Something is definitely up. They DID take down those Mars Curiosity thumbnails. Proof:

reply to post by impaired


sometimes its not NASA that makes the panoramas.. some of the apollo panorama shots were done by third parties just interested in the moon photos and put time in themselves to put it together.

Originally posted by mkkkay
Sorry! but this thread is to long for me to follow... for now.

I am wondering if some one compared the pic in high res from the nasa site and of your first post.

i think yours is clearer then the one they are showing...

The finger is less visible

edit on 17-8-2012 by mkkkay because: (no reason given)

When you click on [full resolution], for some reason the NASA site doesn't take you directly to the full rez version. As I stated in my previous post, click again on the image that comes up from the full rez tab and it will change to a higher resolution version identical to the OPs. (which btw is imo still a fairly disappointing resolution.

@ OP (if that's who's going at it with Phage)
I think you're being a bit harsh on Phage. Now I personally take everything Phage says with......well....not really a pinch of salt, but more like a seed spreader full of rocksalt for those icey winter days. It's not even particularly his fault, it's because he's chummy with Jim Oberg whom I know to be an enemy of the truth about places like Mars. (unless of course the Jim Oberg here is not the same Jim Oberg that got Ken Johnston fired from NASA for going through the archives looking for interesting images to give Richard C Hoagland to help his research).

Guillt by association I suppose. I can't fully trust anyone who's data is so often and so adamantly supported by Mr. Oberg.

But that doesn't change the fact that at least he's always attempting to help people by answering their questions, and typically uses what the majority would consider hard data. (I say that because I think any data from NASA/JPL suspect because I know they're hiding some big stuff). Phage is always respectful even when people bad mouth him or harass him. (is Phage a him anyway? IDK lol) So there's no reason to be disrespectfull to him. Question his data, question his motives, question anything you want, I consider it to be your duty to question everything. Especially things coming from NASA assuming Phage is in some way associated with them. But don't harass, don't attack, don't be disrespectfull.

And how would Phage have the answers to these strange questions you're asking anyway. Yes, the image came down, but you saved it before hand. But it came back up, and while I thought it was a lower rez version they put up in the original's place, it turns out you just click on that lower rez image and the original you posted comes up. So give Phage a break here. It's not like they put up a new version with some maybe "interesting" things no longer there. And if they did, you and others would have had the original to prove the cover-up.

Who knows? Maybe they even WERE going to edit something out, but decided against it because of how many people saw the original image thanks to you noticing what was going on, so they HAD to put the original back up. But whatever the case, the image is there now, and the things in the image that I found interesting are still there, and are also shown in other images of the same area.

You've done your job, and hey, amazing work on the image splicing. Gorgeous. I hope you do alot more of those. Focus on bringing out the truth within the images, instead of just going at it, and being disrespectfull in a completely pointless way towards someone who you (and I) may possibly suspect of being in on trying to hide the truth.

All that being said though.......Jim Oberg's evil-doings are well documented. Bother him all you like. LOL J/K

Hey guys - I posted this in the other threads.

The latest panorama with only one image missing (# 79).

Ohh! That's the year of my birth! Conspiracy!!!

gigapan.com...

www.360cities.net...

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mkkkay

 

It's just you.
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...
mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

Actually, click on your own link. You'll see that (at least on my browser) the image IS in fact a lower resolution. Almost like just a blow up of the thumbnail. But if you then click on that image again, it just changes to a higher resolution like in the original post.

And trust me, I know you linked to the full resolution version. I did also in my links. But when you click on that lower rez version you'll notice when it chages, it's instant, there's no address change. It's like a glitch on NASA's site maybe. The full rez links actually have two images, a lower and a higher resolution version of the same image. It's strange and is what's causing alot of people's confusion and suspicion. IMO anyway.

reply to post by Kangaruex4Ewe


**Redacted**

reply to post by Larry L

Emh when you first open up a high-res image the browser resizes it to fit your screen, once you click on it again you're basicly zooming in to the original scale.
There are two versions of the mars image 120x120 thumbnails and 1200x1200 high-res images. Thats it.
The one in the OP is 1200x1200, the other ones in Phage's post are 1200x1200 as well.
When the thread was created there were only thumbnails displayed on nasa's page (even though the highres files could've been reached by changing 1 symbol in the url of the thumbnail ). The high-res pictures are now there.

This won't be the first conspiracy cover up nor will it be the last!!

Originally posted by Spotless
reply to post by Larry L

 

Emh when you first open up a high-res image the browser resizes it to fit your screen, once you click on it again you're basicly zooming in to the original scale.
There are two versions of the mars image 120x120 thumbnails and 1200x1200 high-res images. Thats it.
The one in the OP is 1200x1200, the other ones in Phage's post are 1200x1200 as well.
When the thread was created there were only thumbnails displayed on nasa's page (even though the highres files could've been reached by changing 1 symbol in the url of the thumbnail ). The high-res pictures are now there.

Well I don't know about the resizing or whatever. All I know is, when I just click [full resolution], I get a picture on my screen that has a certain level of detail that looks horrible when I zoom in close. Very pixelated and very little detail when you zoom, I right clack and save image and look at it in the imager and it's the same.

But if I instead click on that image, and get the one I may be mistakenly calling higher resolution, the detail is FAR greater. When I zoom in, things are FAR less pixelated than the first image. And the results are the same when I save and view out of the browser.

To me, it looks like almost double the resolution. Though you're probably right about the resizing thing, I don't pretend to know the technicalities of it. But what I do know is; it looks like other people are also seeing this less detailed version that I'm talking about when they click on the full resolution links. I was just trying to tell him/them how I got to the more detailed image by clicking on the less detailed image, because it's not obvious to click on it.

I see a lil head

reply to post by Frankenchrist


haha, a we garden gnome, or a small headed dude with a night cap on, either way the rover has clearly drove over his nose

reply to post by Doodle19815


My eyes went immediately to the "finger" you saw. Very strange, it does resemble one. Maybe those at JPL should take a quick count on each hand? Perhaps at least a part of one of them made it to Mars! The first partial colonist. Richard Hoagland has been exploiting NASA's coverups for years and has some remarkable research at his site.
It is strange that NASA never seems to defend themselves against these tampering charges. Why not invite a small committee of respected ufologists and reporters attend the downloading from first to last step with transparency throughout. Even let this committee pick the targets to photograph, shoot the pix, and watch the download. In other words, the entire process, thereby at least partially quelling these disclosure demands. What do they fear? Give Hoagland, Moulton Howe and Friedman carte blanche for awhile at headquarters, and let them give orders to produce info and get unrestricted access. These folks wouldn't divulge national security secrets. And they are well trusted among the research community. Seems like just some common sense could relieve NASA of these headaches.

reply to post by impaired


They had to edit out the McDonalds Burger wrapper and empty, crushed Coke can.

Hehehehehehe

Not sure if I am trying to find something, but in top left corner probably moving closer to the center (lol sounds stupid) is that a petrified finger or something? Looks like a pointer finger..... maybe I want to see something really not sure, what does everyone think...

Oh sorry every one just saw you all noticed it too, just got on now, sorry again.

My friend,

Originally posted by impaired
reply to post by Spiro

 

Hey Spiro. Hey folks. Got a few hours of rest.

Since I believe myself to be humble, I will post this from the NASA site. We will see I was wrong about some things. I "should" give NASA credit for the images. Good work guys on being tenacious as to getting this into my skull (hey - I'm only human! I have a damned ego too!)

As a government entity, NASA does not "license" the use of NASA materials or sign license agreements. The Agency generally has no objection to the reproduction and use of these materials (audio transmissions and recordings; video transmissions and recording; or still and motion picture photography), subject to the following conditions:

NASA material may not be used to state or imply the endorsement by NASA or by any NASA employee of a commercial product, service, or activity, or used in any manner that might mislead.

NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material.

It is unlawful to falsely claim copyright or other rights in NASA material.

NASA shall in no way be liable for any costs, expenses, claims, or demands arising out of the use of NASA material by a recipient or a recipient's distributees.

NASA does not indemnify nor hold harmless users of NASA material, nor release such users from copyright infringement, nor grant exclusive use rights with respect to NASA material.

NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA.

If a recognizable person, or talent (e.g., an astronaut or a noted personality engaged to narrate a film) appears in NASA material, use for commercial purposes may infringe a right of privacy or publicity. Therefore, permission should be obtained from the recognizable person or talent. If the proposed use of the NASA material could be viewed as a commercial exploitation of that person. However, if the intended use of NASA material is primarily for communicative purposes, i.e., books, newspapers, and magazines reporting facts of historical significance (constitutionally protected media uses), then such uses will generally be considered not to infringe such personal rights.

Some NASA audiovisual material may incorporate music or footage, which is copyrighted and licensed for the particular NASA work. Any editing or otherwise altering of the work may not be covered under the original license, and therefore would require permission of the copyright owner.

NASA audiovisual material may include visible NASA identifiers (e.g., the name of the vehicle and the NASA Insignia or Logotype in photographs or film footage of Space Shuttle vehicles). Use of such materials is generally non-objectionable, provided the NASA identifiers appear in their factual context.

www.nasa.gov...

#'s 2 and 3.

See, now this is what I'm talking about. We're all working together here, see?

Thanks to all of you for helping us all get the facts straight.

Now, I'll give the credit to NASA in words at the images and panos. Just give me a little.

And I don't see anything about selling - unless I missed it.

But I won't sell even if I can, which I really think you can. But I've been wrong before and if *I* can see I'm wrong (once again - only human), I will happily admit in front of the world.

I just want us all to enjoy these images and the MARDI descender video I made:

www.youtube.com...

IMAGES PROPERTY OF NASA!

All I did was sequence them and release it as a video! I did not film the rover landing! I swear!

Ok, I'm feeling better now.

But seriously, thanks guys.

edit on 8/17/2012 by impaired because: (no reason given)

I do apologise my friend, I should learn to read more and take less pictures

Many thanks for the clarification

Now, where's that rock I came out off ....

Be safe be well,

Spiro

Originally posted by impaired
But the image is on Wikipedia. How? Why?
If they were hiding something, then why is the missing thumbnail there and why was it removed in the first place

Maybe they edited the picture to hide things. Then they told wiki to use that one instead of the original.

reply to post by dubthebeachcomber

What do they fear? Give Hoagland, Moulton Howe and Friedman carte blanche for awhile at headquarters, and let them give orders to produce info and get unrestricted access. These folks wouldn't divulge national security secrets. And they are well trusted among the research community.

Nothing to fear but they do have real science to do and tons of data to collect.
Hoagland is trusted? Are you kidding? He's an idiot. www.abovetopsecret.com...

Howe? Come on.
Friedman? He does UFOs not Mars.

reply to post by dubthebeachcomber


Come on, man. Richard Hoagland? Really?

I personally don't believe in Hoagland, but that's just me.

And Hoagland is fringe. His images are almost always altered.

The finger and other ornaments are statues/trinkets from someones house before everything was blown up in the Mars war. So you'll find odd bits and bobs everywhere.

Second line.

Originally posted by Kuroodo

Originally posted by impaired
But the image is on Wikipedia. How? Why?
If they were hiding something, then why is the missing thumbnail there and why was it removed in the first place

Maybe they edited the picture to hide things. Then they told wiki to use that one instead of the original.

Why would they even release pictures that had anything in them? Seems a little shoddy to me. If I took pictures that had something incriminating, do you think I would even show them?

Yeah, their content fact checker was not on the job that day, that's why they released the pictures instead of keeping them locked up and away from public. Oh the OP caught what all the scientists at NASA missed.