Proof Of NASA Editing Images! What Do They Want To Hide?

Originally posted by mikesingh
the apparent brush marks

Brush marks? Are you suggesting they are using actual paint brushes to alter digital images?

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by mikesingh
the apparent brush marks

Brush marks? Are you suggesting they are using actual paint brushes to alter digital images?

Nope! Brush meant 'airbrush'!!

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh
Brush meant 'airbrush'!!

Right. I've used an airbrush. "News Flash!".......they don't leave 'brush marks'.

Aside from that error, you're still suggesting they use mechanical means to alter digital images?

I know its early. Have another cup of coffee and try again.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by MrPenny]

Originally posted by mikesingh
The object enlarged. Obvious signs of tampering!! Until you show me the original pic without the 'tampering' so
we can see what the heck they've trying to cover!

I have no way of knowing if any of the pictures I find is the original or not, that is something that only someone involved in those projects can say.

Also, the fact that you posted the wrong coordinates did not help me to find the right place.

The coordinates are:
Latitude = -35 (not 35)
Longitude = 208

This is the image from Version 1.5 of the Clementine image browser.

This is the image from Version 2.0 (Beta)

I don't know why that image from version 1.5 looks so bad, but all the images from that version are really bad. You have to remember that these images are created on the fly using our input, and apparently they did a bad job in Version 1.5, and the images posted on Mars Anomaly Research look even worse, they look like they had a "sharpen" filter applied.

If you want to see the image of that area (the area marked with the arrows) from the available CD-ROMs, you can see it here.

Bellow you can see a JPG version created using the raw data from here.
You need NASAView, a freeware viewer you can download here, to see and convert those "img" files to GIF or JPG.

Ah, thanx Armap. I'll check this out when I get back! It's not a good idea looking for anomalies on a lap top in a bouncy car!!

Now have a look at this. Click on the link below. What do you think?



Here...

This is one of those occasions when my self-taught English shows its limitations.

After reading all that talk about "Evidence A1" and "Evidence A2", etc. several times I still do not understand what he means.

Here's some very interesting photos which show the same scene at different angles. At all angles the some objects seem to have been smudged by NASA. These photos WITH the smudges can be found directly on NASA or the military's website.


Courtesy: Urbanscraper

If it was a question of 'missing data' from a particular image then how is it possible to have data missing of the same area in images taken at different times and angles?

Cheers!

Originally posted by mikesingh
If it was a question of 'missing data' from a particular image then how is it possible to have data missing of the same area in images taken at different times and angles?

And how do we know that these are images taken at different times and angles? To me they look the same, the first two exactly as they were taken and the other two geometrically corrected, but I could be wrong.

If you could provide the source of those images we could see if they have any reference to where did they came from.

the other two geometrically corrected

They didn't have that kind of software, at the time, Armap.

Originally posted by ArMaP
And how do we know that these are images taken at different times and angles? To me they look the same, the first two exactly as they were taken and the other two geometrically corrected, but I could be wrong.

If you could provide the source of those images we could see if they have any reference to where did they came from.

They look allmost the same but the farside picture has a bigger angle. But both pictures have the same place edited, very strange. The anomaly pictures seem to be geometrically corrected and not a original photo because the crater edge seems alot flatter there.

Originally posted by undo

They didn't have that kind of software, at the time, Armap.

What time?

Do you know when these photos were taken? They look like the Clementine photos, but, as is common in threads like this, we do not have any reference to the source of the images.

And geometry correction is not a computer-specific work.

Originally posted by ArMaP


Do you know when these photos were taken? They look like the Clementine photos, but, as is common in threads like this, we do not have any reference to the source of the images.

And geometry correction is not a computer-specific work.

If i'm not mistaken, you're insinuating that a bunch of images were fed into a computer program and the camera is now moving around the environment in 3d space. that's really the only way to have the same anomalous smudged up blob show up in every photo of the moon in that area. but if you look at the smudges, even they are not uniform, because when the angle changes, the blob itself changes. perhaps i just don't understand what you mean by geometrically corrected.

[edit on 29-4-2007 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
If i'm not mistaken, you're insinuating that a bunch of images were fed into a computer program and the camera is now moving around the environment in 3d space.

No, what I mean is that the photos, any photos, if not take from a perfect 90 degrees angle, must corrected to compensate the perspective.

If, as in the case of the Moon and other planets, the photo is from something not completely flat, then the image must be corrected to compensate the planet's curvature, and the smaller the planet the bigger the correction.

That is more or less the same that happens with Earth maps and the projections systems used to try to show on a flat surface what a sphere (approximately) looks like.