MY IMAGING PROCESSES?

Commentary #011

July 23, 2006

 

As most of you I'm sure are aware, I get a lot of e-mail. The viewer's e-mail text I received below highlighed in color asks a question that I suspect some of you may share. Of course my response may not be specific enough for some but obviously I am not going to fully reveal the exact technical process of what I do. You may find it interesting even though I have presented this information before but I suspect it will not hurt to repeat these generalizations again.

"I completely believe in what you are doing and you probably answer this question somewhere on the site but I have not found it. How do you take the pictures that are released and clean them up to present the images that you have on your site? I am in no way questioning the authenticity of the work or images, I am just wondering how you achieve the images that you present? Thanks for your time and the work that you do."

You ask a simple and straight forward but very loaded question S______ that really requires too much technical complication to go into in detail here. But, I'll try with the following generalizations. Further, I suspect that your question is shared by many others, so I think that I may publish your comments and my response but of course without revealing your identity. It may be of help to others, so thanks for asking and participating.

The material I present is always sourced directly from the official science data digital imaging (no exception) and each report is accompanied by links to the pertinent official science data for those that care to following along behind me and confirm and verify with their own graphics work what I present. Sadly this official visual science data, although it is suppose to be state-of-the-art camera technology at the time of the mission, is most of the time of very poor quality and visually obscured in a great many different ways. In fact it bares little to no resemblance to the reasonable clarity of digital imaging that you or I might take for granted with a common cheap digital camera here on Earth.

This means that any anomalous information in the image is for the most part fuzzy and obscured by what I can only logically surmise is intent. Most of the time my own graphics work can do little about this very effective obfuscation and I must move on not reporting anything on it, unless I am reporting only on identifying the tampering itself. I do in fact do this type of reporting once in a while because it is important for viewers to understand that the tampering exists and what this logically implies in impacting the evidence and its credibility.

Once in a while, out of the many available tampering tactics available for use, a combination will be used that I can do something about with my own clarification work. Also, anomalous evidence will just simply be missed with the tampering tactics. In the latter case, I simply sharpen up the detail and present the evidence essentially as is. In the former case, I can sometimes partially defeat the effect and render it canceled, at least in part. For example, obscuring haze hiding information below it is fairly easy to deal with like this but opaque or semitransparent smudge in layers that looks essentially the same is much harder to deal with and may have to be passed over.

My graphics work is based on the software program PhotoShop and that is because a modified version of that program is what NASA and JPL also use and so I match them as much as I can. I also never use graphics filters because they make arbitrary decisions that may be suitable on Earth based digital imaging (photography) but not for this poor quality and heavily compromised satellite imaging as it has been released to us. Filters can arbitrarily change and alter information and the impact of this is easy to overlook and miss because it happens abruptly. My clarification work is rather delicate and manually done in tiny increments so that I can carefully watch the evidence and detect any changes or alterations in it as I go, which alterations I might add I very carefully avoid.

In other words, I like to keep my work very simple so that it will be easy to repeat in any critical review and thereby defendable when the time comes for those who wish to attack it. The number of discoveries I make, the encouragement and the facilitating of verifying evidence behind me, and adhering to this rule of defensiveness is I suspect what sets my work apart from others in this field. It is also what keeps overt attacks on my work well subdued.

In no case do I take pictures as you say, the pictures are already an integral part of the official science data and all completely verifiable in and supported by that science data. I merely make the discoveries already in the data and publicly reveal them, often with a little clarifying imaging work to provide better visual detail only of the anomalous information presented. I manufacture nothing what so ever, only reveal the information that is already there in the science data and without changes or alteration.

You're next anticipated question may be why can't someone in NASA or JPL or the general scientific and academic communities do the revealing of this information if it is right there in the record to find? It is after all their expertise and field to do so from the public's point of view.

The first problem is that some of these are actively a part of the secrecy agenda and apparently don't want the public aware of this information. Why? You'll have to pressure NASA and JPL and the covert communities for that kind of information but don't expect a response, legitimate or otherwise. The next problem is that the general science and academic communities have allowed themselves to be duped over time probably primarily through their formal "training" and I suspect that now deeply entrenched egos, self interest, and paradigm mind sets will not allow them to objectively examine themselves or the evidence's merit in this regard and run the risk that they may have to admit to themselves that they have been duped. In other words, they are asleep at the wheel.

This is a human condition problem, like the perception that the world is flat of old, that has raised its ugly resisting head repeatedly many times in Earth human history so often in the face of objective evidence to the contrary. Human psychology is what it is and I can do nothing about that. All I can do is present the evidence and provide a voice for it. The path and direction it takes is its own and how objectively or not people perceive it is up to them.