MARS ROVER TAMPERING:
WHAT'S REAL & WHAT ISN'T
Commentary #36
March 23, 2009
In email contacts
with me regarding Report
#157 with the eel looking evidence, there have been some wondering
observations regarding the presence of both some subtle image tampering that
viewers have been finding and the presence of the eel looking object in the
same rover image. In other words, why would there be image tampering presence
and yet leave the eel looking object out of the tampering process to be seen?
To some this goes against reason and brings up the question as to whether
the eel presence is intentional. Of course that in turn brings up the question
of why would secrecy types do that?
This thinking direction suggests some unknown secrecy tactical at work but
the explanation is simple and straight forward. From my perspective, image
tampering is routine in the planetary science data. After examining many tens
of thousands of images, I tend to take it for granted, quickly tune it out,
and move on without reporting on the bulk of it. For example, if it successfully
hides something and that's the end of it, then I just move on. You have to
know when to hold em and when to fold em and not waste time on lost causes.
If I didn't do that, my reporting would by far be dominated by such tampering
evidence and you would be bored to death with it as I long ago came to be.
I report on it only when I think it is important for viewers to understand.
Here is what must be understood about image tampering. When a mission returns
many thousands of images that in turn must all
legally be revealed publicly in a specified timely manner,
then applying tampering in images by hand by human personnel is just not remotely
practical. The rush to meet public release deadlines would be unacceptably
mistake prone. Further, the process would involve too many people and such
numbers of people could not be relied upon to keep any secrecy they've observed
under wraps indefinitely. On the other hand, when mission legalities and time
tables allow the secrecy types to take their time and also cherry pick which
images to publicly release while not releasing others, then human intervention
can prevail as long as it can be kept to a minimum.
When a mission goes to Mars to conduct a massive photographic visual survey
of the planet surface as opposed to one of selected camera targets, that will
of course produce images in the many tens of thousands and more. A mission
that fits that criteria very well would for example be the MGS MOC mission
to Mars. Data from such a mission and any tampering to be done in it must
be done at very high speed far beyond human personnel capabilities and the
only thing that logically fits that requirement is computerization. However,
it must be computerization that is capable of taking over the doing of it
and learning as it goes with the help of being constantly updated via ongoing
human programming. These factors are essential to obfuscation goals and success.
In other words, the need dictates the function.
This is where cutting edge artificial intelligence (AI) computerization comes
in. After the AI's initial basic programming, it can gradually learn what
its masters are looking to accomplish and then modify itself taking the ball
and running with it alone accomplishing in a tiny fraction of the time what
a human can do. Remember that there is no printing process here as it all
happens within the digital mathematical algorithm world where mechanical limitations
do not apply. However, the concept of the AI learning
carries within it the concept of making mistakes to learn from, so mistakes
are a part of this process as well.
First the tampering AI processes the image by mapping every object within
it. Very basically it then makes decisions based on its programming and learning
experience criteria as to what is objectionable and what isn't. That criteria
may not be just offending objects like aircraft, buildings, surface water,
trees, etc. but also natural geological terrain that might otherwise give
viewers a real clue as to size scale. Why? Because manipulating perceived
camera resolution is a primary base obfuscation tactical.
In my opinion, tampering applications are often initially done at very high
resolutions not admitted to and then the whole is drawn back to a poor resolution,
desaturated of color, and that poor result is what is released to you and
I as well as the science and academic communities and of course the media.
Since this obfuscation tactic has been done since the beginnings of space
exploration in what is publicly released and the poor quality is all we've
ever seen, it becomes our standard of reference and all that we expect from
the science data. If you are a secrecy type, that is a good thing. Ignorance
and its promotion is always a good thing to secrecy because it keeps population
demands and intrusiveness out of what they consider their business.
Remember that this is a visual process even if it is broken down into mathematical
algorithms and object recognition is the name of the game. When you think
about it, objects that indicate the presence of life are all around us here
on Earth and, in most cases, more plentiful visually than the underlying geology
itself. These are things we are very familiar with even though we don't think
about them but we quickly recognize them as life. So the AI must be fed many
billions of object shapes into its database in order to adequately recognize
all such objects as objectionable and worthy of covering up. As you might
expect, once you get to thinking about it, that's a lot of objects and it
is nearly impossible to get it right and comprehensive with the initial programming.
So the tampering process with AI's is a function of initial programming followed
up by constantly adding objects and shapes to the object recognition software
that the AI must use to tweak its database to increase its effectiveness.
That is part of the "learning" process. Some objects are added that
were just simply forgotten in the first programming forays and some objects
are added when you find that some obstinate researcher comes along and discovers
one of the "mistakes" that is then embarrassingly present and verifiable
right in your own science data fixed in time and place where you then can't
alter it.
As I began to understand this process early on working in the MGS MOC data,
I also began to realized that what I publicly revealed likely guaranteed that
such "mistakes" or discoveries would not appear in future data releases.
In other words, by my reporting I was telegraphing what the mistakes were
as I went and actually helping the secrecy agenda clean up its act by fixing
them in data not yet released as well as future missions data to come. Not
good!
So, in that early MGS MOC research, I started holding back some of my best
evidence discoveries and not publicly revealing them to try and inhibit this.
It has worked partially but then they aren't stupid and can also figure out
what shapes to hide on their own. However, my counter measure like this has
resulted in some very strong surface water and bio-life evidence held back
from the MGS MOC data that will appear in the upcoming book. You'll see and
be able to judge for yourself when it comes out shortly.
In any case, what must be understood is that the tampering is overall very
effective. It by far obfuscates the great bulk of the anomalous evidence you
and I would be interested in. What I discover and report on is simply where
a rare "mistake" has been made here and there in the process of
obfuscation, or I should say failing to adequately obfuscate. So the evidence
that I reveal tends to be in random bits and pieces and represents only a
tiny myopic view of what is likely the total Mars truth. Therefore, it would
be a mistake on our part to extrapolate too much from these bits and pieces
of evidence insight except in that they often represent the more basic concepts
of water and life on Mars that isn't by official position suppose to be there
at all.
Meanwhile, back to the example of the eel looking evidence in my Report
#157 and how both this object and image tampering could exist in
the same image. It is very likely that the AI just simply didn't have this
eel looking shape in its vast database and so it left it alone while making
applications on other adjacent evidence that was in its database. Remember,
the AI isn't a human being capable of a lot of imaginative extrapolation.
It was the same with the hollow rocks showing evidence of the passage of something
in and out of holes in them. This image also has other suggestive evidence
in it that I did not report on initially like the mask and the smooth polished
material and the possibility of a second eel.
I've also had email feedback that a mixture of life and artificial object
evidence like this demonstrates widespread destruction on the planet's surface.
However this is not something that can be adequately extrapolated from this
limited rover visual evidence. I realize that the lonely empty distant vistas
in the rover and Phoenix imaging tends to encourage this view. However, if
you can accept that any of this visual data has been manipulated, then it
is logical that these distant views would also be manipulated. This becomes
even more likely when it is realized that these distant views are also the
easiest to digitally manipulate.
For all we know, the rover in the case of the eel could be examining a waste
area nearby a large city or industrial operation that is subject to periodic
automatic flushing of wastes via waste water that soon sinks into the soil
before the next flush. Such a scenario would of course explain the presence
of a menagerie of artificial objects (garbage, mask, etc.) and life (eels)
mixed together as flushed debris. In other words, devastation is not the only
possible explanation nor is it even the most likely.
The need is always there to be open and objective in one's assessment of evidence
rather than indulge in favored theories that too often lead to prejudice that
in turn leads to perception filters and/or blindness.
, Investigator
www.marsanomalyresearch.com ©
