GOOGLE MARS OBFUSCATION

Report #219

April 24, 2012

 

This report will perhaps add some benefit in understanding that Google Earth/Mars material should never be dismissed but also never be taken at face value either. A user must always be on the look out for false issues when it comes to something that might be interpreted as anomalous in Google Earth/Mars material.

For example, the above 1st image is of a slightly zoomed section of Google's Global context view of Mars. Note that it visually gives an impression suggesting that the overall view is made up of many strips joined together to form the whole. With that assumption made, the user would likely then make a further assumption that these are the strips drawn from the official science data.

However, if that is the impression conveyed, it is just not true and amounts to false misdirection. The truth is that the strips in the above image are yet more image tampering applications applied onto an existent whole surface that already had a great deal of obscuring applications on it. In other words, obfuscation on top of obfuscation. Take a look at the following evidence samples and you will perhaps begin to understand what I am referring to.

The above progression of closer view images #2, #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 all are samples selected from the strips visible in the Mars global view in image #1. All are taken from the straight linear edge of those strips the edges of which you would expect to be just as straight in these closer views but you'll note that they are not. All tell a story and unfortunately that story is that nothing here is real except for obfuscation.

Here's my take. The grainy patterned background terrain is the original pre-release imaging that was already very heavily obfuscated. However, subsequent processing and compression in preparation for release produced too many large artifacts in the form of geometric dark blocks that in someone's subsequent opinion looked a little too much like structures that would likely produce future public attention, questioning, and controversy. So a decision was made that this would be asking for difficulties with the public and another round of obfuscation was authorized to go on top of the original to eliminate the artifacts even though they aren't real.

Note that there are essentially two distinct patterns of obfuscation layers. One is the grainy patterned look that almost certainly represents the original lower layer obfuscation work simply because the dark blocks are clearly on top of it. The second is the soft diffuse and featureless smudge upper and final layer that mimics the look of strips in the image #1 global view when viewed at distance.

The obvious fluffy featureless smudge you see in the above images is inadequately done with the smudge leaving small parts of the dark geometric block evidence out to be seen. Humans doing this work would not have made this mistake leaving small parts of the dark blocks out and so that rules them out. They would have just made a new expanded overlapping tampering field edge to cover the dark block portions.

However, an Artificial Intelligence (AI) super computer would have made this mistake due to all of this evidence being at the conjunction edge of two different tampering fields. Probably the subsequent second fluffy smudge tampering applications were done at another facility and by another different AI programmed with different priorities. The fluffy smooth texture suggests possibly the same AI that does the Antarctica continent trying to mimic fog and cloud cover?

The AI likely defined the strip edges first and then filled in the center areas in. However, as its work was reviewed, it was found that some of the straight strip boundary edges missed portions of some of the artifact dark blocks and so it had to go back and catch them with more smudge but applied only in spots.

Now I long ago discovered that this is not easy for the AI's and their programming used in this planetary satellite imaging to do in crossing field boundary lines. They tend not to want to cross already established graphic field edges into an adjacent different field and they don't like to make already established straight lines at strip edges irregular by spot expanded extensions. So I suspect that this difficulty played a roll in the AI applications not quite covering every little bit of the artifact blocks at the strip boundary edges as you see above.

The net result is that the easily identified final fluffy smooth tampering applications tried but failed to completely hide the large dark blocks extending over the strip edges. It may give the impression that careless image tampering didn't quite hide civilization evidence in these spots. However, if any civilization evidence was ever at these locations, it was thoroughly hidden by the original grainy textured tampering which layers are so dense that nothing can be seen of even fairly large terrain features and the only things that can be seen are very large features like mountains, hills, impact craters, canyons, and finally the dark compression blocks.

In retrospect, as long as the secrecy agenda is inclined to deal with the cumbersome task of attempting to hide the truth they don't want us to know about via modifying and manipulating the original science data imaging on a massive scale, mistakes will be made just because of the sheer numbers and scale involved and small bits and pieces of truth may find its way through to us. However, when they convert over (and they will) to just making up and designing computer graphics generated terrain from scratch no longer needing to modify original exploration research imaging, even greater ignorance in our world societies and institutions will prevail.

The key will be when the data released for public consumption starts demonstrating really dramatic improvements in detail and clarity. Such "improvements" will be reported as due to advancements in camera, processing, and communications technology. Worse and most sickening, it will be believed and well received by a clueless mainstream with a preference to remain that way.

I don't usually make reports just on obfuscation and of course I might be off the mark here but I doubt it. Because giant Google is such a primary tool used by the public, I think that it is essential that the public recognize the limitations of its use and be ready to question and take everything with a cautionary grain of salt as the saying goes. Google can be useful but only if one is prepared to question what one sees and be ready to hold the giant's foot to the fire on deception like this.

, Investigator