Alien Anomalies

One day the most stupid posts will be dried out or placed in a especial department.

I have a record of consistently providing this forum with clear, detailed, and ultimately correct explanations of anomalies and users' questions (Prometheus and the F-Ring; MSL laser and RTG; Spirit Rock Abrasion Tool; Reports 185, 188, 190; Martian "snake" that turned out to be a cable; etc.). That history should allow you to guess that I was not just "spouting off." Since you stated some very opinionated but incorrect beliefs, and several times disbelievingly questioned where the infomation came from, I provided my credentials (as you suggested) to convince you that my explanation was valid and that in future you can rely on my knowledge in this area.

But do not fault me for failing to realize that you don't know what a word means, especially when the meaning could have been deduced from the context of the original quote. Optical imaging and analysis is a technical field; like any specialization it has its own jargon. If you're going to be involved in the field you need to learn the jargon to understand and be understood. I can't worry that users might not know every common technical term I use. If you don't know it, look it up.

And where do I not have tolerance? I think I have been more than tolerant in this case and others in providing  detailed explanations when users could have found the answers themselves with trivial effort. For instance, when you were so incredulous about the distortion of the HazCams, did you bother typing "distortion HazCam" into Google? If you did, you'd have found the referenced paper in the first few hits.

That paper, found at www.mwoa.org/SPIE_paper.pdf is a good reference paper and contains much useful information about the rover optical systems. It should be studied carefully by anyone attempting to decipher the details of one of the rover images.

qmantoo wrote:

---

yes, but where do you find this information?

These are essentially scientific instruments and MUST be relied apon to give accurate representations of the terrain - otherwise the rovers may be steered over a cliff or something.

I cannot help but think it is unlikely that any of the cameras sent to Mars would have distortions in their lenses because then scientists or mission controllers could not rely on the images returned. Please prove me wrong.

---

Reference:
Optical designs for the Mars '03 rover cameras; Gregory H. Smith, Edward C. Hagerott, Lawrence M. Scherr, Kenneth E. Herkenhoff, and James F. Bell III; Proc. SPIE 4441, 118 (2001)

"In the lower part of both ends of the rover, there are stereo pairs of hazard avoidance cameras (HazCams). One pair faces
forward, and one pair faces rearward. The stereo separation is 100 mm. These cameras are part of the on-board autonomous
navigation system; their purpose is to reveal dangerous objects in the path of the rover as it drives in either direction. The
diagonal field of view of each camera is 180 degrees, a full hemisphere. For such an extremely wide field, conventional f-tanθ
distortion correction is impossible. Thus, the HazCam lenses are full-frame fisheye lenses.
In a fisheye lens, the image geometry is of the f-θ type, that is, equal meridional angle increments in the object scene are
mapped (ideally) as equal linear increments on the image plane. When looking at the whole scene, a fisheye lens unavoidably
produces a great amount of barrel distortion. This distortion is actually just the consequence of projecting a hemisphere onto a
plane. Of course, the projection function can be calibrated. But of more practical importance, small parts of the scene, even
those near the field edge, are imaged quite accurately without needing a lot of subsequent image processing. For the
HazCams, f-θ mapping will be very effective.
The usable field coverage of the HazCam lenses is 180 degrees across the diagonal of the square CCD format, and 124
degrees from side to side. The lens focal length is 5.58 mm in the center of the field. The HazCams operate at f/15, view
objects whose distances range from infinity to 200 mm, and are fixed-focused at 400 mm. They are monochrome systems; as
with the NavCams, a pair of absorption filters (Schott OG590 and KG5) working in series gives a reddish waveband
extending from roughly 0.60 μm to 0.80 μm. With their internal location, absorption filters rather than quasi-reflective
interference filters were selected to reduce stray light."


The distortion is apparent in the ZEMAX model analysis, both in the raytrace layout, and in the locations in the image plane of the spot diagrams for the 0, 30, 60, and 90 degree cases.

But most clearly apparent to optical system novices, the distortion is obvious when looking at any of the images.

Image ref: 2F319371241EFFB27MP1214R0M1

In a distortion-free optical system, the horizon would be a straight line across the image (aside from the slight rises of the hills in the distance). In this image, the horizon grossly bulges upward. In a distortion-free system, the edge of the rover with its cables at the bottom would be a straight line across the image. In this image, it grossly bulges downward.

This distortion is obvious to even the most casual observer.

This is called "barrel distortion" and it's what happens when you use a fisheye lens to capture a very wide field of view as in the image below:

The HazCams have a 180 degree (diagonal) field of view so that they can capture a very wide field of view to detect potential hazards.

Your assertions about what the instruments MUST do, and the data the scientists and mission controllers require are based on your own limited knowledge of the instruments, requirements, goals, and methods used.

I have stressed before, and cannot stress enough, educate yourself about the specifications and capabilities of the instruments that take these images. It is folly to dissect the image without having a VERY clear understanding of the workings of the camera that produced it.

And when it comes to this particular discipline, you'd do well to listen to an expert in the field. I am a professional optical system and lens designer. I use the same software in my profession that produced the layout and spot diagrams above. If I cared to, I have the optical prescriptions for all the rover cameras and could model them and analyze their performance to the level that the original designers did. I have made over $1.5 million USD in the course of my career in this line of work. So when I say I know something about cameras or lenses or images or film or CCDs or pushbroom imagers or shadows or light or the direction of the sun in an image, I speak from a position of considerable professional authority.

 

 

Sorry. Slip of the fingers. These images are from the HazCams, not the NavCams. The HazCams have a lot of distortion. The Navcams have < 0.03% distortion.

And I can say conclusively, with 100% certainty, that the image Iceman used has been manipulated from its original state.

(And so should you.)

Whereas I think the picture could have been manipulated and changed by hand, it is more likely to be a natural result of image compression and the stuff they do to the images before we get them. It is VERY unlikely that any other species will have a dwelling structure identical to the ones we use. C'mon, get real.

So..... has this particular image been tapered with or not?

I am sure that there are some people on the forum and casual viewers who are experts at using graphic programs and applications who should be able to spot the changes to the pixel texture around the area in question if there has been any form of alteration.

It has been proposed there is a built structure in the image that has been 'covered up' by some form of manipulation to the image. If this structure does exist, then it proves that whoever built are members of a very tiny species. 

On the other hand, if it can be confirmed that no manipulation of the image has taken place then we will just have to search for more evidence of a life existence and examples of their handiwork.

It looks like something may be blurred out there...then again....maybe not

Yes, after looking at the images in this thread, I would agree that tampered data is a huge problem.

goggog wrote: Martini Hotel. Excellent work

Thank you goggog, your words show me how much power we have if we all work together. Thank you.

I forgot the URL of the source it's here :

http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/forward_hazcam/2010-02-13/2F319371918ESFB27MP1162L0M1.JPG

(Tropical Dunes Martian resort)

Hotel Martian. Excellent work