Life on Mars Likely, Scientist Claims

reply to post by vze2xjjk


That is not the proof I requested, that is the same "evidence" I said it was not necessary for you to post again...

But I can use this opportunity (no pun intended) to try to explain my point of view.

That stereo image was created with the same grayscale images that you consider "masked", but they have some transparency so the 3D effect can be created when using red-blue glasses.

That transparency makes the "figure" assume a different look, not only the "red version" but also the "blue version", the one that you apparently ignore when trying to prove that the images were "masked".


Why don't you apply the same filters that you used in the "red version" to this image? Because it would look something like this?


The transparency also changes other parts of the image. Why don't you say that NASA masked the solar panels and that we can see the "less tampered" version in this stereo image?


You don't say it probably because it would be ridiculous, anyone can see that the difference is that we can see the ground from the "composite version" behind the translucent panel of the "red version".

The same thing is happening with the "figure", nothing more, nothing less.

And I didn't notice any movement between photos (those photos were taken several seconds apart).


PS: if you want to "unmask" a photo, try this.

Here you have two photos, taken by me. One was "tampered" the other wasn't. Can you say which one was "tampered" and "unmask" what was originaly on the "tampered" photo?

Image 1
Image 2

reply to post by rikriley

Hi Rik,when I designed the rovers early 1987 I had no contact with anyone in Nasa or military or JPL.It was done just as a citizen,independently ,alone without letting people ,even close friends know what I was doing.Even my parents only learned about it after the fact when I told them.They get told when it makes the news at home. My opportunity came when I sent Star Trek designs for their shows. My contributions to Nasa and Trek were all hand drawn,hand written with all kinds of instructions written in margins. I had no inside info about anything existing on Mars,whether biological or black ops or bases or underground. I only hoped that there were civilizations underground,and I thought I was being overly optimistic and unscientific wishfully dreaming. I was going under the assumption that at very least there had to be bacteria a few inches or feet underground that was living.I was not prepared in 1987 to know how full of large life Mars was,and life there actually would flock to the rovers. It just makes me angry now to think how badly we've been lied to and misled. You know what's strange? I can't remember having ever been taught about Mars in school or college.It was a dead issue.I'm not even a geek or nerd.Ok a Trekkie,but no conventions. I was following JFK idealism,"Ask not what your country can do for you.Ask what you can do for your country."

reply to post by ArMaP

That was considerate of you to post the reference pics.Yes.correct I used the red which was positioned where the sandmarie sat using the frames of reference most common to the large audience,so the decision was in a sense made for me by the positioning and background.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Simcity I don't know what crap you have read, but the Viking Landers showed conclusively that there was no organic reactions occurring at those landing sites.

Which hardly explains why the first official announcement from NASA was that they found life on Mars. Can you explain how that mistake crept in there or , more interestingly, why they then changed their minds and decided that the pre mission specifications ( which had been met) where no longer sufficient for proof of life?

Stellar

Keith Laney Viking pics www.keithlaney.net... www.keithlaney.net... I used negative image to find life. Not the best pics to prove a case because of pixelation,but these are all live faces because they all stare directly at the huge hulking lander.Look at them coexisting of different species and sheer numbers.The proofs will get better later.

www.keithlaney.net... www.keithlaney.net... Thanks to Keith Laney for great images. This is a follow-up,showing a wider area of same Viking Snow photo,and larger life than aiming first at the ground. I'm out on a limb because the detail is 1970's but digitized.I'm using negative images to show the other side of the iceberg of Nasa Masking. A large chunk of a head was removed. You'll need an iron will,5 whole minutes to get to see some of the tougher faces. If you have no prior reference of seeing Mars animals it could be longer. 2004-2008 Mars pics are so much easier to see. Dr. Levin found life on Mars in the 1970's,but I wonder if he saw faces yet???

reply to post by vze2xjjk


I don't think the Viking images were digitized, they were transfered from tape to CD-ROM, but they were allready in a digital format, the best way of transmiting data.

But if you designed the rovers you should know that, right.

This is an image made with the red, green and blue images from Viking 2 available on the PDS imaging node.

reply to post by ArMaP


By "digitized" I just assumed you'd all understand,pixelized manipulation,and in the case above,most clearly seen in the NEGATIVE image which few will see,so why bother worrying about the manipulation getting discovered in negative when few people look there? But,moving on... here's the pic you present with even clearer examples of masking.The heads of animals are pretty clear by their outlines and facial details.Yet look back athe the pic you presented and those details have been washed out deliberatly,nasa masking style...just blur it out until it looks like an odd rock.Problem is that the faces all point the same way toward VIKING,so that orientation helps me find them.All Eyes point to VIKING. Can anyone else see a reddish snake crawling over the circular pad/plate? If it has tiny legs toward the front and a golf ball sized head and is a few feet long,about as thick around as a walking stick,and causing a trail in the sand then that's one of the common small snake-like creatures of Mars. If I'm wrong then it's man made.

The monsters are never under the bed.They are ALWAYS in the closet. I see faces,not just rocks. I see 32 years of lies,when I never suspected in 1976 that the mental giants feared Mars dragons. The dragons on Earth are mostly mythological,but did we fear and kill them here? The faces stare back at Viking Lander. Deny blindness.

reply to post by vze2xjjk


vze, I want to commend you for going out front taking a lot of heat about there being lifeforms on the surface of Mars. I can see the life form patterns, eyes, noses, mouths, and as bizarre as they may be in a few instances similar to life forms on Earth.

If I had not spent so many hours scanning and viewing the surface and seeing many of these lifeforms before it would be hard for me to believe life exists or existed on Mars. NASA is holding out big time on their findings even to the extent of them not coming clean that life truly exists on Mars.

I believe that the Phoenix Lander will finally discover simple life in its infancy. I also believe the Phoenix mission will confirm the macrobial lifeforms discovered and disputed by the Viking Mission Landers. Once this announcement is made it will open the door for the announcement of small and larger life forms over a 20 year period that you and I see presently on the surface of Mars.

Masking lifeforms is NASA's forte and they are good at it, and you have called their hand on doing so by them still hiding life forms and anomalies that they continue to camouflage. Stick to your course of exposing the truth about life on Mars no matter how many attack you for what you can see. Even though most humans on Earth can not see what you can by viewing and unmasking the photos they are blinded seeing these things by their own minds which is understandable as I was in the beginning.

Rik Riley



[edit on 22-5-2008 by rikriley]

reply to post by rikriley


I have never seen any unmasking done, only change of colours and resolution, and although it's difficult because we usually do not get any information about the original images, could you point to an example of unmasking that you have recognised as such?

Thanks.

[edit on 22/5/2008 by ArMaP]

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
Here's that proof you requested.This may be the 5th time I posted it on various threads,but I can't just assume you saw it.That could be a mistake on my part.

Now look for those facial features in the the BLACKFACE DESTROY THE DATA pic(that would be #2 above). That's called masking.Nasa wants nondisclosure about life on Mars and THREATENS their employees with JAIL and /or FINES for disclosing secret Nasa info about what they discover .Draconian? Freindly? Are we hididng something perhaps? Legal penalties for discussing life,revealing life with news media. Is that Nazi tactics or just corporate protection?Does the public really need to know about life on Mars? Should we allow other space agencies in other countries to start a space race with this knowledge so that they gain any technology advantage or first contact advantage with various Mars peoples? Why aren't we sending manned missions to Mars in the next decade? What would Von Braun say? ****** in case you missed it the sandmarie's head moved between frames as you can see plainly by looking at all these pics.That means she is alive and that's why Nasa covered it up.BLASTOFF !!!!!!

ArMap, this is what I call unmasking the mask the technique vze uses to uncover NASA's doctored camouflaged images of lifeforms. vze is way ahead of the curve and has caught NASA at their own game hiding things. Rik Riley

[edit on 22-5-2008 by rikriley]

I think what you have there is a whole bunch of matrixing. Here an example of matrixing that I encountered on my honeymoon last year.

Meet Mr Happy Rock Face:

reply to post by rikriley


That is not unmasking, that image was the image made with two superimposed images for stereoscopic view.

What he said was masked was in fact the other image seen through.

If anyone wants to try to unmask anything then he/she should use the original images, not images that were made with two images superimposed.

Unfortunately those images will only be available in their original IMG format on August 12, so we limited to the JPEG versions.

But regardless of file format, (in this case, both IMG and JPEG are "flat" image files) there is no way of knowing what was on a photo once the photo is "masked" or edited in some way to remove or hide something, things will only be visible if the person who did the masking wants it.

It's not like putting a new wall paper over the wall, in that case you can get to the previous paper by removing the new one, in photo editing with "flat" formats there is only one layer of pixels, so it's not possible to "see" what was there before, and it's useless to try.

Those that think that they can do it are fooling other people or themselves, they are trying to make impossible things, and in some cases the result is a new image that is not related to a supposed original and that is solely the result of the work of the person that tried to "unmask" it.

If it was possible to "unmask" images don't you think that people would be able to see what is the FOIA released documents that are painted over? It would be enough to "unmask" them to see what was behind, why don't they do it? Because it's impossible, and that is why they mask the images in that way.

Sorry if my explanation is a bit messed-up, I think I wrote it a mixed-up way, but it's the best I can do, even in Portuguese my explanations are a bit messed-up.

I hope you understand what I mean.

One more try to unveil the nasa lies,how they BLACKFACE images to COVER UP the truth like a dog who burries a bone. One pic has 1 face,and the other has 2 faces.One is a lie.One is the truth. You don't spend billions of tax dollars and lie to the public without getting called on it when it's so obvious.You can't fool all the people all the time.

reply to post by vze2xjjk


OK, one more try to see if you understand what you are doing.

You are using an image composed of two translucent images to "prove" that NASA masks the images.

You see a face in one of the images because the transparency shows both images at the same time, but that translucent images are not real, they were made translucent just to use in a stereoscopic view (one of those where we wear glasses with a blue (or green) and a red plastic sheet in place of the lens), and although I cannot say for sure if NASA blackened the other image, the only thing I can say is that you cannot use a translucid version of an image that is showing two things in the same place to prove that the original image was altered.

reply to post by rikriley


Rik, I hope you get what you want from Phoenix lander.I have some preliminary findings on the Phoenix thread. I'm very interested in the results of their findings. The land looks like OP site,but animals look like the ones at Spirit.Amazing numbers of them too,surprisingly.

reply to post by ArMaP


If nasa did not mask the face then every pic should look the same.If one is black,without light at all,and another has symetrical facial detail,then one image is a fraud,and nasa is fraudulently presenting images to the public. All the faces should look the same.They don't.Why don't they all have facial detail? I celebrate your negativity.

im not optimistic theres life on mars. The atmosphere is so sterile it doesnt appear to be a planet with lots of life. Perhaps much deeper down there maybe microbes but certainly not within phoenixs reach.

Originally posted by vze2xjjk
If nasa did not mask the face then every pic should look the same.

No, there are two obvious reasons for the pics not to look the same:

1 - The photos were taken from two different angles (the right and left panoramic cameras)

2 - The time of day is not the same, so the light source has moved between shots, making different shadows and illuminating better some areas in specific photos.

If one is black,without light at all,and another has symetrical facial detail,then one image is a fraud,and nasa is fraudulently presenting images to the public.

If you are talking about this image

that I suppose was made from this image

then yes, that it's not a real photo, as I have said many times, that image is a composite of two images from the left and right panoramic camera to create an artificial 3D look when seen with those glasses that have a blue (or green) and a red lens, and what you say are the "facial features" is just the ground behind the "figure" seen through the translucent "figure".

If I create an anaglyph like that it will look different because I will probably use a different program and my inputs (points used to align the images, points used to fix rotation, points used to make the calculations of the relative distance, etc.) will be probably different.

As you can see, the "figures" look different because we can see a different area through them, making them look like they have features different from those on the NASA image.

The images I used were these two (left image, right image, and you can see that both have a black "face"), and my full anaglyph is here.

I celebrate your negativity.

Great, can I have some cake for the celebration?