think you have.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Absolutely no need pal this subject have been gone over again and again on ATS, the Sceptics when they can disprove time and time again simply deny it, so you are asking me to post what has already been posted and to then sit back as the same crowd come in and deny, deny, deny.

As with the above explanation I am open minded but you know what most sceptic's are closed minded, not all by any mean's but the majority or they have an agenda and it is not to re-educate or prove that a theory is wrong, no something else drive's them.


www.abovetopsecret.com...
truestrange.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


So what is the point in getting into a circular argument.

a reply to: LABTECH767

No people like you don't understand what you see in images many of us you call sceptics are long time photographers and understand images better and the limitations of zooooooomming in that most of the threads on here are based on at work will post about your links later.

a reply to: wmd_2008

I am actually a trained observer, as you would expect from a CCTV operator and former front line retail security officer with over 10 years in that profession.

Now maybe that does not make me a geologist but hey I also studied electronic's to degree level (before having to drop out long long ago after some serious head injury's and before that chemistry and physics to AS level - before I ever worked in private surveillance.

You really need to get your fact's streight and stop insulting people you have no idea about.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: wmd_2008

I am actually a trained observer, as you would expect from a CCTV operator and former front line retail security officer with over 10 years in that profession.

SERIOUSLY i have to get this out of the way just YOU really think that's a qualification to discuss images well 35+ years from my first film SLR at at 17 if fact to be exact 37 years about 2 weeks ago.

So 3 times LONGER than your ahmm experience watching low quality cctv and ACTUALLY taking images developing film, then on to the digital age doing the same ALL your examples have dead end links or have been explained before.

Threads like these are FULL of assumptions made by inexperienced or non qualified individuals who very often zoom so far that you see the pixels and no details as for trained observers we had one oh here Mike Singh who claimed a picture showed towers on the Moon until it was pointed out he was looking at the picture upside down and they were shadows and he was way more skilled than you. He claimed to be trained at looking at aerial photographs so the towers were not a shining example of his claimed skill.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Ahh I can not argue with that low quality is right, pelco spectra and they cause migrain's just watching the feedback, the live feed was never too bad, still not photographic level - a mate has a collection of cameras and is an amateur photographer, love's his fairly vintage eos the best for some reason, then again I also knew a guy who still used an old soviet made camera with east German optic's and a cloth shutter, he actually used to holiday in the USSR during the cold war but claimed you could buy thing's like that camera for a steal due to the then very favorable exchange rate.

But given the compression rate that Pelco installer's here in the UK put on there DVR (hard drive's) even the relatively Ok'ish image from a spectra system dropped down considerably and that is an understatment, it was not even half VGA resolution so you had to be eagle eye'd (And get your statement and crime (incident report's and police log number's, crime sheet number's etc) report done as quickly and efficiently as you could) to catch the thieve's and purse snatcher's as half the time the CCTV image was inadmissible due to it's extreme low quality after that compression had been applied to it, I wanted to reconfigure it and store the data at a higher resolution but the system admin would not allow it even though the file's only used a tenth of the available HD space, ancient history now thankfully let some other sap work with it.

Needless to say I looked with envy on the new ultra high definition PTZ's and high resolution storage that were then coming onto the market (But mostly used for air port's and air field monitoring as they were quite expensive).

And you do make a good point about pixelation, you know one of the US agency's actually had a very powerful program that could extrapolate - if there were enough image's at different angles, preferably moving image such as CCTV footage and create a fairly good restored higher resolution image by interpolating the data, of course I would assume that it would still not be as good as a native image taken at that resolution.


I am also fully aware of Jpeg compression and BMP artifact's, colour sampling artifact's that can both obscure detail and create phantom detail etc and that the NASA rover is by nature prone to these depending on the sampling rate of it's CCD's and also the compression necessary to send that data back to mission control.

For this reason Analogue imaging technology will always be better but of course far less practicle, analogue imaging can of course also pick up detail that the HUMAN eye's or in the case of Audio ear's can not hear, I can actually hear the difference in an analouge recording and a 256 bit audio compression, higher quality digital still dont sound as good to me but I can not distinguish them from lower ADC sample's especially if they are put through a decent DAC.

SO I am aware of what you are talking about, I still disagree on this point as you singled out my comment for attack simply because you are annoyed at other's point's of view and once again I reiterate your point of view is actually no more valid than any other's except in your professional field as that has been your career and by dint of it's nature you had to be aware of all possible methodologies that it required, Given your period in that profession I believe you worked through the transition from Analogue to Digital imaging and probably prefer the Analogue as do I.

Having looked at several image's I do believe that Airbrushing was performed but the modern (Digital compressed) image's are far more problematic for these reason's and unless the iamge is bang on in the reticle and zoomed it can be argued that they provide flawed evidence of even accepted data.

So I prefer the analogue film from the apollo mission's etc and of course you yourself are I assume versed in Air Brushing technique's, I make this assumption as to the length of time as a photographer (And I assume image fixer since not every shot is perfect and sometime's you need to save the shot to make it presentable/salable etc and so many photographers do so rather than scrap good shot's just because some idiot in the crowd make's a finger gesture that you don't want on that particular image).

And I will say this as far as Spectra were concerned, Frustrating so your eye's (And all your other senses) are the first line of defence and detection and the CCTV served more to raise potential suspect's etc and to act as a baseline visual deterrant.

So I personally used to start my shift and end it with a full perimeter sweep to ensure the site's were safe and secure, intermittent patrol's switching with my colleague's and ensuring all the other security system's EAS tagging etc were in place as well as checking vulnerable spot's were the coverage was not good or even non existant (Tesco in the UK love to save money and just do not comprehend the fact that as well as better quality they need full coverage in order to maintain CCTV scone (sorry it mean's Selection, Concealment (if they conceal some just try to walk for the door's), Observation (must be 100 % for it to be valid any lapse and you lose the chain of evidence and can only make an informed guess) Non Payment (retail obviously or past the last point of sale without paying - nab them as they exit the premises) and Egress (leaving without having first payed - yes it sound's like teaching your granny to suck egg's but even the best security make's mistake's).

Now I had some funny experience's, lost the plot on one occasion and gave chase to a knife wielding idiot whom had slashed my belly (only scratched it) only to see him nearly get himself killed (I would NOT have hurt him only restrained him to pass onto the relevant authority's/police) so you were saying about experience, believe me I have quite a few and had to act as professional witness on more than one occasion in the course of my job, being stabbed with a syringe was always my worst nightmare though and I managed somehow to avoid that little occurrence, some of my colleagues were not so lucky, one guy lost his wife because he was put on medical leave until he recieved a medical all clear, the stress of not knowing if he had contracted a disease from the junky (Smack head) tore his family apart, he could not use the same toilette, sleep with his wife and was afraid of exposing his kid's to it if he had contracted anything, needless to say he jacked the job in once he did get the all clear. ( just a not to any would be security - it is an awful crap and thankless job forget about it but you are not supposed to chase people if you are civilian security in the UK, insurance and in case they get hurt and turn around and sue you but adrenaline etc).

a reply to: LABTECH767

First of all with regards to your health issue if any of that was due to your work you should have a case for compensation, I know people who work in call centres and they have a right to breaks every hour from the screens for a minimum of at least 5 mins. Have you looked into that

As for images on here and most conspiracy sights a high proportion of members think CSI is a documentary. Once you get to one to one pixel size there is not much point in going further.

Technology Used

Some of the old probe tech used to photograph the Moon is interesting in the way it works for example.

The Lunar Orbiters had an ingenious imaging system, which consisted of a dual-lens camera, a film processing unit, a readout scanner, and a film handling apparatus. Both lenses, a 610-mm narrow angle high-resolution (HR) lens and an 80-mm wide-angle medium resolution (MR) lens, placed their frame exposures on a single roll of 70 mm film. The axes of the two cameras were coincident so the area imaged in the HR frames were centered within the MR frame areas. The film was moved during exposure to compensate for the spacecraft velocity, which was estimated by an electric-optical sensor. The film was then processed, scanned, and the images transmitted back to Earth.

So during that process there are lots of opportunities for errors during taking & transmission and of course when images are scanned and reproduced on Earth.

More modern missions say to Mars have be criticized on here for have 1 or 2 mp camera sensors now since missions can be planned over a few years before being launched they work with the tech at the time. The real problem is when members make comments like my iphone is 8 mp+ so is better well actually its NOT although these sensors are small in mega pixels they are LARGE in size compared to the phone sensor so can record images at LOWER light levels.

So that's just a couple of examples of how conspiracy believers can jump to conclusions about what they think they see.

Of course when it comes to images of the Moon surface they have sources like Apollo Image Gallery

Where the good the bad and the ugly of the Astronauts images can be seen they are NOT all perfect another claim conspiracy believers make.

a reply to: wmd_2008

True about those break's, try telling that to a supermarket manager though, it varies of course from site to site - I have thought about suing but have not pursued it (supposed to have about 20 minute off per hour but I have left that profession (if you can call it that) and my memory of those government recommended work place rule's may not be perfect).

You point about the rate of technological change from the early and build stage's of the deployment of such technology to the level of technology available after the fact is also an astute and very pertinent observation.

CCD's and other imagine transducers offer many advantage's over the old fashioned film media but as you point out are actually far from perfect, also they can and usually do suffer degradation over time which is in a way similar to when an old TFT screen start's to lose pixel's, I know the technology is at opposite end's of the imagine process but it is the best analogy.
Area's of the CCD may lose sensitivity and so the resolution can actually fall over time as the light sensitive component's in the CCD start to fail, if the CCD is of a higher resolution than the stored/transmitted data then this failing can also cause glitches in that data and cause area's were the image's has defect's but of course when that happen's it can be easily detected unless it is an intermittent fault, solid state devices and highly integrated devices are a pain for this, likely your CPU in your computer to draw another analogy came from the same run as much more expensive CPU's but due to to both batch requirement's and also quality failing's many CPU's are then downgraded, circuit pathways are not formed in the enclosing package (though the chip itself may be otherwise identical to a CPU costing twice as much) or are otherwise made unavailable through a firmware flashed onto the chip's static memory (chip's internal bios - basic input output system), years ago plenty of home modder's were able to re-activate certain batches of both intel and amd chip's to regain these locked off cores and often there was nothing wrong with them but some found they failed as there was something wrong with there particular chip or it's batch so it was a gamble that could actually harm there mainboard if there was).

But I am drifting here, the CCD is far from flawless, as you know so too is older photographic material though I as yet know of no CCD that can compete with the raw resolution of a good quality chemical film or the sensitivity of good quality infra red and ultra violette sensitive chemical film (I would imagine that once very expensive specialist stock is very hard to get your hand's on these day's).

But as we enter the realm of quantum level integration (Were moor's law has long failed) the level of quality is now perhaps higher than the human eye for some state of the art CCD's though perhaps only as yet in the manufacturers testing laboratory's, but they are coming.

But hey you know yourself it is the workman not the tools most of the time, give one person a camera and they can not take a shot to save there live's while another would win the amateur photographer magazine prize with no difficulty at all (Some of those prizes though boggled my mind, that guy who used to buy his in Russia (70's/80's) over here in Blighty won them several time's and proudly showed me his black and white image of a broken warehouse window taken at an oblique angle with his russian camera - nice light and shadow but why I still don't get what it was trying to say it was just a boring shot but then judge's eh? (then again I like classical art and can't stand abstract henry moor style modern art most of the time), he had this thing for taking image's while he was in Russia as well of photography prohibited sign's.

Still now there is a point, these civilian mission's are often using the best available NOT top secret technology at the time of there creation if not there launch and not always the highest resolution but often a compromise in favour of the best reliability and environmental tolerance for there mission (a Sony I-phone camera would probably have broken in that environment or died before it even got there and would potentially have failed due to the magnetic field's it was exposed too in it's flight being a far less than rugged consumer item), so even at the time they are built they are often not the very cutting edge of technology and often thing's such as there CCD's in there camera system are produced to order rather than off the shelf, even there discrete component's would have to be high quality but not necessarily cutting edge as far as state of the art technology's is concerned though of course they would be of the Very highest quality available given the cost of these mission's.

But what about if it had been a top secret mission, what technology is available to the surveilance agency's that even NASA never get's there hand's on, sad but true the technology to field a far superior mission was probably available but putting something into low earth orbit and onto mars are two completely different task's, one is shielded by our van allen belt's and has a specific task and a priority on it's optics etc, the other has to pass out were hard radiation and also vibration as well as other potential sources of damage and even more wild temperature variance can cause it harm and has to perform multiple different task's with the optic's being only one part of the mission.

So that compromise between resolution and rugged survivability also has to be factored into any post event analysis by the like's of us if we were really nit picking on that point.

a reply to: LABTECH767

I know a worker who took his employer to court because he had no defined work break because he worked alone at a branch and had to deal with customers whenever they appeared. Anyway he injured himself one day and got compensation for ALL his breaks stretching back years and also for the injury.

It would be worth looking at.

As for the tech looking down on us the best have Hubble sized mirrors but they still cant read newspaper/number plates as claimed still well below required res as for Mars/Moon HiRISE/LRO both have best resolution of 25cm pixel more than enough to see claimed buildings if they existed.