Tampering?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br /><font color="red"> Originally posted by Trinket

"Every Image ever released has gone thru the JPL Image muting and distortion process.."</font id="red">

Originally posted by tvanflandern
I'm no fan of JPL, but that is just nonsense. They'd be sacked in a heartbeat if they messed with the data. Every spacecraft image is available in raw, completely unprocessed format for anyone who wants it that way. And the processed images follow the formula posted, which uses legitimate image processing techniques except where otherwise noted. The three 1998 Cydonia images were a special assignment by NASA and had their own web site with the recipe used posted there. The raw, unprocessed data is also available, which is how we know what they did to the press release image."""

Originally posted by Bob
My question would be? Who exactly is going to sack them in a heartbeat?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bob, I would like to add a question if I may. My question is; do we (the general scientific community) have access to the raw data as it is being transmitted from any, or all, of the Mar's probes? Thank you.
thebobgy

Just a reminder - Tom is travelling now. Access to the Internet varies in other parts of the world. It may be a week or so before he is able to respond.

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br /><font color="red"> "Every Image ever released has gone thru the JPL Image muting and distortion process.."</font id="red"><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Trinket, have you tried contacting Professor Hany Farid, and asking him if he would be willing to apply some of his statistical models on some MSSS images that you think might be tampered with? He may find it interesting.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />Last Contact was 2/23/2005

.......... In about 6 to 8 months, we do plan to make
freely available our software for detecting traces of tampering in
digital images.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks Trinket. But, as you can see from the above quote, the software may be available now. Might be worth a follow up.

In spite of what I might think the likelihood of tampering is, I think this is a very valid approach to take. If you can get independent confirmation of tampering from a Computer Scientist, through the use of his software program, that would be good information.

That would take it to a whole 'nuther level, as they say. Please keep us informed, if you contact him again regarding the software. There are a few images I wouldn't mind studying.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Trinket</i>
<br />You know I can understand if you feel only certain Images are tampered with..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">No, I feel certain no image has ever been tampered with. That would be destruction of public property and lead to criminal charges, as well as the possible loss of a billion dollars a year for JPL's budget. And no scientist would ever agree to participate in such a thing.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Having a complete faith in the product I find absolutely absurd and feel you may be out of touch..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I appreciate that you must feel that way, because that is precisely how your suggestion strikes me. I've worked at JPL as an independent contractor in 1971, and went to graduate school with some fellow astronomers who are now JPL employees. Nobody I know would ever get mixed up in such a harebrained, illegal, and dangerous endeavor. Indeed, it seems without purpose. What would even make you suspect such a thing?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In a world full of corruption JPL is no oasis..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's not the world I live in. There are some criminals. But fortunately, they are in the minority, and their activities are held in check by the more numerous honest people.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It's 2006 and I find it hard to understand and disheartening why anyone can support this position..<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">And I find it hard to understand your uncritical acceptance of conspiracies. Have you not seen that the internet is filled every day with conspiracy theories? It has become a world-wide passtime of college students and mischievous individuals everywhere. And they are all hoaxes -- essentially every single one -- put out there because there are so many gullible people who bite on them. Do you never check into these for yourself? Check facts, sources, attributions, data, etc.? Once you start, you will quickly see the reality and not want to be burned again.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">My question would be ? Who exactly is going to sack them in a heartbeat?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">NASA, of course. That's where the money and the launch vehicle comes from. That is whom JPL works for. Or did you not know JPL and NASA are separate entities? JPL is owned and operated by Caltech, and its employees are not NASA employees.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[3 links]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The first link makes several classic image processing errors, and was obviously done by someone who is inexperienced at this field of expertise. He/she also errs right at the outset in saying that NASA imagery is subject to NSA censorship. By charter of Congress, NASA is an independent civilian agency which does no classified work, all of whose work products are in the public domain and available to the world. The first image shown is subject to the black-white-reversal illusion discussed elsewhere on this Message Board, especially by the DeRosas. Later versions were magnified to the point where pixelation is visible, which is never legitimate.

The second and third links are unrelated to Mars, but more applicable to the stream of internet hoaxes we are daily beseiged with.

So tell me: When you get the software and if it then finds no evidence of tampering, what will you say then? That the program is a failure? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /> I've worked at JPL as an independent contractor in 1971, and went to graduate school with some fellow astronomers who are now JPL employees. Nobody I know would ever get mixed up in such a harebrained, illegal, and dangerous endeavor. Indeed, it seems without purpose. What would even make you suspect such a thing?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tom, I don't want to argue the point of tampering. I'll take your word for that one, that it's probably highly unlikely, but I would like to relay a little recent experience to you.

Neil has been working on something recently, that involves knowing where "north" is on a variety of images. We discussed the subject over the phone a couple of times, and my first stance was that it's exactly where the "Sun Azimuth" rules say it is: take a Non-Map Projected image, draw a horizontal line to the right of the image, and go clockwise. Seems simple enough. Then for the Map Projected version, all one has to do is find the same location, which should be at the top.

But after looking at a couple hundred images this weekend, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the consistency of a Non-Map Projected image, relative to a Map Projected image.

All one has to do, is spend an hour or so, selecting images from the gallery. Download both the Non Map Projected and Map Projected image at any location. Then try to convert the Non-Map Projected into the Map Projected (a close facimile, anyway), by mirroring, rotating, flipping, or anything you can think of, and then post the rules to the rest of the board.

I say it can't be done, and that any rules one comes up with, we'll find scores of images that don't follow that rule. Believe me I've tried. Unless the rules are akin the rules of the Star Trek Game Fisbin, where on Tuesday there are different rules than on Monday.

Either there are thousands of errors such as Non-Map Projected really being mirrored already when they shouldn't be (for example), or they are using some very buggy software to do this stuff with, or there are so many different independent rules, that it can't be reverse engineered the way I'm trying to.

It may not be tampering, but ain't good.

rd