Proof Steve Wingate Did Not Prove TEM Image Was Hoaxed

 Some time has passed now since the major controversy over the July 25th 2002 Themis Cydonia image of the day. Time enough for introspect, and for most reasonably intelligent individuals to thoroughly familiarize themselves with any given subject. I've always held the opinion that questionable or not, the copy of the image I received from ASU's Themis site was different and "special" of sorts. Even though I have shown so with numerous spectacular images produced using it's data (See Mars Infrared Imaging), there have since been certain individuals, unsupported by anything other than personal opinion, who maintain that the image is fraudulently altered, and in some cases those that would personally and mistakenly accuse me of doing so. In this page I intend to pay special attention to the prominent claims made along those lines by one Steve Wingate, independent "researcher" who has published his findings here,

 As you may or may not have read here or elsewhere, I am fine to believe that the image may in fact be a fraud, I am also just as inclined to believe that it is not, or as reputable but confidential sources have informed me since... altered and intended for me because of my standing as both an accredited space imager and proponent of the possible existence of Martian and Lunar artificialities. I do not enjoy continuing controversy or promoting conspiracy, but here I feel I must address yet another errant editorialist to the followers of this situation who may have been misinformed by reading his offering.

 It is my conclusion after reading Mr. Wingate's article that though it is perhaps reasonable sounding to the casual peruser, his methods and work are at best inaccurate and the conclusions reached from it's interpretation speculative. I know of no way to contextually meet all the points he raises except to paraphrase the article. My replies are in black text.

SW:   This TEM / Laney image used in this test was saved as a zero compression greyscale jpeg from a copy of the original tiff Keith Laney downloaded before applying a Gaussian blur . Hoagland has since used the Laney-blurred image as proof of buried ruins of an ancient civliization spanning the entire IR strip. Neither Hoagland or Laney has publicly released the original tiff image that he claims he downloaded on July 25th from the ASU site. For more data, download this copy of the original image downloaded by Keith Laney.

 The copy of what Steve is here terming original seems to be a contrast adjusted version not done by me.. An accurate and sufficient copy of the original has long been available here. We also run across a commonly stated fallacy involving Gaussian blur here which I'd like to quickly dispose of post haste. As any competent imager knows, use of Gaussian blur and other smoothing filters such as average are necessary processing steps in dealing with noisy images, especially infrared. The amount of filter applied to the base images was a negligible .41, which is irrelevant due to the later amount of filtering that must be done to the ratioed band images. It was applied in attempts to lessen a block-like pattern evident faintly in the base band images that showed up wildly in the combined decorrolated ratio image results.

 The only correct statement in his whole first paragraph is..

"he downloaded on July 25th from the ASU site"

 Hoagland or anyone else is free to interpret whatever they like out of my work, which is freely available on the internet; this does not ascribe his or anyone else's interpretations to me. I do not and will never say that any remote imaging is "proof". "Neither Hoagland or Laney" has released the original tiff image because; Hoagland doesn't and never has had it, and I am under no obligation to supply it on demand to anyone, especially those who would do haphazard work and use it as a motive to slander me. Very few have shown the desire or aptitude to appropriately apply accurate processing techniques in it's investigation without the pre-intended goal of disqualification. This is what we have here. Steve seems to know little about the subject, but tries to look the expert; worse still, he uses inaccurate techniques and misleading data.

SW: A comparison of the fake TEM / Laney image and the original NASA image below, taken from the upper left part of both images, consists of one of the two 6.62 um images resampled 5x using pixel replication. This comparison shows that the artifacts in the TEM images obscure real surface features such as craters, and that large areas of the TEM image are lacking in any surface detail when compared to the NASA image.

 Resizing ANY digital imaging 5x, or 500% will devastate image clarity and will cetainly introduce pixellation, especially on a jpeg. His argument is de facto dead at this point.

The TEM image has been rotated slightly counterclockwise, as one can see by examining the top of the image and comparing the alignment of the two images. The TEM image is also defocused, which is easily detected by examining the edges of the two images. These observations are consistant with the possibility that the TEM image was scanned from a print or transparency at some point in its creation.

his comparison images     The actual image

The images below have additional contrast and brightness enhancement (stretch) to bring out the details more clearly. The blocky artifacts in the TEM image can be seen to line up clearly with the x and y axis of the pixels, strongly suggesting that they are image processing artifacts, and not structures on or beneath the surface of Mars. The TEM image has very little detail, greyscale levels are very flat over large areas compared to the NASA image, which exhibits a level of detail that one would expect in a daytime IR image of Mars.

his comparison images     The actual image

Visual resolution does not equate to IR sensitivity.

 That the image I received does have duller features in the individual bands when compared with the IOD version presently displayed at the Themis website goes without saying. That does not mean I did it or that the image is useless for it, which is painfully clear in my fully processed results. I  have three certified witnesses that will attest that the Themis IOD page for the July 24th release was changed on the 25th, as seen on the internet archive when queried on the image's web page, and then that the internet archives had removed the alteration record soon thereafter. This type of erasure must be done by request. Instead of tucking my tail and running, or trying to prove somebody was a fraud or a hoax I simply worked with the data provided.

 Falsity is assumed at the start of analysis only in bad analysis. Analysis must be implicit. Which 6.62 image is he using? What kind and amounts of enhancing is he doing to "bring out details" and did he apply the same identical processes on each image? There are two 6.62 images on the parent frame and they are NOT identical... and why is .41 gaussian blur unacceptable but resampling 5x during enlargement of a jpeg after contrast stretching legitimate? Though we know that the image he used for the "controversial" enlargement was a jpeg, what format was the comparison image enlarged from?

 The TEM image was purposefully rotated .2' counterclockwise by me as an identifying factor akin to watermarking. There is no possibility whatsoever that this image was scanned from a print, that is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, but even so, there would be no possible way to detect it if it were, and to state even the possibility of such action is overtly errant and speculative.

 Contrast enhancing the base band images is generally not done in accurate IR processing and has evidently degraded the quality in Steve's versions, removing details and adding artifacts in both the color images he has displayed. This and the 5x resampling is most likely the main reason for the x-y pixel axis artifact alignment in BOTH images as well. The facts are that this axis alignment is not consistent at all on the actual image, only on his enlargements.

 These priors alone make it pretty evident that his article is more of a "hit piece" than any investigative review. When we continue on down the article to the processed images he attempts, it is plainly discernable that this fellow should have at least learned a little about IR combining before attempting to disprove an IR image done proficiently, questionable or not. Compare his offerings with any one of my or ASU's properly processed hyperspectrals.

 The image below is what he supposedly gets from the data I downloaded on the 25th, the right image he made from the present image displayed at ASU Themis. Mr Wingate thinks this is what proper IR processing looks like.

I say they are both extremely terrible. Very shoddy work. I'm not sure at all that he knows what he's doing, yet it proves a wonderful image is a hoax? I think not.

Below is what a properly processed false color IR image looks like.

 It was made from the image he calls "hoaxed", one of many high quality images I've made from this supposedly "hoaxed" data and that are displayed at my Mars Infrared Imaging page.

Does "hoaxed" data normally display the same properties as later contexting images for which we have raw calibrated data to process? I wouldn't presume so, but then again, I'm not trying to make an unsupported claim.

 Here are some of the images made from this raw calibrated data for comparison.

1. I05081018

2. I01723003

3. I02004002

 Remarkable aren't they? Since Mr. Wingate is so proficient as to attempt marring my professional credentials and reputation, you'd think he would at least have gotten the imaging right first.

 I took it one step further and actually processed the presently ASU displayed image (on right). The results prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only does Wingate's article proves itself errant, misleading, and defaming, but also that he:

1. Isn't at all proficient in Themis IR imaging.

2. Has little business claiming anyone or thing is or has been fraudulent in the handling of this data.

 His next statement makes his motives clear.

This shows definitively that the TEM image has been hoaxed, and proves that the blocky artifacts are clearly part of the image processing applied in creating the hoax, and not buried structures on Mars as claimed by Richard Hoagland. I sincerely hope that this presentation will put to rest this hoax once and for all, so we can return to finding the real anomalies on Mars!

 I do not know or care what vendetta Mr. Wingate has with Mr. Hoagland, what I do know is that he accuses me of fraud, and uses imaging techniques that are simply invalid to attempt it. Apparently he should have done some more homework first. How can you find the "real" anomalies on Mars with your eyes and mind shut? I do not mind being shown or proven wrong or right, that's in the true spirit of discovery, but those that wish to do so insultingly or with false intent better come right; I do this because I love it and for no other reason.
 I never made any claims about the items down below in the Cydonia IR images other than they ARE anomalous and that I believe the evidence shows they could be relics of civilization.

 I find it strange that although Mr. Wingate has linked Mark Carlotto's inordinately sub par and also uninformed "article" about this image for support of his errant conclusions, Dr. Carlotto doesn't make any mention of my imaging work on the topic. I think this is ludicrous, as the page he links proves nothing except that Dr. Carlotto had a hard time registering the band images.
someone else I know doesn't agree with his analysis..

Why doesn't Steve link to the numerous images and actual work done on the images by me here?

Perhaps it's because he knows the work there proves he hasn't proven a thing?

 Here's the sum total.

 Over the major suspected-to-be-previously-inhabited area known as Cydonia there are not only visible but infrared anomalies producing a "blocky" effect on the images. This occurs not only in the infamous "real" IR image, but on all of them so far returned of the area. Many surface features in the visible images correlate superbly when superposed on these blocky IR signatures.
Richard Hoagland has speculated that the strange thermal signatures are from the archaeological remnants below, and is that not a reasonable assumption?
Not much further is known about it enough to write up without overt speculation, despite much evaluation and thought.

 In this instance Steve Wingate reminds me of a Pharisee; not only does he not drink from the well, but doesn't allow others to drink either.


Back to