WHO'S ON MARS? (continued)

Phil,

Perhaps you are right, although I question why one image, even if it is pasted together from different exposures should look so different in quality from area to area. Wouldn't the different exposures of the image all be taken at roughly the same time with the same equipment and settings? If this were true I would think the quality throughout the image would be more consistent

I have run across some pretty wild examples of image artifacting. Possibly the long variegated strip and the furrowed strip are related to artifacting or processing in some way. However I think it is more likely that those features are actually on the ground.


In regards to the general quality of the Mars images what I am perplexed about is that the technology for taking detailed, in focus, high resolution sat images exists. Anyone can see this by viewing some of the sat images taken of Earth. My understanding is that our satellites have the capability of reading a license plate or newspaper headlines while orbiting several hundred miles above the earth. Phil, you suggest that problems with the quality of the Mars images stem from budget problems. Are you inferring that the poor quality in some of the images is due to inferior camera equipment? If so, why would NASA use superior imaging technology routinely for earth orbiting satellites and then not use the technology on something as important as a Mission to Mars just to save a few sheckles? In the overall budgetary view of getting an Orbiter to Mars, wouldn’t the additional cost of using the most sophisticated camera equipment be insignificant? It’s hard for me to believe that image quality problems are related to budgetary insufficiencies.

In the past some have suggested that the image quality problems are caused by the distance the transmission signal travels before being decoded into images. This leaves me wondering why Hubble is able to see to the edge of the known universe and send back consistent images unmarred by blurry areas and patterned screening and the Mars Orbiter seems to be incapable of consistently doing the same.

I am also perplexed why there is such a variation in the quality of Mars images. Some are absolutely beautiful, detailed, in focus and can be enlarged without falling apart visually. Other images are so marred with patterns and blurriness that it is almost impossible to see any detail at all in them. The range in quality is beyond what could be explained as resulting from gif vs. jpg formats.

Believe it or not I do have an open mind on these issues. If there are legitimate technical reasons for the poor image quality of many of the Mars images I would like to understand what they are.

The reason I tend to suspect NASA of deliberate obfustification re the images is because of clauses in their charter which direct that the truth about ET life, should proof of such ever be found, be hidden from the public (policies stemming from the Brookings report). Also a report from a former NASA employee who stated it had been her job to airbrush any evidence of UFOS out of sat images before they were released to the public. With these policies already known I see no reason to believe that these same practices would not be applied to the Mars images.

The last two images I posted are not particularly strong examples of possible image tampering. However, there are several other image posts to this thread that I do think present a strong case for image tampering.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Wouldn't the different exposures of the image all be taken at roughly the same time with the same equipment and settings? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I'm no expert on the Mars survey images, but I doubt if they have a complete survey, yet, from one satellite, so they might have some areas with much older and poorer images still waiting for the latest equipment to cover them. Also, I think they have wide-angle lenses, which can cover the whole planet in a few Martian days.

The highest power telephoto lens covers a much narrower path, so it takes many days to cover the whole planet. Also, the orbit of the satellite is probably in a fixed plane relative to the stars, while the planet rotates beneath it. The satellite passes over approximately the same terrain once every Martian siderial day of 24 hr. 37 min. 22.66 sec. The satellite's orbital period is not an exact fraction of the day, so it covers a different swath of ground each time. Therefore, it might be a Martian year before all areas are covered with the Sun at all the different elevation angles. During that time, there are likely to be several large dust storms, obscuring large parts of the surface.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...our satellites have the capability of reading a license plate or newspaper headlines... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">You can get that kind of resolution if you have enough pull with the right people to aim a spy satellite's highest magnification power at a particular spot. It would take many years to get that resolution at every spot on Earth, and putting it all together would show adjacent areas at different times of the day and year. You might have lush green forest next to bare branches and snow.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...because of clauses in their charter... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It certainly would not surprise me if they are covering things up. I just don't expect them to do a sloppy job of it. Some of your examples are too obvious to have been overlooked by the world's most accomplished liars.

Other examples that I seen on this forum appear to be good examples of The Rorschach Test . I've seen better parrots, for example, in the clouds of planet Earth. The human mind is hardwired to turn random noise into meaningful images. A devout Catholic might see the virgin Mary; whereas a parrot owner naturally sees a parrot. Show me that rock formation to me in 3D, and maybe I'll change my mind.

PhilJ,

Please provide your cloud image of a "better parrot," so I can compare it to Wil's parrot geoglyph, which by-the-way has 18 points of anatomical correctness.

Zip Monster.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Please provide your cloud image of a "better parrot,..." <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sorry, I don't photograph every cloud that resembles something. I'll post any further feathery comments at the Parrot thread.

Phil,

You make some good points. I enthusiastically believe that there has been and probably still is intelligent life on Mars. So I expect to find areas of interest in the Mars images. I agree that one is more likely to see what one believes may or may not be there.

Remote viewing these images is a fascinating experience for me. When concentrating on a particular image that I am interested in (especially when using a magnifying glass) I feel almost sucked into the image, like I am actually floating above the landscape looking down into the details.

As far as NASA image sanitizing goes there is a gamut of different techniques and levels of expertise, at least this is my impression. I would say the sloppiest examples I have found are the images where blackout markings climb right over the lines of the image close-up boxes. There are a couple of examples posted to this thread.

M0105342

Area of interest in the lower right corner.



M0105342, enlarged clip, dark areas partially dodged out.