Quote:
Originally Posted by djinn
I see it was suggested that transmission problems and/or over-proccessing are the most likely causes, and, of course, that is a gadzilllion times more likely than that the artfacts are "real".
|
The transmissions were digital, so that is not likely a source of problems. The images were clearly processed, to hell and back, compressed, draped, combined for color, smoothed for viewing, twisted, turned, stretched. By now, the original raw images are probably available via the Planetary Data System (PDS) [for instance:
PDS: Map Projected HRSC data from the High Resolution Stereo Camera on Mars Express] so a scholar or interested hobbyist, and especially a claimant of fantastic conclusions, should be using the raw data, unprocessed.
Anyone, any buddy or anybody, who claims that some mass-market beauty image from ESA, or other source, provides evidence of astounding alien intelligence, must demonstrate the provenance and pedigree of the image -- where it was taken, when, by what, how, who held or manipulated the image since it was captured, when, how, and all the rest that actually allows the evidence to speak clearly.
If they don't bring out the earliest and most reliable images right away to prove their contention then you can be sure what they claim is incredibly ill-founded and unconvincing, and that they are either ignorant or deceptive, or both.
I don't understand the need to find images that have gone through exactly the same steps to produce exactly the same types of artifacts. Beauty shots are not mass-produced by robots through precise steps. They are hand-crafted. I wouldn't expect two to look similar at the level you seem to desire. I think that search is futile, even if automated to look at every space image released ever.