First off to answer the question in a closed thread, " How can we tell if the photo source is NASA or a third party. Simple as pie, just open the file with any expanded notepad or word pad and read the history of the file including modification dates, it's all in the header. The Images I have viewed released from NASA and other first party sites, (many) University of Arizona to name 1, Have been tinkered with so much they can no longer represent the surface of anything. I look at press releases, panoramas, images of the day, photos released by extremely large telescope sites who get their photos directly from Nasa and JPL/NASA sites themselves. The European Space Agency also is a good 1st source of NASA releases and the most prominent source of those is a German site.

Am I a Photoshopper? I'll tell you up front yes I am and know my work. Would I falsely represent an image, no I wouldn't. If I modify it I tell you. I like to get credit for my work, I'm not like NASA. If you think I'm saying trust me, I'm saying trust only yourself. I leave links to data, sometimes web page links sometimes I download the pictures and put them on sharing sites. I've learned to do that because data in a photo has been changed soon after a post on me. Do a little work on your own to test the data. That is very good advice for every section in this forum.

I'd like to do a history of airbrush techniques in the near future. I'll give links to images. These images are the proposed source for study and so credible a source for mars information that the scientists use them for analysis.

1 NASA sent a camera up there that shoots false color and off color filtered images. Doesn't this raise your eyebrows just a little bit that they openly modify images before they even send them to Earth? A scientist cornered admitted they add the infrared to the red spectrum to make the picture look more like Mars. It's time to make them tell the truth.

Jack is right, the image is modified. There is no real reason to do this. Look at the panoramas of Earth. You can download many of these from google. The pictures are seamless and perfect. Now look at how the panoramic views of Mars are shot in an arc.
Why do they shoot sequential images in an arc for what reason? We sent a multi million dollar camera system up there that can not do as good a job as a man with a tripod can do in his backyard? If they are not hiding data why do they show us false data? This is a good process to help hide the presences of water.

The US government and every other government lies to their people. There are advantages to disinforming the public. It used to be called propaganda, now it's called psyop. The last exposed lie by the USA was about the Lusitania ocean liner that brought the US into the first world war. At the time of the sinking it was represented as a passenger only ship. You should view the war propaganda available on the net. You should also search "4 million rounds of Remington 303 British Lusitania" The articles will go on to mention unrefrigerated vaults named lobsters and such that have yet to be opened. Just because it's released by any government does not make it the truth. This is not a theory this is an observation.

Here are some links that challenge the credibility of the US government

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nger-ship.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=97350149

http://history1900s.about.com/cs/wor.../lusitania.htm

NASA is under the thumb of the NSA and DOD so why do you suspect they ever told the truth to the public about anything that happens in space. There is also the matter of 300 boxes of missing Apollo pictures and pictures now surfacing that were reported corrupted or bad exposures.

*warning: 5 year old thread*
*warning: this thread should be in Conspiracy theories*

Hi raburgeson, welcome to the board.

This thread belongs in Conspiracy Theories. There are special rules there, make sure you're familiar with them.

There are also general rules, please read them carefully. "No politics" is one of the rules.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

Why would NASA (or the US government) want to hide the existence of water on Mars? So what if infrared was added (if it was) to Mars photos? Is this so alarming?

Why all the links about the Lusitania? Even, if in a wartime situation, the truth was not told, what does this have to do with NASA images?

What, according to you, does the government and NASA have to hide and why?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Is this a "we didn't go, it was filmed on earth" thread?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

If they are hiding data why can't they, with the billions of dollars, do a better job?

Why would they be hiding it? Water on Mars means it could have life or be more easily colonised. It would open the doors for funding! Why hide something that's going to get you more money?

So? I doubt very much you've never lied. That a person or body of people is capable of lying is simple fact. The point is to determine if they are in fact lying. Because they have lied once is not evidence they are lying now.

It does not make it a lie either.

Because there's a whole pile of objectively verifiable evidence that backs them up.

What missing pictures? As far as I know the only '300 boxes' of missing anything contained a better quality version of the Apollo 11 TV footage and a whole bunch of telemetry. Since the spacecraft was sending telemetry back constantly for the entire two-weeks of each flight, I'm more surprised that 300 boxes could contain it all, frankly.

Examples?

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

I am guessing 'we went but they are hiding things' thread.
Raburgason, because in a time of war some facts were kept secret doesn't mean that NASA is keeping secrets about what is found on Mars.

What you need to do is show us some evidence for your claims, 'because I say so' isn't good enough.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Bad Pictures depends on your idea of a good picture. Certainly there are plenty of examples of badly framed or exposed Apollo photographs in the record, it is to be expected out of the thousands that were taken.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

G'day Raburgeson, and welcome to the BAUT Forum. Can you explain your concern in more detail, please? After all, if you have one camera, and you want to get an all-round image, isn't the only way to do that to take a series of photos in sequence, and join them together to make a panorama? How could you do any different with a camera if you were standing where the spacecraft was?

What data are they hiding? What is your evidence?

As others have asked, why would NASA hide evidence of water? How would hiding data hide the presence of water? And how does NASA stop the spacecraft of other nations from finding this water?

Evidence that the US Government lied on another occasion is not proof that NASA is lying about Mars.

Evidence please.

Because foreign governments and agencies can check up, and have done so, on many things NASA says they've done. For example, foreign scientists have examined the rocks brought back by the Apollo missions, and foreign satellites have measured the level of radiation in the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

No, all photos taken on the Apollo missions have always been available. If you'd like to look at them in low resolution, go to the Lunar and Planetary Institute web-site. What's been missing have been telemetry tapes, and high resolution versions of TV footage.

Hi, Raburgeson. As an ordinary user, let me encourage you to follow closely the advice of the moderators and familiarize yourself with the rules of debate here. Many newcomers run afoul of them and thereby start off on the wrong foot.

How can we tell if the photo source is NASA or a third party. Simple as pie, just open the file with any expanded notepad or word pad and read the history of the file including modification dates, it's all in the header.

In my experience this doesn't prove to be reliable information. Programs can modify image content without changing EXIF information, and programs can write EXIF header information without changing content. Besides, nothing in that header information tells you what might have been done to the content.

The Images I have viewed released from NASA [...] Have been tinkered with so much they can no longer represent the surface of anything.

It is unclear whether this conclusion is based on your comparison of different versions of the same photo from different sources, or is simply generalized from your examination of the EXIF header. Lots of visits to metadata is not a sufficient argument for claiming a photo has been reduced thereby to uselessness.

Am I a Photoshopper? I'll tell you up front yes I am and know my work.

Good. So am I. I taught computer graphics and digital imaging at the university where lots of the Photoshop people were trained, including Adobe founder John Warnock.

If you think I'm saying trust me, I'm saying trust only yourself.

Fine, I plan to. But please be aware that if you're claiming expertise as a basis for your argument, that expertise will be tested before it can be accepted. Adobe has many customers. Simply being proficient with their tools does not automatically give you expertise in image analysis or clairvoyance into methods of imaging you have not necessarily studied specifically.

I expect you then to be able to sustain a more learned discussion than "I'm a Photoshop expert; trust me." I will expect some meat in your discussion of digital images if you expect to be considered an expert.

NASA sent a camera up there that shoots false color and off color filtered images.

Only in the sense that every camera ever invented has shot in false and filtered color. Every color system ever used in photography from black-and-white through the various two- and three-color systems up to today's CCD sensors approximates color. In my career I have seen exactly one general-purpose system -- an experimental one -- that represents color in digital processes using the entire paravisible spectrum. Everything else uses filters and seleted wavelengths to approximate color and intensity information, or to provide only the wavelengths of interest.

Doesn't this raise your eyebrows just a little bit that they openly modify images before they even send them to Earth?

No. Because in addition to graphics and photography, my principal area of expertise is engineering. I'm very well acquainted with the techniques for acquiring scientific image data using space-based systems. I see many naive arguments claiming images are "modified" by such encoding processes. In my experience those arguments seem more aimed at trumping up some grievance rather than fairly examining the question.

A scientist cornered admitted they add the infrared to the red spectrum to make the picture look more like Mars.

Source, please? That sort of claim needs the context in which the alleged statement was made in order to evaluate its propriety.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

First of all, use of the phrase "false color" in the way you're using it, to give the impression that there are "real" colors and that NASA is hiding them, is an intentional misstatement of the facts. When a scientist or engineer uses the word "false color" they aren't using it in the way that you are. It doesn't mean hiding. It means something more like mapping.

This page explains it better than I can:
http://marswatch.astro.cornell.edu/p...rojects_5.html

In summary, the cameras on the rovers are *more* sensitive to color than the consumer-grade camera you own. They can detect subtle differences that your eyes can't. Those subtle differences allow geologists to detect minerals in the rocks, but since our geologists can only see with those pathetic fleshy orbs that our makers gave us (BSG reference) they require that the wavelengths the camera sees be *mapped* onto wavelengths that their eyes can see.

The camera wasn't even developed by NASA. It was developed at Cornell.
http://athena.cornell.edu/the_mission/ins_pancam.html

So now your conspiracy must be enlarged to include a bunch of graduate students.

Of course they add other spectrums. Astronomers do it all the time. What you're calling "truth" is biased by your own species' evolution. You see certain wavelengths. Fine. But it's a bit arrogant of you to call those particular wavelengths "truth" as if no other wavelengths are possible or interesting or useful.

The cameras are scientific instruments and they gather light at wavelengths that are useful to scientists. Long after the important work of science is done, the public relations people do what they can with the data to make it "pretty" for release. You seem to think that the primary purpose of the cameras is to snap pretty pictures for the general public. That simply isn't true.

yes, this statement should pretty much end the thread.

raburgeson seems to think there is such a thing as "the one true-color interpretation" and NASA could send a camera that creates images in this "true" color but they choose not to because they are hiding The Truth (tm).

raburgeson, your whole arguments falls apart on the realization that every CCD approximates color. This is normal.

Jack is right, the image is modified.

Who is Jack? For the benefit of those receiving the transplated thread, please identify who you are citing here as an additional claimant.

There is no real reason to do this.

Are you sure? Or is the real claim that you personally cannot imagine any reason? This would be a claim that could only be made by a demonstrated expert if it were to be considered evidence of malfeasance. If a layman can't imagine how something is done, then we have to consider that the problem is simply lack of information.

Look at the panoramas of Earth. You can download many of these from google. The pictures are seamless and perfect.

I would like a specific example of what you're using as reference images. I can find many ordinary panoramas that are not "seamless and perfect." If there are ordinary panoramas that exhibit such flaws, then you may not use the existence of them in some suspect photo as evidence that they were faked.

I do not agree with the implied premise that all true photographic panoramas are flawless. In fact, I will go even farther and argue that with the characteristics of most lenses, a flawless panorama is not possible without altering some of the original image data in order to create the invisible seam, whether to distort it to correct for projection differences or to alter the intensity for tone matching. You can't have it both ways. You can't have flawless seams and also absolute fidelity to the camera original.

Why do they shoot sequential images in an arc for what reason?

Which images do you mean? I suspect the original context of this thread may have had the information I require. Panorama segments whose lines of sight are not coplanar must be reassembled as an arc in order to preserve appropriate spatial relationships. Without seeing your images in question, I can't properly tell you the reason. But I don't accept your inability to think of a reason as evidence of fakery. If you argue something was faked, you have to prove it was faked -- not just suggest that it fails to meet your expectations.

If they are not hiding data why do they show us false data?

You have not proven that the data are false. That is, I haven't seen any evidence except the failure of these images to match your arbitrary expectations. I don't know enough about you or your expectations yet in order to determine whether they are reasonable.

This is a good process to help hide the presences of water.

What is your evidence that NASA is hiding signs of water? It sounds like you're speculating here.

The US government and every other government lies to their people.

As do many people outside of government. It is just as illogical to believe implicitly that some claim is false as it is that some claim is true.

Please be aware that arguments which bypass fact and head straight to alleged motive get shot down very quickly here. Motive can be argued and second-guessed forever, which is why fringe theorists seem to prefer it. Here we do not ignore questions of motive entirely, but we absolutely reject the notion that because someone had a motive to do X, that X must necessarily have been done.

The last exposed lie by the USA was about the Lusitania ocean liner...

Fine, but off-topic and irrelevant. Arguments of the form, "They lied about X so they must also have lied about Y," are not valid. Whether or not Y is true depends entirely and exclusively on factual evidence pertaining only to Y. Yes, a false X may raise suspicion about other things, but suspicion is not fact. You must test the suspicion by uncovering facts about Y, if Y is really the question of interest. Whether or not someone lied about the Lusitania is entirely irrelevant to whether or not someone else 90 years later is lying about photographs of Mars.

NASA is under the thumb of the NSA and DOD...

First, you need evidence for this claim. Both NSA and the U.S. Dept. of Defense have in the past been customers of NASA. This does not place NASA "under their thumb."

Second, you need to show the connection between that alleged influence and the effect you say you observe. Not just suggest that there might be a connection, but actually show evidence of that connection in operation. Handwaving some purported alliance to agencies of allegedly bad reputations does not create a credible argument.

...so why do you suspect they ever told the truth to the public about anything that happens in space.

Because much of what they claim can be independently verified. If you want to claim that NASA has lied in any particular case, you must test that case. Simply suggesting that NASA may have a bad reputation does not validate your specific claims.

There is also the matter of 300 boxes of missing Apollo pictures and pictures now surfacing that were reported corrupted or bad exposures.

Show me an Apollo image that has "just now surfaced," that was previously missing and was alleged to be corrupted or of poor quality. Most of us here are very familiar with the Apollo photographic record. Further, the existing record contains images of poor quality and those which suffer from various forms of "corruption." Hence there doesn't seem to be any such motive.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Hide water? So your accusign Nasa of hiding evidence of water?

Ok...

Then explain this image

Or Explain this one

I don't know where you got that idea from, but you should of validated it before posting it. Patently Nasa and other space agencies like ESA, are not hiding evidence of water.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

300 boxes. Really? I doubt that the astronauts took enough photographs to fill three hundred boxes.

Here's some info on the storage of the Apollo films. Clearly the film is not stored in boxes. Also, it is clearfully stored to avoid the corruption you claim.

When a scientist or engineer uses the word "false color" they aren't using it in the way that you are. It doesn't mean hiding. It means something more like mapping.

Yes, where "mapping" in this case means the (often arbitrary) assignment of visible color to other properties in an image, such as information obtained from non-visible wavelengths or algorithmically and algebraically derived values. It's quite appropriate in scientific visualization to say things like, "This image is blue proportional to where our multiple-spectrum analysis indicates the likely presence of oxygen." That's not to say oxygen is blue.

In engineering we commonly map the entire visible color spectrum to visualizations of temperature. It's not uncommon for me to produce a false-color image of, say, a turbine blade that is garishly colored to indicate where my tools predict the various temperatures will occur during operation. Thermal and materials engineers can read these products as easily as an ordinary person reads a street sign. Again, these do not attempt to indicate true visible color.

...but since our geologists can only see with those pathetic fleshy orbs that our makers gave us (BSG reference)...

And a very appropriate BSG reference, although I'm not sure what x-rays would sound like.

Cameras used for scientific purposes are mind-bogglingly more sensitive than consumer or professional cameras, and are set up precisely to image in any of several important wavelengths. Modern digital cameras -- even the highly-priced professional models -- are stripped-down and clunky compared to scientific cameras. They are hard-wired to collect only three fixed wavelengths and combined them together into a weak approximation of the actual color in the scene.

The notion that data acquisition cameras on unmanned spacecraft are somehow inferior to an ordinary off-the-shelf consumer camera because they have difficulty producing natural color images is simply as ignorant as it can be of how cameras are actually used in science. And thus the trumped-up suspicion is ill-founded.

The camera wasn't even developed by NASA. It was developed at Cornell.

And it was developed according to long-standing best practices in scientific instrumentation.

You see certain wavelengths.

Chiefly certain specific hues each of red, green, and blue. It is possible to have gross differences in radiation and absorption bands that lie outside those zones of preference, that would therefore go completely unnoticed by the naked fleshy orb. That won't do for science.

Long after the important work of science is done, the public relations people do what they can with the data to make it "pretty" for release.

And in that task they are often hobbled by the unavailability of data in the canned digital photography wavelengths. If they need red data at 570 nm to satisfy the RGB color model but the closest wavelength that was imaged for that frame is 600 nm, then that's the one they'll stick in the red channel. And it will be displayed at 570 nm instead of 600 nm, and the resulting picture will be affected.

"True" photography lies all the time. Color correction and grading is an industry by itself. This is because the human fleshy orb is connected to a brain that automatically adjusts for colored illumination in how it interprets the eye image. But film and digital sensors do not. Hues are routinely adjusted in and out of the camera to render "true" color out of the horribly wrong hues picked up by the indifferent sensor. Sunlight is blue. Incandescent light is orange. Fluorescent light is green. Uncorrected, these effects wreck color photography. Even off-the-shelf digitals make some attempt at white balance before interpreting the image from the sensor.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

It was split from an ancient thread "Nasa edits Mars images before releasing them?Why?!? [edited]" started by user jumpjack. In its original location it seemed obvious that he was the referred to Jack.

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

I gave the links to the Lusitania to prove a point the government does lie. Remember the government told the people of the US that only [removed] get AIDS. The question is why are they lying about what's in space. If we knew the answer to that we wouldn't need this part of the forum. We are discussing a politically driven NASA. It gets it's funding through politics. It has military ties, and it has information locked down for reasons of national security. In short the subject is one of the government alphabet agencies. You simply can't leave politics out of this. Don't you want to get out the fiddle when you hear the old government refrain "you can't handle the truth."

There is no excuse for the actions of the government and I'm not making any for them. You want to talk conspiracy but leave the government out of it like they are saints and couldn't possibly be involved.

Admin if I can refind the other post you warned me about I'll leave the links for the specs on the video card my piggy hi-def monitor needs to not lag, it likes it's gigo and I had no idea you would need a link to something like that.

I am trying to find the link to the adding red on Mars statement, it was a few years ago and the search results returned are almost 1/4 million, I tried adding butterscotch planet to that because it was brought up in the same interview that in the past it was always call such. I'll bring up a lot of old stuff because I'm so far behind, I'm only on page 1887 of 2000 from the 2005 Brazilian release of operation saucer and haven't even touch the Indian information concerning the laws of the universe yet. I'll probably die of old age before I get to the French and British disclosures.
If you guys actually do read all this stuff how do you do it?

Well we are making progress we have gone from no water to water ice on the poles to water ice trapped in underground glaciers even near the equator in a very short time. I recommend the image search, floods mars. Then recommend you go back and look over your old saved images again, this time without the preconception of a dry planet and the understanding that the colors have been shifted. For the really go out there and do people that we have in here I have an easy project for you. The release of the rover were they steered right up to a big rock taken from the lander. Put it up with Photoshop and go to a low flat area that has a smooth surface and change one of those pixels light green or light blue and go see if the rover magically suddenly has the wheels covered in mud. You're all concerned about the exact source so I'm not leaving an image link. My image is a Press release from JPL. It will only take a couple tries, you'll get it quick.

If your lazy try this, hey, you know were it came from.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/im...m2000/mars.jpg

I gave the links to the Lusitania to prove a point the government does lie.

At best it would prove that someone in the government once lied about the Lusitania. That has nothing to do with Mars photos, several decades later.

The question is why are they lying about what's in space.

No, the question is still if they are lying about what's in space. You're saying they are, and we're waiting for your proof.

If we knew the answer to that we wouldn't need this part of the forum.

This part of the forum is where your conspiracy theory is put to the test. The first part of your theory is that photographs from Mars are faked. When you prove that, then you can try to prove why they are faked. But you don't get to skip the hard part.

We are discussing a politically driven NASA.

No, you are postulating a politically-driven NASA. Your line of reasoning seems to be to suggest some vague, undirected impropriety and pretend that this supports specific allegations of fakery. Even if someone buys into the simplistic caricature of NASA as some great Evil, that doesn't prove a specific claim. Any specific claim.

You simply can't leave politics out of this.

Nor can you handwave them in as a substitute for facts. No one is claiming NASA is not affected by politics. However, showing a general, abstract political influence is not proof of your specific claims.

There is no excuse for the actions of the government and I'm not making any for them.

No one is asking you to. You're being asked to substantiate your claims with facts, not with vague suspicions and accusations.

You want to talk conspiracy but leave the government out of it like they are saints and couldn't possibly be involved.

No. You first have to prove there was something for them to have involved with. No one is claiming the government are "saints," and no one has to in order to dispute your claims that the photographs from Mars are faked.

You began this discussion by suggesting you were well enough versed in digital photography to talk about the evidence of faked Mars photos. Now you've just descended into vague suspicion.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

And the point was made, very cogently as usual, that the argument that "They lied about X so they must be lying about Y" is a fallacious argument - particularly so when "they" are governments separated by the better part of 100 years.


What "truth" exactly?

You know, at uni I did a bit of work with UV satellite imagery. I have a lovely image of the M87 galaxy in my study taken in U/V. Are the colours in that image how my eyes would interpret the scene? Obviously not - I can't see in U/V and my eyes don't have capacity for integration of the image over time. So, the image is "false", but is it useless? Obviously no - what is has provided me with is an image that I am able to interpret.

Happy to talk conspiracy if you have any evidence of one. The fact that a government may have lied over 90 years ago about a completely unrelated issue doesn't demonstrate anything, I'm afraid.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

That's not much of a reason to think that the govt, or NASA for that matter, is lying about what's on Mars.

Based on the logic you provide, we could very well mistrust you, Raburgeson, if you had told lies in the past.
You have no real connection with the loss of the Lusitania and the images of Mars.

Now, you may have heard of this phrase: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
To back up your claims, you need evidence. Show us the evidence then.

__________________
This is no fantasy. No careless product of wild imagination. - Jor-El

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

"You can't handle the truth," is not a government refrain, it's an overused movie line originally delivered by Jack Nicholson.

__________________
"One does not require alien ruins in order to absorb a profound sense of wonder and mystery from the moon. That our civilization had actually visited it is miracle enough." Jason Roberts

We'll out the truth.

Maybe you guys should listen to Richard C. Hoagland and find out the real source of "You can't handle the truth."
If your looking for any originality from Hollywood your going to be disappointed.

Also if you listen to him in one of his videos while he is discussing the face on Mars he says, Is that God's face out there in the desert? , what I want to know is when they are going to show us pictures that's not desert.

Me lying in the past is one possibility, I notice you skipped the possibility that I might be a poor straight guy that has suffered with AIDS all these years because the government said "Only [removed] get AIDS.

If you haven't seen all the video of Richard C. then maybe I'm not that far behind.

You test the pictures. You made the claims. Please back them up with some sort of verifiable evidence or you're just another conspiracy....devotee who throws out wild speculation and calls it "proof".

And the first step to doing that is proving that what you already have isn't it. Begin when you're ready.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

You said earlier that Nasa was hiding information of Water on Mars. I posted links to images that have been freely available to the public for years, that contriticted that statement.

So again, How do you explain Images showing Water/Ice on mars, when you had said that this information was being supressed?

This is a direct question, and according to forums rules it must be answered.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

What's "gigo"? Not, I hope, "Garbage In, Garbage Out."

I'm not an admin, but I asked what display (not video card) you had here:

Why No Mars Conspiracy Theories?

That was in response to your statement that we would need a "display of at least 16 billion pixels to really follow my [your] crops." It's obvious that you're using terminology incorrectly. I would like to see what display you have (which undoubtedly has a resolution far short of your requirement).

You can do the same thing on Earth: Take a photo of dirt, in a desert for example, and make it look like mud by manipulating the image. It doesn't prove anything though.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I get another guy and we stretch a string across and go for a walk. And now that we have got this down to ridiculus. I want to see what the admin has to say about invisible elves. I point out to you I would approach this with, prove whether right or wrong. A little elbow grease will get you far, do you have a picture of this happening on an Earth desert? Do the tracks fill with water correctly?