IMAGE TAMPERING:
WHO CAN YOU TRUST?
Report #128
October 15, 2007
can be contacted at:
On September 23, 2007 the following post by Schade was made in the website's guest book as repeated verbatim below in green text. This person of unknown identity makes an objective and legitimate question that needs a response.
"I gotta talk about both sides here. I know I'm not suppose to just believe everything NASA says n stuff, but why would I just believe everything I hear from you guys. I want to believe this all this is true, but it is just hard for me to. How do I know that you guys personally didnt tamper with the photos. I try to go to the website listed on the photos, or look them up myself, and with the resources I have at home, I can't find anything about it. Maybe you guys just have better resources than me, I don't know. I'm just saying you are telling people not to believe everything they hear, and yet you are expecting them to believe what you are saying. If I could get proof that NASA or the govt was the only ones to touch these photos, then I would believe you and start telling people."
If one has a reasonably modern software browser like Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) in conjunction with a reasonably modern home computer with for example the Windows operating system and a decent size hard drive for storage space, one has the most basic tools necessary to download a number of science data images and view them, at least in basic. Sometimes this is all that is needed for basic examination enough to verify the reported evidence. Before this report is over, you will see how this can be effectively done and with some of the strongest and most important of all evidence. However, it is true that more frequently the science data is heavily obfuscated using many different obscuring tactics and below are just a very few examples.
For example, a scene may be simply over saturated with dark or light colors that obscures evidence requiring graphics software to lighten or darken the view. Scenes may be flipped or inverted at official level to distort and obscure evidence and require graphics software to flip or invert them around to different orientations to find the correct one where scenes begin to make more sense.
One tactic that is almost always done is the distancing technique. The tampering work is done in an image at much closer resolutions than officially admitted to and then the whole scene is drawn back to a more distant view presented for public consumption making any evidence left out of the tampering distant and very tiny in scale. However this technique also requires that any otherwise harmless familiar scale geology also be the subject of tampering to prevent anything coming through to researcher's eyes that may tip them off as to the true size scale and that this distancing work has been done in the image.
So a lot of normal geology gets covered over for this reason as well. From the secrecy point of view, this has another solid long term benefit. It sculpts the landscape look and feel and over time and a lot of exposure trains the researcher's eyes to accept this general look as real. In subsequent missions over time, more and more of this is fed into perception training the researcher's eye and brain into what to expect to see in the data and at the same time what not to question. Remember too that this is done via automated super computers and mapping object recognition software and so human time and effort are not much of a factor in this.
Most of the time, what little anomalous evidence (often geometric structures) is left out of the tampering is so distant and small in scale that adequate recognition requires too much zooming in and that in turn creates too much pixelation tending to force scenes into artificial geometric patterns that is then by design confused with the evidence rendering it questionable. First it takes software capable of zooming in on such evidence and then experience in knowing when to stop short of the point where pixelation problems begins to adversely impact the evidence.
Pixelation itself is also used as an obfuscation tactic in other ways than the distancing technique. For example, a scene is subjected to offset pixels where essentially one scene or pixel set is overlaid over another identical scene but ever so slightly off center. This very quickly degrades resolution as well as creating pixelation down at the most base pixel level. The net result is that the scene cannot then be zoomed in on and examined closer without quickly encountering too much pixel distortion.
You'll note that we haven't even yet discussed object or site specific tampering within an image strip. By far the most prevalent are color coordinated smudge and/or blur applications applied in the form of many semitransparent layers to blend in with the surroundings. A few are required for blending and many are required for hiding. The greater the camera resolution, the more tiny scale and effective the applications can be made at and the more effective the then following distancing technique can be in making it all for the most part invisible in the official resolution view.
Now smudge is smooth or grainy but otherwise featureless and so too much of it draws attention to itself since geological terrain is never that smooth or that featureless. The old 1970s Viking images of Mars are examples of lesser camera resolution combined with blanketing smudge applications very obvious over wide areas of terrain covering just about everything in a scene. The much later Clementine Moon imaging brings developing higher camera resolution and more object specific mapping and object recognition smudge and blur applications in preparation for the future Mars missions following Clementine.
The applications did a generally decent job on the more normal size objectionable anomalous Moon evidence. For example, the applications enabled by closer resolution would run around a geometric structure effectively hiding it from view but also leaving the top of the structure out to break up the blank smoothness of the application a little. The problem was that in a city setting where there were a lot of such structures it left out to many structure tops giving the smooth smudge applications with a strange speckled look.
Likewise, the mapping and object recognition software did not do well at all on obscuring gigantic size structures. The applications mapped to such colossal size objects just fine completely and effectively hiding them from view. However, the applications clustered too tightly to them revealing their outlines via the tampering field itself. In the case of the great towers, not only did the too tightly conforming applications reveal themselves as tampering, they also revealed the basic outline of the object they were hiding standing out very sharply from the background. Not good.
These were the tampering problems carried into the subsequent missions to Mars. I suspect that the data coming back was quickly determined to be insufficiently obfuscated and so the earlier missions were quickly reported as failures so that the data would not have to be publicly released and the Mars secrecy revealed. The later MGS MOC data was a different story. Many of the tampering problems had been fixed but not quite enough with literally a little too much truth still coming through. I suspect that was the reason that the initial public release of the first MGS MOC data was resisted as an emergency tactical but it was too little too late as the public began to get upset and apply pressure resulting in release of the data.
This is the reason that I tend to concentrate on the MGS MOC data because it has more mistakes as to the tampering in it that I can capitalize on allowing a higher percentage of truth to come through. The next and following Odyssey mission data was actually more obfuscated than the MGS MOC data. After that came the ESA data but it is usually presented in artificially applied color and they are also not required to present all of the data either. The artificial color is a demonstration of the effectiveness of the object mapping and recognition software technology and generally the color applications are the tampering itself. In my opinion, the ESA imaging is the developing tampering model for the future imaging beyond the MRO data.
The current MRO data is an exercise in very high camera resolution technology first started with the MER A (Spirit) and MER B (Opportunity) rover imaging and the public availability of supposedly very high file size imaging such as TIFF. The applications can now be made at super tiny levels rendering them almost undetectable even with the available large TIFF format files. Next in future missions will come this MRO super high camera resolution technology combined with the artificially applied still developing ESA artificial color technology that will be passed off as the real thing but isn't. Count on it.
So with this brief over simplified context background on official level image tampering in mind, what about Schade's comments in the guest book? If official level science data imaging can't be trusted, why trust any subsequent imaging, including mine? Well for one thing, it wouldn't hurt to use a little logic and reason.
For example, one needs to ask the question who is trying to dictate and limit the information coming from the space exploration science data disseminated into public awareness versus who is revealing new additional information coming from and verifiable in the same data? Further, who is pretending as though this new information doesn't exist at all and essentially refuses to engage it while at the same time giving lip service espousing the scientific method that demands objectivity and examination of evidence? These are all clues.
During the now long seven plus years that I have been doing this work, I have demonstrated absolutely no vested interest in secrecy and suppressing information as has been demonstrated in the official science data, only revealing new information from that same data and struggling to do so at my own expense. Further, while I have engaged the science data revealing its flaws and new dramatic evidence within it and to the embarrassment of the official position, the official position continues to ignore this new evidence as though it doesn't exist at all. Logically would that be your reaction?
If my revelations were untruthfully characterizing any one of you out there in a negative light as is the case with NASA, JPL, their partners, and the rest of the science and academic communities for seven long years now, I suspect most of you would be plenty offended, go on the defensive, and then go on the offensive getting aggressive with me and my "untruths." If I was full of it and especially in dealing with factual visual evidence, wouldn't your reaction be to quickly just show me up for the charlatan that I clearly am via that same visual evidence and preferably publicly, not pretend this work and its evidence and implication doesn't exist at all. Could it be that they avoid this like the plague because they know they can't counter it via the evidence and know that they will only send more and more of the public through this evidence record in the process?
Can any of you out there justify in your own minds why such high drama evidence as the lakes of liquid surface water, forests and giant trees, colossal tubes, and colossal civilization monuments, etc. can be simply ignored in this manner while some "could be" simple ancient microbial evidence in a Mars meteorite located here on Earth can get tons of attention from the world of science, academics and the media? Does this sound logical and reasonable to you that these communities would get excited about the one thing and not these other much higher drama things? If you were them, wouldn't you be excited about surface water and life on Mars and jump on the bandwagon to determine if there is really any merit to it or not or at least disprove it?
Does any of this sound logical and reasonable to you? This website evidence record for some time now has enjoyed 1-2 million traffic hits per month without any media attention work by me or it would be a lot higher. Further, it is that much traffic even though this work presence is artificially suppressed in the search engines. That kind of traffic reach into the mainstream without sensationalism driving it is not inconsequential or easily dismissable. Can any scientist of group of scientists match this kind of reach into populations? I don't think so. So, let's not try to pass this work off as insignificant or inconsequential. So where are those "experts" in the science and academic communities who can put this work down and in its place? They are very conspicuous by their absence and that is evidence too.
Likewise, as I have demonstrated in my past reporting, while this work may be officially ignored for public consumption, it is not by any means ignored under the table on the private level. This work is heavily monitored and that includes just about every security and black opts organization around. As I've reported, in the beginning, they were too arrogant and careless to hide their tracks and allowed themselves to be tracked and uncovered. Obviously someone at the highest levels is taking this work very seriously. Why would they be doing that if this was the work of just another perhaps even well meaning but misguided crackpot?
Okay, but still why should I accept your visual evidence as any more real than the official versions? If others can slip and slide in this manner in the visual science data, you can too. So why should I believe you?
When lone whistleblower types step out of the secrecy shadows after decades of silence giving witness testimony, it is rarely accompanied by verifiable evidence and so the listener must take it with a grain of salt. The statements may be true but without solid hard evidence or at least the verifying testimony of many other witnesses confirming the same thing and forming a reasonable consensus, most listeners don't know what or who to believe. Therefore little ever comes of it because there is a leap of faith and trust that must occur.
This is normal in human society and the secrecy agenda even capitalizes on it and even encourages it in some cases. Why? Because without that hard evidence it can never get beyond being merely suggestive and cross over into solid verifiable conclusions. This type of evidence, like the microbes in the meteorite, captures the public interest and imagination keeping interest in everything to do with planetary exploration going but most importantly the public money pipe open and ongoing financing space exploration even if it is often devoid of much of any truth.
On the other hand, with some of this Moon and Mars satellite visual exploration science data made available for public consumption by independent research like mine, we have a wealth of hard visual evidence not requiring a leap of faith. Evidence that is accessible by so many computers and every day people out here in the public. Further, it is often the type of evidence that can potentially be adequately recognized by many without requiring the interpretation of so called "experts" and is ultimately directly verifiable right in the science data by every day people.
In such a scenario, there is no need for one to exercise a leap of faith to trust an individual as the source of the discovery evidence presented. That person or their qualifications is really irrelevant because the only thing that counts is the evidence itself and whether it holds up under close scrutiny. After all, it is merely a matter of common sense, not rocket science mental expertise.
...
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M09/M0902042.html
Sometimes critically important evidence is easy to verify viewing right in the computer operating system only and requiring no special graphics software to view it. Take for example the above side by side first and second images of lakes and surrounding hardwood forest evidence in the MGS MOC M09-2042 narrow-angle strip. The scene on the left is at the bottom of the third listed straight .GIF strip just as it appears in the official view and at the same official width. I have done nothing to it while the one on the right is the exact same scene quickly enhanced just a bit by me for A-B comparison.
As you can see by such a side by side comparison, there isn't a lot of difference between them except for a bit more detail clarity in the one on the right and absolutely no real change in the evidence as confirmed in the official image on the left. This is some of the most important evidence of surface water in a liquid state on Mars and discovered very early on. So Schade, even though this strip is long and a time consuming download in the higher detail .GIF version, this particular evidence can be downloaded and viewed in your computer operating system without the need of advanced systems or graphics software for verification to make sure that what I present is exactly what is in the official science data, nothing more and nothing less.
...
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M09/M0902042.html
While we're talking about evidence in this strip, the above third and fourth side by side images are from the same M09-02042 narrow-angle strip. The third image on the left is again the official view and width as the original with no work in it by me. It looks a little strange and funky in the light color terrain areas suggestive of snow cover but otherwise not terribly questionable at first glance. However, now take a look at the very same identical scene on the right inverted by me but with no enhancement work in it by me. Note that the trees essentially remain the same looking but the "snow" areas are revealed for the image tampering applications that they are.
On the right you can clearly see the fuzzy featureless (except for application dithering patterns) smudge image tampering evidence wrapping around specific trees and isolating them. In other words, what appeared to be light reflective terrain is now clearly artificially produced. What needs to be understood is that the tampering applications were actually applied in the inverted view and then the scene inverted back to the official view to disguise the otherwise clearly evident tampering applications without impacting the other evidence. Now that's tricky isn't it.
As you can see, the dithering patterns and small darker gaps in the tampering applications on the right when inverted give the fake terrain look on the left a little color variation and pattern detail to avoid looking too blank and therefore detectable. No telling what was covered up by these artificial applications.
The above links under each set of images will take you (who wish to play around with this evidence and verify it) to the official science data image that I sourced the evidence from as well as my 2001 Report #020 on this water and tree evidence. While at the official site and if you are going to do graphics work in the image, be sure to download the slower loading but greater detail third listed straight .GIF strip for your examination and work rather than the faster loading but poorer quality .JPEG strip.
Unlike the set with the first and second images, the fourth image's evidence will require a graphics software program of some type to invert the image but that is easy to do. Also, although I didn't do it here in trying to keep everything very simple, the evidence in the fourth image will stand out much better if the scene is darkened a bit and maybe a little contrast added to sharpen, again all requiring some graphics software. If you don't have the software of the skills to use it, get together with someone else and/or a local university that does.
While you're at the above linked official site, as a matter of interest take note of the companion M09-02043 wide-angle context strip on the right. In the narrow-angle strip outline in it, note a light color patch within that outline. Note the location and orientation of the white patch and then compare it with the M09-02042 narrow-angle strip on the left. If you've looked closely, you will see that they do not agree in orientation. The narrow-angle strip on the left has been flipped at official level both vertically and horizontally.
However, in this particular strip, this flipping did not really distort the evidence and is not really an evidence misrepresentation factor. On the other hand, it is good for you to know that this kind of thing does routinely occur in the science data even though it isn't suppose to. Further, although not the case here, it is often a factor in evidence distortion and its identification.
...
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/e01_e06/images/E01/E0100210.html
/evidence-reports/2002/045/realtubes.htm
/evidence-reports/2002/046/realtubesII.htm
The above fifth and sixth side by side images are of colossal tube evidence drawn from the MGS MOC E01-00210 narrow-angle strip. The official science data view is on the left and the same width as the official strip. Note how dark and obscuring the scene on the left is and what can be done in the image on the right bringing out sharper detail without comprising the evidence in any way. One can clearly see that there has been no alteration or addition of detail, only clarity enhancement. Of course the difference between the two views is very pronounced because the official left image is dark and obscured.
Yes the strange colossal tube evidence in the left official view is substantially obscured but this is what can be seen in the computer operating system view without any graphics software at all. There is just enough detail there to be able to basically determine that the detail that is seen in the right clarity enhanced view is the same without alteration. So Schade, your computer and operating system should be enough to obtain this kind of comparison and on some of the most important discoveries. Any additional testing to make absolutely sure can be done through friends with some graphics skills or at your local university.
...
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/ab1_m04/images/M0200164.html
/evidence-reports/2000/003/colossal-monuments.htm
The above seventh and eighth side by side images are of colossal civilization monuments evidence drawn from the MGS MOC M02-00164 wide-angle strip and each represents a cropped out view. I repeat this is a wide-angle strip and not a narrow-angle strip. The wide-angle strips offer a much wider regional and more distant field of view with poorer resolution theoretically than narrow-angle closer view strips. So in such strips one must make the mental adjustments as to what to expect from them. What we would consider normal size evidence is usually just too small to be seen in the wide-angle views, only really huge size evidence can over come the poor resolution.
In this case, there is a colossal size upper portion of a human or humanoid head monument with head dress just right of center in the lower part of the image. By the official image statistics and my rough measurements, the head is approximately 12.5 miles across and yes that's 12.5 miles across. That colossal size scale is the primary reason why this evidence is still coming through so strongly in spite of the poor resolution. In the lower right corner of the image is a pictogram representing what appears to be some creature. In the lower left corner is a stripped, ringed or banded animal monument with upright peaked ears and a ringed tail sitting looking as though it is perched on a rock.
The seventh image on the left, even though it is cropped out portion of the original, represents the official view at the full official size scale while the eighth image on the right represents the exact same scene with some quick clarity enhancements by me. As you can see in the left image, downloading this strip will reveal all of this evidence very well seen in the computer operating system view without any graphics software. This is some of the most powerful and important evidence of intelligent civilization life on Mars. So Schade there is no reason why you and others like you can't download the third listed straight .GIF strip at the above links and verify this very important evidence without the need for advanced systems or graphics software.
...
http://www.msss.com/moc_gallery/m07_m12/images/M08/M0804688.html
/evidence-reports/2001/019/colossal-trees.htm
The above ninth and tenth side by side images demonstrate colossal tree or plant growth evidence of some gigantic kind on Mars as drawn from the MGS MOC M08-04688 narrow-angle strip. The ninth left image is a cropped out portion of the strip but just as it appears in the official data and at the same full size scale. The tenth image on the right is the exact same scene with just some quick simple clarity enhancement work in it.
Truthfully, in this particular case, there isn't much advantage of the clarity enhanced view on the right over the original on the left except for some elimination of the slightly obscuring haze. On the other hand, both views when seen together offer a bit more insight than any one view alone. It sometimes works out like this. However, you can clearly see in the A-B comparison that there has been no changes or alterations of the evidence from the official view to my enhanced view.
These examples of enhancement work presented here are the goal and hallmark of my imaging work and that is to clarify only, not change evidence. I could have done better in the clarification process by using some color for its better contrast and more comfortable to the eye look as well as some finer tweaking but I've tried to keep it very simple here.
So Schade and others like you out there in the public mainstream, you've seen some extremely strong examples here of: liquid surface water surrounded by tree forests neither of which is suppose to be there; tricky but undeniable very evident image tampering that also isn't suppose to be there; colossal size tubes as the strange and inexplicable; powerful colossal size civilization evidence; and colossal size tree or plant evidence, none of which are suppose to be there. All this strong evidence except the image tampering is for the most part verifiable right in the official science data without any graphics software at all and only a common computer and browser. It is on a planet that isn't suppose to have any one of these things and which right in your face powerful evidence is ignored at leadership level as though it didn't exist at all.
All of this is not only verifiable in but supported by the official science data and has nothing to do with any person like myself or others trying to bring knowledge like this into greater public awareness. These are hard visual evidential facts easily verified and are not to be confused with psychological belief systems or preferences or the pretense of others at leadership level. Does it make any sense to you that right in your face straightforward evidence like this should be or could be ignored?
Some like myself publicly present this evidence but we do not make it as evidence. As you've seen here, it exists quite apart from us entirely on its own merit. Regardless of any manipulation of perception by others or by self, it is hard truth and reality quite apart from us here on Earth and how we may or may not prefer to perceive things. Regardless of the older science data and the flawed consensus scientific opinion based on that now obviously flawed data, there is surface water in a liquid state on Mars and life proliferating there including intelligent advanced civilizations. Further, the image tampering demonstrates that someone here knows this well and is trying to keep this knowledge from us.
These are facts and reality based on verifiable hard evidence, not witness testimony, opinions, or spin. Unless you subscribe to the concept that we should leave all this truth and its potential and implications to the secrecy agenda types, then this knowledge must come into greater public awareness and be engaged by this entire world to determine the true depth of this knowledge and its implications for us. If it turns out to be nothing, then no problem and so be it. On the other hand, if there is something to this as it very clearly appears to be, then it impacts all Earth humanity and must be engaged by all not just a select few operating in secret with unknown personal agendas.
This engagement to determine the truth of this clearly isn't going to come about on a voluntary bases initiated by current leadership and certainly not via the secrecy types and their minions. That leaves you and I at the grassroots level. It's all about choice and who has the courage to step up and be counted and how posterity will see you and your choices.
, Investigator
