Why Is NASA Editing These Images?
This might be what was being hidden in the Sol 167 images
After looking at the last images and the areas that had been removed from them, I wondered if it might be that some other camera caught something like a geyser erupting- could an examination of the other images show something that they might have missed?
I looked at the navigation cameras next, because they are most like the panoramic cameras in operation and view. If something dramatic had been happening, surely they would be the best bet at locating any evidence of what it might have been. And knowing from the wet soil, mud, geyser vents, and erosion that there are frequent and energetic spoutings and eruptions, this was my strongest suspicion.
Could we catch something in action? Might there be some evidence of something being ejected or thrown by a geyser in full eruption? Perhaps.
| When I went to examine the
navigation images from Sol 167, there were three that immediately caught
my attention. This is the first of the three.
Notice that there are some dark objects in the sky above the crater? Look somewhat to the right of center and you can make them out. My first thought was that these might be pixel errors. In some early images, some people had cried out that there were Martian "birds" in some of the frames. I checked them by overlaying them with other frames and found that there are specific pixels in some cameras that are showing their age and failing. In this case, the objects are far larger than single pixels, and there are two of them. And, images taken just seconds later show no trace of these objects. In my opinion, this represent rocks ejected from geysers when they erupted. Now, let's view these in magnification. The original images are here at the NASA/JPL website. |
 |
|
| Here is a slightly
magnified view of the objects.
They are clearly much large than a pixel, and they are also "in line" with a hypothetical source inside or atop the crater. On Mars, with the lower gravity and much lower air drag, something ejected from a geyser could fly much higher, farther, and faster than an equivalent eruption on Earth. By checking the time codes on this image and the previous images that had been doctored, I found that these were taken 3 hours 28 minutes later. The two images taken after this one were taken 34 and 70 seconds later than this event and show no trace of anything unusual. Could these be transitory pixel failures, perhaps induced by radiation or some other fault? This is very, very unlikely as it would require that many pixels fail simultaneously and in two sharply defined locations of the imager. This is far and away outside of the rational bounds of chance. |
 |
|
| What are these things?
They are oblong, very dark (like the soil and many of the rocks) and they are at quite an altitude. Nothing should be in the air on Mars other than dust and clouds, and the occasional fine mist or spray. These are not meteors or other phenomena, as they would most likely be bright and leave smoke trails or even a smear on the camera image due to movement. No, these are hard objects that do not radiate any appreciable infrared (and the navigation cameras do pick up infrared well). They are very likely stones or debris ejected from a geyser that is erupting. Note: the "checkerboard" and grainy patterns are JPEG artifacts. These objects are far too well defined and coherent to be artifacts. Now, can we locate the geyser itself in any way? |
 |
I began by inverting the ejecta image and subtracting it from the next frame, which showed no airborne objects. Then I raised the contrast greatly to see if any other, smaller objects or more subtle features might emerge. This is what showed up.
Between the two arrows to the left, a faint jet-like structure emerges. Is this the geyser plume itself? I circled the two airborne objects before processing the contrast and brightness. Brightness has been reduced by 40% and contrast enhanced by 70%.
The apparent plume and its angle are consistent with a trajectory that would be followed by the two objects, had they been thrown by an erupting geyser. The larger (and likely heavier) object is lower and has followed a slightly different path. The smaller (and likely lighter) object has taken a high path over the larger object.
So it is very probable (given the circumstances) that NASA or someone working for them has edited out the images of a geyser in eruption, and the navigation cameras have caught the geyser throwing ejecta or debris for a considerable distance.
But is there anything more concrete to support the idea that some images have been altered? Are there any more that show signs of tampering? Yes, clearly. Here is a pair of images (and their unedited counterparts) that show more unexplained work by somebody who has access to the truly raw image data. The original image data is here at the NASA/JPL website.
If you examine the image above, you can see a mass of rocks and sand. A very rough white "sky" appears above it. This is the left camera, filter L7. This is a violet light image. Now, the right camera was used to take an image also, of this exact same location at the same angle. Here is one. The original image is here at the NASA/JPL website.
This is the right camera image - from exactly the same time code. Note that it is physically impossible to have the left and right cameras take simultaneously images at different altitudes- because they are bolted together as one unit.
Now. let's put the two images together side by side for a clear comparison.
 |
 |
| This L7 image has a time code of 143098049. It was made in conjunction with the right camera at the same exact instant. They two cameras are one physical unit and cannot possibly aim at two different altitude angles at the same time. | This R1 image has a time code of 143098049 also. It proves that the left camera image has been edited to remove some portion of the image. The fake sky edge is a ragged artifact produced by somebody in NASA with a photo editor program. |
Finally, I wanted to test the white area for uniformity. A perfectly uniform area is a dead giveaway that this was artificially done. I decided to convert the pixel values to the following colors to test for uniformity and here is what emerged.
I selected red for pixels of 255:255:255 value, blue for pixels of 254:254:254 value, and green for pixels of 253:253:253 value. This is what happened.
Some unknown "artist" inside NASA edited these images to create a white fake sky and in doing so, left their signature or watermark embedded inside the image. The red areas are perfect white (255), the blue are value 254 white, the green are value 253 white. Note the little "space invader" figure?
| And finally, here is the
hidden signature that emerged from the image, of our unknown photo editor.
Whoever did the editing of these so-called raw images left their vanity mark hidden within the resulting images. The red areas correspond to white 255, the blue areas correspond to white 254, the green areas correspond to white 253, and the white areas correspond to white 252. In other words, by using very bright white shade (but still detectable to the computer) it is possible to hide a watermark or signature in an image that is completely invisible to the naked eye. Our mystery image editor inside of NASA (or where ever) did this. |
 |
Paradise Lost
Now, the next obvious question is, can we trust that the other images are in fact reliable? What might have been edited out or covered? I now have serious doubts about whether any of the images can be trusted fully, and this will seriously endanger their credibility as an agency that is supposed to present the facts to the public- who is paying for this research to be done in the first place.
If NASA or JPL sees fit to alter the data without informing the people who paid for that data that it is not entirely accurate now, what other alterations to the truth might they be capable of? Are they in fact manufacturing some means of denying what is to be seen in these images?
To me, the very foundation of trust and credibility of this organization has been compromised. Can you trust anyone who will present non-factual information as "raw" data? Decide for yourself.