Alien Anomalies

Timewarp · Dedicated to the truth

RE: TheWatcher and Frutty offer some techniques

thewatcher · Veteran Member

Sorry for delay in getting back..

Chandre.. Thanks for moving thread to tampering category.
Chandre, you've been taking on a lot.. i appreciate your efforts. I just hope I can make life a little easier for you here lol.

Also , as a mod I really appreciate yours, Xenon, Humanoids patience with this prickly subject.

@Humanoid@ Man,

Im gutted your thinking of leaving, I really am.. Your last post was thought provoking and straight to the point! When ever I/We submit images to the 'SPARTAN' imaging process I do keep you in mind.. I hope its a short break and you just put your mod status on ice.. Really not sure what else to say on the matter .. Just that even though we may disagree on points you have my complete respect as a rational viewer.

Contact me anytime.. You know where we are smile

Cheers

Now for the Short example image..

I place this simple image reveal test to show that there many points of consideration to take in when revealing..

before I go on i selected an odd cut section of the number 3.. Nothing recognizable straight away.. This was to avoid and subconcious pre-emption of detail.. A bit like when normaly hunting.. You just dont know what your going to find.

/download.spark?ID=771140&aBID=47797

Fruits 1st attempt got the outline.. That was good But you need to check for the detail. Thats whats happening sometimes with using the ENHANCEMENT method. By pushing the levels of tone to an extreme (which should be only used if possible for a 1st look) the whole image gets hit hard, The image has an average incidental (reflected) light reading on board the droid. Keeping your reveal within the tight boundaries will leave the image more viewer-able and most of the time true to the source before modification.

After Marsocks steps in with his/her version: (below)

The Fruity twigs and goes back (without prompting) and tries again.
Results below:

/download.spark?ID=771626&aBID=47797

The trick here is expressed by Fruit.

I am only learning a lot from you guys. smile

This is the result I got applying this filter

1-Filter -> Sharpen -> unsharp mask amount 500% radius 244.1 Threshhold 0

2-Repeat the previous step exactly the same way

I know some people thought this a silly example but I think Fruit and Mars realised whats was going on.. the devil is in the detail. Hyper contrasting can give you a general outline but the true anomalies are obliterated or lost in the process. Im not saying its wrong.. Its just another process that will, in time be refined.

@Marsrocks..

Now, with the same example, here is an area where we get into danger zones.

Below, I've stretched only a portion of the data over the grayscale range.

This means I have effectively deleted a part of my information, and what we are seeing is a fraction of the original raw information. I am sampling only the information marked in the yellow box - the information in the red box has been deleted:

If I am deleting information to bring into view only a part of what is there, I think the viewer should be told. What are we to make of anomalies that appear when a part of the information is discarded? Shouldn't we expect anomalies to occur when we delete information? What we are seeing is derived from actual information - but a part of the information is deleted so that we can focus on a narrow range of data. It is there, but much more is there, which might explain any anomaly.

LOL, right on the money.. Theres a much simpler rule that works every time (well Harry warned me) stay away or at least proceed with caution when dealing with HIGH CONTRAST IMAGES! evileye

One will create anomalies without question, that are mostly not there. High contrast images have a lot of data removed and what is left is (locked). Its an area I don't want to go into in any detail as it will give the providers Ideas.

Another marvelous point by Marsrocks.

Notice, how all of what we see is limited to just that tiny box of grey tones in the yellow box. Very few people have vision that is exceptional enough to glean much information from that block of gray.

Very very good point.. BUT, You presume the rest of the spectrum of gray scale bars has been lost.. dont forget is just tonal variation. the detail is still there in some form. Tone and detail (in SPARTAN are seperated). Of course there is still some loss.. sometimes too much which compromises the image..

I do agree in the wrong hands this can cause a fiew visual spooks..
Nice work Marsrocks (im really impressed)

@Humanoid:
Are you absolutely certain that by applying said technique, you're infact deobfuscating and the resulting image represents any reality at all? If your answer is yes, then I'm sorry but I guarantee you will have a particularly hard time convincing the real pros. And this is inevitable as your site draws more members, growing in popularity. None of my business I hear you say? Yep, consider it as a friendly warning.

Believe me.. we have sleepless nights over this ..
It works in certain conditions. Hitting almost every image with Spartan is unwise. The elaborate process I use is almost what some would call over kill. The reason for that is I have to be certain that whats under there isnt just a creation by my hand or SPARTAN. I look closely for structures passing through, from normal unprocessed area to area in question and sometimes out the other side. Believe me, I do keep an eye on this .. thats why I mostly attack only the area in question. Not the whole picture. There will be mistakes but my hit ration is around 93% on tests which we carry out on local (earth) land marks.. Blind tests.. The graphic test above in this thread is absolutely used.. harry submits graphic to me once a week.. i have to Look in.

There is proof of process.. The object revealed put the question to bed.. im working on thjat at the moment (trying to locate best image)..

To all others , head Humanoids warnings.. Hes right.. its a new science in imaging. I believe Harrys at the forefront and will (in time) start to unload more.. lets just say Ive seen him punch wholes into detail which I cant really understand.. All discussed process come under that simple spectrum summed up by Chandre .

Heres mine. Just used my normal PC software to flip and changed brightness, contrast and mid-tone

You dont need to use sharpen if you know what your doing..

GMANTOO.. I'll be in touch..

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

Heres mine. Just used my normal PC software to flip and changed brightness, contrast and mid-tone

SP254006- One.jpg

SP254006- Two.jpg

marsrocks · Veteran Member

qmantoo, your view is essentially correct, but imaging may be more complex in that there are a variety of "filters" that can be used to change the look of an image to make it more viewable. It does not always have to be in creating contrast - (or distinctions between tones) - for example, simply brightening the whole scene - preserves all of the basic information - it simply adjusts all pixels upward by the same measure. So all of the information is relative.

As for lost information from compression, not sure if this is entirely correct. We could be losing information by compressing it to reduce the file size for transmission purposes, or possibly we could be getting limited tones straight from the camera itself. It may be a matter of the original light detection and a measure of the sensitivity of the camera that gives us such a narrow range of tones - or a combination of the two - not sure.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

My theory about Mars dust devils is that they correspond to electric plasma discharges more than the media portrayed dust storms.

This video might shed some light as to what I mean confuse -- Frutty

One single drop · Senior Member

Hi, it would be marvellöus if you would take the chance to try what you could do on the marked objects and on the marked area. Would be great. Thank you.

SP254006- nrw.jpg

SP254006

http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1739&category=Environment

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Thanks for pointing that out, LW. This image of Oppy's first close encounter with a dust devil, points to a a composite clip on the bottom that has been inversed (like a photo negative).

The sharpened version although not realistic allows to take a glimpse at more details of the devil smile -- Frutty

Levelwind · Senior Member

First of all, the cards are stacked against us from the get go. To think that we would spend billions of dollars and several years of time to send some crappy cameras to Mars or some of the other planets is absurd. We have cameras right here on Earth that can count the hairs on your head from space. Heck my $100 fuji takes better pictures than we're getting from nasa,jpl,esa ect.... So I think it is fine to use what ever we can to get at the truth. Did anyone see the latest Opportunity press release image of the dust devil? The first one supposetly taken by Oppy. I can't believe more people aren't outraged by this. It was the most grainy out of focus blurry picture I've seen in a while. Clearly hidding something. We have clearer images from the 1950's space program. It was so easy when they would simply blurr out what they were trying to hide, like the first Clemintine images. At least you could see the shape and obvious cover up, but these days they are getting better at it. Check out the new Clemintine photos they are almost flawless in thier cover up. Have a look at what fruitnut was able to do in the rover scuffle image. I could see a smudge at the end of these tracks and thought something was fishy. With the sharpening effect you can easly see the cover up. Maybe not evey one could have seen what I was talking about before. It's in the general discussion section.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Humanoid may God be with you. Thanks for everything. smile

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

GM says: "Any manipulation by software packages such as photoshop, to bring out and enhance the detail of pure black and white pictures must either introduce some 'colour' (by moving away from all pixel red/green/blue components being the same value) or by altering neighbouring pixel values to make the difference between them greater."

Not true. phtoshop allows to choose what kind of image you are unstrectching so if it's bw it will keep it's enhancement algorithm inside the same spectre. Here are the choices you have for Uunstretching" an image in photoshop.

I desaturated your avatar and chose "enhance monochromatic contras". Your image did not change even a bit whatsoever. just because it was already stretched.

So in short, photoshop has several options depending on the kind of image your filter is going to be applied on. Notice the second and third options are used for colored images. -- Frutty

qmantoo · Teaching the truth

Please bear with me while I ramble on because I am trying to get my head around all this. I may have got some terms incorrect.

If we just talk about greyscale images which are pure black and white for a moment, we only have a range of 0-255 for each level of grey for each pixel. The value of each pixel is made up of a red,green and blue component but in order to display a greyscale (from black(0) to white(255)) only, each of the red,green and blue components of a pixel have to be the same value - otherwise we start to get colour introduced.

What I think you are all saying is that we need to emphrasise the differences between pixels in order to bring out the detail more. However, as soon as you do that and change pixel values to make detail more visible, you have lost the original values of the pixels.

Is that what we are saying? I think I have understood this right, but not sure.

Any manipulation by software packages such as photoshop, to bring out and enhance the detail of pure black and white pictures must either introduce some 'colour' (by moving away from all pixel red/green/blue components being the same value) or by altering neighbouring pixel values to make the difference between them greater.

What I understand by 'unstretched' data is that the range of greyscale values is small and by 'stretching' it, the difference between the pixel values are widened and so the range of tones(?) is increased. Invariably, this must be a compression of grey values at source in order to produce this unstretched data for transmission. What was lost by compression at source by creating the unstretched data, we cannot re-create later.

Humanoid · Veteran Member

First off, thank you Marsrocks for explaining some of the basics. Could not have said it better myself, just highlighting below some of the points you've made that I think everyone should be aware of before attempting to process an image in any way:

Keep in mind, that using the term deobfuscation may imply someone is hiding something. That may or may not be the case.

I think it is more cautious and perhaps better to say you are enhancing a certain range of tones.

If I am deleting information to bring into view only a part of what is there, I think the viewer should be told.

When we do make findings of this sort, I agree that presenting step by step repeatable processes for others to follow is the best way to go.

Frutty, if that's your answer to my question, (your last reply to me) then well, I wish you happy hunting. You might just as well take a snapshot of your back garden, give it some photoshop treatment and I'm sure you'll find plenty of anomalous structures in it. Just like on Mars, right?

thewatcher, thanks for the lenghty explanation in regard to the way you process planetary imagery. Yes it sounds complicated enough but I knew it was gonna be that way. Just let me ask you the same question I asked Frutty- Are you absolutely certain that by applying said technique, you're infact deobfuscating and the resulting image represents any reality at all? If your answer is yes, then I'm sorry but I guarantee you will have a particularly hard time convincing the real pros. And this is inevitable as your site draws more members, growing in popularity. None of my business I hear you say? Yep, consider it as a friendly warning.

To all users- Never trust anyone!! Don't trust NASA, don't believe me, don't even trust Skipper. Really, take nobody's word for it! Go research for yourselves. Educate yourselves. Actually the field of planetary research is quite "technical" so you need to become a bit more "technical". Learn about image processing, cameras, physics, anything you don't know. I'm not saying you should acquire a PhD, just a little bit of this and that, enough to enable you to "spot the difference". Remember, its hard to be lied to or be manipulated if you know your game!

After a lot of hesitation during the past few month I have finally taken the difficult decision to resign as a mod and leave the PTP altogether. Its been one hell of a journey for me and I have learned a lot. Thanks all and happy anomalies hunting smile

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

marsrock, I think once it's been unstretched as I usually do as a clean up initial procedure, you can only slide the luminosity up or down not from the extremes inward, in order to increase contrast, that way you can rule out losing information.

This is also a good technique we discussed some time back in order to see what might be hidden in an image. In photoshop you use the threshold filter and with the slider run through all the hues appearing sequentially visible to you, so you can concentrate on the areas where you can't see what the threshold scan is showing you. Great post thanks.

Here is the threshold filter tool in photoshop

-- Frutty

marsrocks · Veteran Member

OSD, you have been repeatedly disrespectful.

marsrocks · Veteran Member

Now, with the same example, here is an area where we get into danger zones.

Below, I've stretched only a portion of the data over the grayscale range.

This means I have effectively deleted a part of my information, and what we are seeing is a fraction of the original raw information. I am sampling only the information marked in the yellow box - the information in the red box has been deleted:

If I am deleting information to bring into view only a part of what is there, I think the viewer should be told. What are we to make of anomalies that appear when a part of the information is discarded? Shouldn't we expect anomalies to occur when we delete information? What we are seeing is derived from actual information - but a part of the information is deleted so that we can focus on a narrow range of data. It is there, but much more is there, which might explain any anomaly.

One single drop · Senior Member

Hi guests.

however your process works, to me it seems you are filtering till you get, what you want to get.

Show us clear results or stop it.

Let me make this pretty clear:

Using AA as a playground for software artistic dotcollectors , which want to sell themselves as some sort of deobfuscation gurus, means a kind of misuse of AA s openess and tolerance.

And by the way, some basic respect in your expressions would be not that bad .

marsrocks · Veteran Member

Just want to add this to this thread...

When the raw images come down, they are typically "unstretched."

By unstretched, this means all of the information in the image is limited to a few grey tones.

This is an example of an unstretched MOC image below.

Notice, how all of what we see is limited to just that tiny box of grey tones in the yellow box. Very few people have vision that is exceptional enough to glean much information from that block of gray.

When NASA or anyone else releases the image for public consumption, they stretch the range of grey tones so that people can comprehend what they are seeing. You can call this manipulation or enhancement or whatever - this is all semantics. But all images must be enhanced in some way for people to comprehend what they are seeing.

When an image is "stretched," the information is presented in a broader range of pixel values, and is thus more easily understood. In this case, we are presented with the same information - just stretched across a broader range of values.

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

I am only learning a lot from you guys. smile

This is the result I got applying this filter

1-Filter -> Sharpen -> unsharp mask amount 500% radius 244.1 Threshhold 0

2-Repeat the previous step exactly the same way

marsrocks · Veteran Member

Hello - this is my result on your test image:

I think this is cleaner and shows more of the detail.

What we are doing is grabbing pixels within a certain range - in this case the darkest range of black- and getting outputs that cross the full greyscale spectrum.

I have been doing experiments with this for some time, but your test gives a good way to check the process.

This is the way I revealed it -
In Corel: Image> Adjust Level Equalization> move the input values to the darker levels - leave output values alone.

Repeat 4 more times, and the image hidden in the black pixel range is revealed.

The same process can be applied to any segment of the pixel range of the image - dark tones - mid tones - bright tones.

In my experiments, I have found some pretty intricate looking art - but I have no idea if it is random or if I have brought out something that was intended.

Keep in mind, that using the term deobfuscation may imply someone is hiding something. That may or may not be the case.

Remember the normal human eye has its limits, and taking any picture in greyscale alone will hide anything within limited tonal ranges - it does not require any additional human intervention to hide it. It is hidden because of our inability to distinguish between tones.

I think it is more cautious and perhaps better to say you are enhancing a certain range of tones. But remember, when you limit your output to certain limited ranges, you will likely get a lot of sharp cut structure - because that is what such processes do, even where none exists. To prove it or disprove it, the technique should be applied where you believe no underlying structure exists - choose an earth spot recently disrupted by geological events, for instance. Take note of sharp cuts.

When your inputs are limited and outputs given a wide black and white range of contrast, the likely appearance of artlike images and recognized structure should increase. This doesn't mean they are real or not real - just the probability that you have created them has increased.

On the other hand, some of the images I have seen produced in this way, are fascinating. Let us remember that what remains of something ancient may be difficult to pick up and that the hints of what was once there may rest only in limited ranges. So, I am hesitant to say the enhancement gives it no value - just we should always be honest in acknowledging that enhancements have been made when presented -and be clear with what changes have been made.

When we do make findings of this sort, I agree that presenting step by step repeatable processes for others to follow is the best way to go.

I find this topic interesting, and thank the moderators for allowing it.

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 425
Date: Mon Aug 9 15:24:18 2010

RE: A primer on deobfuscation of images from space	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam

Shapening method in Photohop: First of all paste the picture or open it in photoshop 2- Make copy layer 3 Set the copy layer to blend mode over lay 4 in The filters "other option" select highpass 5 Slide it to sharpen image 6 Merge Image Repeat the same procedure but this time use paint daubs on the copy layer for resharpening. 7 .. Merge layers 8 - You can highlight countours -> filter->brushstrokes accented edges 9 .. If still some areas need enhancing use the burn dodge tools to reveal the depth needed. Also play with luminosity etc the options are infinite Also something not everybody knows. The jpeg artifact can be removed (yes it can) go to reduce noice and check remove jpeg artifact box. As you'll realize there are plenty of other options. Trust your eyes, and follow what they mandate ...

-- Edited by Chandre on Saturday 4th of September 2010 08:11:14 PM

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Mon Aug 9 02:22:29 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

Hint #2. The shadow enhancing technique won't work for any situation. Essentially when the picture is already to "shadowy" or a different obfuscation method has been applied, there are several other techniques that might come in handy.

The second obfuscation method. The second obfuscation method I will talk you about is very simple. It consist o a little blurring plus inversing the image.

This one is very easy to clarify.

Workshop #2 ;

Go to this address: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/images/2010/details/cut/ESP_016459_1830_cut.jpg. The image you will see was just taken this year by the MRO on Mars, on the Arabia Region on Mars

Use your image editing software and inverse the image. Add contrasts and sharpen to your taste.

You will see the most precious untampered image from Mars you could arrive at by other more intrusive methods.

Here is the vid displaying the image you should be able to arrive at in a couple of minutes

-- Frutty

You should arrive at the image I show in this video.

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Mon Aug 9 01:16:59 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

Humanoid wrote:

fruitnut1 wrote:
Moderator could you please erase this thread altogether? I realized after posting it, I was wrong and in fact this technique is faulty, so I would not want to mislead future visitors into thinking something might be wrong with phtographs of Mars or The moon. They are simply alien looking.

== Frutty

There's nothing wrong with the techniques you describe as long as you remember that these are used to enhance the image, bringing out various details in some cases, but what makes you think that you are actually deobfuscating? You photoshop an image and call that deobfuscation? I'd rather call it manipulation

Humanoid, call it whatever you want. I am only interested in clarifying the details of images (which fortunately is possible, as most of the publicly available images from space don't use destructive tampering but obfuscation techniques). If you want to call it a montage call it that way. If you don't believe my technique you are free to choose so. Hopefully others will realize we are touching new grounds here.

Remember Giordano Bruno? don't shoot the messenger. Peace smile -- Frutty

Humanoid

Veteran Member

Posts: 323
Date: Mon Aug 9 00:42:46 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

fruitnut1 wrote:
Moderator could you please erase this thread altogether? I realized after posting it, I was wrong and in fact this technique is faulty, so I would not want to mislead future visitors into thinking something might be wrong with phtographs of Mars or The moon. They are simply alien looking.

== Frutty

There's nothing wrong with the techniques you describe as long as you remember that these are used to enhance the image, bringing out various details in some cases, but what makes you think that you are actually deobfuscating? You photoshop an image and call that deobfuscation? I'd rather call it manipulation

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Sun Aug 8 22:41:53 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
Some references people interested in seeing through space imagery might find valuable Photoshop CS3 for Forensics Professionals:A Complete Digital Imaging Course ... By George Reis Forensics Demystified By David Fisher, Barry A. J. Fisher, Jason Kolowski -- Frutty

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Thu Jul 22 00:46:28 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
Moderator could you please erase this thread altogether? I realized after posting it, I was wrong and in fact this technique is faulty, so I would not want to mislead future visitors into thinking something might be wrong with phtographs of Mars or The moon. They are simply alien looking. == Frutty

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Thu Jul 15 22:37:09 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
This video contributed by Lotte, shows the same technique applied on a Moon Photograph. The investigator calls it "shadow enhancing". Take a look ...

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Thu Jul 15 12:44:52 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

This is another video on how to deobfuscate images from mars, though very clumsy with a little more dedication you will get better results.

Please notice how structures invisible to your eyes before, start appearing as if by art of magic .... Remember when starting using the "burn tool" setting it's range to shadows and it's intensity to no more than 10% otherwise you will spoil the image.

-- Frutty

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Tue Jul 13 03:35:28 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
Another ESA lava deposit on Mars cracked *courtesy of Frutnut* . 07/12/10 (Source)

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 421
Date: Mon Jul 12 02:44:52 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

This is how I started discovering what was behind the pictures published from outer space, Venus, Moon, Saturn, etc etc ...

I have to admit I now use methods I did not even fathom then, but the video I am posting was made on Jun/09/2010, and now July 11 2010, I have explored many other deobfuscation techniques with one pattern. I ALWAYS can find what is beneath an apparently boring image from space.

-- Frutty

-- Edited by Chandre on Saturday 4th of September 2010 08:10:25 PM

fruitnut1 · Dedicated to the truth

Chandre how about moving my deobfuscation technique primer to this thread too .. smile

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

TheWatcher posted this in reply

qmantoo wrote:

Thewatcher - I would be interested to know if you can take your picture that you posted for us to reveal what was under the black, and run it through your process... Are you able to get back to the original 'final answer' picture, complete with most of the detail?

Most of the Rover pictures are JPGs and as such have compression to begin with. Please can you give us a before and after test image which is a JPG so that we can do a more realistic Rover photograph test? I can make my own I suppose but it is rather like testing your own programs - you never seem to catch the most obvious of bugs that someone else finds straight away.

Hi Gmanto,

I had posted in your program thread a question.. This was leading up to a series of questions which you could possibly include in future versions of your programs..

Can external Urls be incorporated in source images in future?
Would you be able to view process on the fly and stop - reverse - at any moment..?

I would be interested to know if you can take your picture that you posted for us to reveal what was under the black, and run it through your process... Are you able to get back to the original 'final answer' picture, complete with most of the detail?
Will do later.. no probs..
What i and fruit used here is pretty basic ( Just turning on the lights) its then improving the result and getting at the much smaller detail (which is where I come in).. The process I quoted earlier in reply to Humanoid is highly complex and not intended for this case example. There are at least 20-30 types of tamperings we've come across. Each one requires a different approach. each user employs a different technique and each technique uses a variety of different methods.. U see , what Im doing is almost impossible to replicate in a program.. at the moment. The human brain processes data at the speed of thought. It can cross ref detail in ways computers can only to attempt to emulate, poorly. There are too many adjustments (manually). Multiple vanishing points (in perspective) maybe called in, texture and depth of surface (lunar especially) is critical. How does one explain the texture of soil and rock in relation to tonal variations noted when filtering through swatches of filters. Harry has someone working on interpreting this into an algorithm.. Its too complex for me to understand.. and legally I cant. Just to say that a program still can really emulate visual suspicion.

Most of the Rover pictures are JPGs and as such have compression to begin with. Please can you give us a before and after test image which is a JPG so that we can do a more realistic Rover photograph test? I can make my own I suppose but it is rather like testing your own programs - you never seem to catch the most obvious of bugs that someone else finds straight away.

ALL images have a degree of compression.. Even when you set to - 0 - on your software package the system (for compression) via uploading / downloading to a server. Viewing through browser involves forms of compression, theres really no way in avoiding it. Interestingly there is a very positiveside effect to compression on the low end. It remembers detail! Weird I know but Hires images are harder to work with. The anomalies are there but just harder to get hold of. On low res (the exact Compression percentage varies wildly). Also color is a form of compression. Lunar images are easier to detail than Martian. Original BW images with very low contrast are the best. Color seems to flatten in my processes so I flick to gray scale.

There is an image Im trying to find that will prove my point and may get most of you revealing.. its based on the rover. I found it 4 months ago.. It may help you to understand and maybe calibrated your software. Its just finding it again.. It also may open a can of worms.. Im not being dramatic about it! Just hope I can remember where I put it. I didnt publish it on our site or here for those reasons.

TW

Chandre · Dedicated to the truth

I am copying this from the Libya Montes thread as requested and removing it from the Libya Montes thread so that can continue uninterupted aww

A note for readers, these techniques have been considered as 'manipulation' of the images if used to the extreme. BUT, they can be used to sharpen images in moderation and highlight the anomalies more clearly in some cases. The Forum has allowed posting of these images (eventhough most readers will be able to follow the evidence) as we support the concept of free speech and expression and we believe it adds a different perspective to the threads.

The original post explaining Fruttys technique can be found here :

http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=47797&p=3&topicID=37003868

TheWatcher has added these suggestions ;

So simple... fruit has given you a head start .. Gmantoo gogogo and others are getting the idea.. so read fruits explanation.. open a thread and show ur results and u'll be guided.

But if u want a little of what I get up too..

Image assessment is key. Its first thing I do and the last! If you can understand what you're looking at or understand the spectrum of colors in the image then ur lost. Color images converted to black and white (grey scale) still have color tonal properties when varied.

Heres the very basic.

Ive spent many man hours studying the behaviour of pixels within tonal fluctuations.. ( light and dark to be frank) I use photoshop.. I create a 3 image test strip (from a template). I compare color filters. I look at structures passing through shadow and behaviour of shadow when stressed under blue filter. Then I use my many months of viewing 1000s of images to understand how much stress a shadow can take. Its complicated..

I then categories the image I'm dealing with.

Lossless compression algorithms reduce file size without losing image quality, though they are not compressed into as small a file as a lossy compression file. When image quality is valued above file size, lossless algorithms are typically chosen.

Lossy compression algorithms take advantage of the inherent limitations of the human eye and discard invisible information. Most lossy compression algorithms allow for variable quality levels (compression) and as these levels are increased, file size is reduced. At the highest compression levels, image deterioration becomes noticeable as "compression artifacting". The images below demonstrate the noticeable artifacting of lossy compression algorithms; select the thumbnail image to view the full size version

This allows me categories the filter level to use. i use a basic 1 - 20 pre-designed filter range ( Harry helped me on this as its quite an intense affair). I u8se trhe whole spectrum and cycle through them quickly. They also can be used in combinations.

While doing all this I keep an eye on underlying structures appearing or fading. I use 2 screens set at different resolutions. This allows me to see selective area compressions (tonal or pixel size etc).

At the end of the process I know the image inside out.

This a start.. But of course the most powerful tool I use is my eye and understanding (from countless experiments) using local landscapes on earth. I obscure, then reverse. I check my results against original images and adjust accordingly!

If you cant be arsed with that just turn up and down the contrast.. it wont be as penetrative as what i do but at least ur having ago and u could surprise urself.

Fruit.. Its an understandable caution as its fraut with over complicated processes which could add to the anomalies or create them. I can understand that. What these guys fail to realise that when applied skilfully it can bring back faint data. Also Not everyone can pull it off. It will take months before one begins to get close to understanding ithe processes. its not a one button affair.

Also just to Say that if it werent for Harry I wouldnt even be getting close to what im capable of now. He patiently explained the process and also highlighted what to look for and my filter swatch construction.

Heres an example.. reveal what in here!
detail can be hidden in the blackness,, Its still there.. Now get back the info..

fruitnut1 wrote:

Great.. Now the others whom want to understand get stuckin..
There are also tonal variations but thats a higher art.
Image below:

Fruit has shown its possible to get something from nothing..

I can get the subtle original tones.. between us anything thats hidden stands very little chance of staying hidden. Its just in understanding where to go strong and where to pull back. even the shadows will stay intact..

GJ Fruit.. lets see the others.. and dont cheat..

(Note to admin.. maybe worth shifting some of this thread to tampering forum)

We are just trying to reverse what has already been done.. In some cases been missed! It takes small steps to begin to understand what exactly the pixels are doing.. Fruit sumed it up well, a while ago. The pixels settings have been changed (mostly) what Harry Fruit and others have been doiung is get those settings back... of course there are many cases where they have simply been removed. In that case we shouldnt be getting any data back when we deploy our methods.

Imagine each pixel has a slide bar (dark - light).. and the rest will come to u..

Qmantoo added these comments ;

Just run it through the test image through the shadow-enhancer program and it gives a rough idea of some of what is there, however it will never be as good as a manual job.

The problem I found when writing the shadow-enhancer program, is that there is not enough difference or distance in grey between a pixel that is a value 1 and a pixel that is value 2. Both are almost entirely black(0) but even when you look fiurther up the scale at a pixel that has a value of 150 for example, which is a lighter grey, there is no visible difference between that and 151.

I reckon the trick is to devise some kind of scale whereby you increase the difference between small pixel values so that these differences may be seen as different greys (or in that case, different colours). a difference of 5 is about what I can distuinguish on my monitor which is a 19 inch Benq one. I do not think it is particularly good for this kind of image study stuff.

.Some software only increases the brightness which is not enough to put extra distance (greyscale wise) between pixel values.

I am not sure that contrast will do it either, it may work the same way as I need - not sure.

I have found a routine that does a blurr and then subtracts that from the original which I am going to check out and see if it has any value for what we want. If it does I can add it to the toolbox. It claims to sharpen the image somewhat.

Thewatcher - I would be interested to know if you can take your picture that you posted for us to reveal what was under the black, and run it through your process... Are you able to get back to the original 'final answer' picture, complete with most of the detail?

Most of the Rover pictures are JPGs and as such have compression to begin with. Please can you give us a before and after test image which is a JPG so that we can do a more realistic Rover photograph test? I can make my own I suppose but it is rather like testing your own programs - you never seem to catch the most obvious of bugs that someone else finds straight away.

Previous discussion on the matter also deleted from the thread

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 424
Date: Mon Aug 9 01:48:07 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

I would not have dreamt that people interested in uncovering the real truth of our cosmos, would be so hesitant to accept new ideas and find so hard to break apart from old paradigms. confuse

Humanoid. I exhort you to use the basic "shadow enhancing" technique described in my primer to deobfuscating images from spaces post, on these images.

After that I invite you to post your honest results. If your results don't concur with those WATCHER and I have arrived to , I will give up posting as you would have proven us wrong.

Else I hope you change your mind and begin pushing the same direction.

-- Frutty

Humanoid

Veteran Member

Posts: 324
Date: Mon Aug 9 01:01:15 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
Speaking of constructive criticism and image forensics, I too would like to hear what technique exactly is thewatcher using in order to "remove the truth's protective layer"? A detailed explanation would be much appreciated. Is there a problem with me asking for it?

One single drop
Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 310
Date: Sun Aug 8 19:17:16 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

Sounds so familiar, doesn`t it ? We have been at the same point before. Nothing new, it seems.

The moderators feel a very special responsibility not only for what we say and how we say something ( or do not ), but also for what the posters are doing in this free playground Alien Anomalies. Thesis: It is not untampering at all , it is creating the structures / details by your graphic process.

How about to show us the steps you have taken, going from the original image to the resulted image , step by step. This would be very helpful.
Thank you.

Edited by Chandre

-- Edited by Chandre on Monday 9th of August 2010 01:42:52 PM

thewatcher

Veteran Member

Posts: 221
Date: Sun Aug 8 19:03:16 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

fruitnut1 wrote:

thewatcher wrote:

Very interesting fruit.. What uve done seemes to lock in more detail.. Thats great.. a very interesting structure surrounded by Ducts? The dome has something in it? resolution too low to get in there ..

Cheers

Not sure what on earth this is ... but it sure would make a great cover for "The Martian Chronicles" by Ray Bradbury -- Frutty

Sorry, I mean that the fainter aspects (details) and outlines are stronger (locked in). Just like the look. I can get a better idea of the structures.

Xenon wrote:

The dome has a structure attached, with what looks like a ramp with towers either side (4oclock position).....

Yup..Do you think theres a Hirise image on this? or different angle?

Fruit: Ive been a bit lazy but Can you locate image?? on JPL?

thewatcher

Veteran Member

Posts: 221
Date: Sun Aug 8 18:56:35 2010

Reply Quote More

Edit Post

Delete Post

Printer Friendly

Ban IP

Report Spam

One single drop wrote:

Hi , may it be possible, the structures you comment on, are created by your image manipulation process ?

Possible.. But if u look closely at original image you'll see the detail there.. Its faint.. As I posted earlier.. Detail was enhanced..

It would be nice for you to give an example of Our methods possible cause of anomalies.. Maybe some well thought out graphics?

Post edited by Chandre

-- Edited by Chandre on Monday 9th of August 2010 01:41:31 PM

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 424
Date: Sun Aug 8 18:28:48 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
The dome was the scrap the process that manipulates the official images left for our amusement and bewilderment. The structures surrounding it are bigger, more breathtaking and amazing. -- Frutty

fruitnut1

Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 424
Date: Sun Aug 8 18:22:42 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
Yes they are created by our (me and Watcher) manipulation process. Otherwise you would not be able to see them.

One single drop
Veteran Member

Status: Online
Posts: 310
Date: Sun Aug 8 18:20:24 2010

	Reply Quote More Edit Post Delete Post Printer Friendly Ban IP Report Spam
Hi , may it be possible, the structures you comment on, are created by your image manipulation process ?

-- Edited by Chandre on Monday 9th of August 2010 01:46:44 PM

-- Edited by Chandre on Saturday 4th of September 2010 08:08:02 PM