Web Hosting by

Have the new images been altered?

Comparison of Viking data and new MGS image from MSSS web site

Shortly after the release of the MGS Cydonia image, a controversy erupted over the grayscale levels and the number of scan lines present in the image. Richard Hoagland has addressed this issue in detail on his web site (see "Honey, I Shrunk the Face!", TEM web site). Rather than go over ground already covered, I will highlight only a few select portions of the issues and add some other observations of my own.

Certainly Malin has demonstrated both the willingness to alter data and the capability. The "False Teeth" issue clearly implicates him as someone determined to use extreme measures to sustain his viewpoint as the preeminent one among the space science community. As Richard Hoagland has shown and I will make evident later, there were various forms of skullduggery involved with the production of this new MGS data. Since Malin had exclusive access to this data for a significant number of hours before it's release, it's certainly possible that it was modified to favor his agenda.

The image above is one more such example. Obtained from the MSSS web site, it purports to represent a comparison of the "Best" (Malin's quote) Viking image, 70A13, with the new MGS image 22003.

In reality, the image Malin passes off as the "Best" Viking image is an overt fake. He - or someone on his staff - has taken 70A13 and used a Noise filter to smooth it out and remove detail. Noise filters can be useful to remove data errors, but when misused will actually remove fine detail in a digital image. But the real "fakery" involves the now familiar mouth area and its substructures, the Teeth. Malin has used a Clone tool, or something similar, to obliterate the Teeth which are obviously present in the Carlotto enhanced version on the left. The smoothness in this area is a dead giveaway that it has been modified. Note how Malin's version also overexposes the shadow on the East side of the Mouth and creates an impression of asymmetry. Finally, the same overexposure blends in the "Corner" of the mouth to make it look more like MGS 22003.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of image processing could - as I did - quickly figure out what was done. But Dr. Malin obviously aimed this tidy little bit of disinformation at the more casual observers, reporters and the public. He clearly wants visitors to his site to come away with the impression that not only is the Viking data not particularly revealing, but it also compares well with the new 22003. As I have shown, this is certainly not the case, and these versions of the Viking data have been intentionally altered.

So what does this imply regarding the MGS data set?

Previously Malin had posted an explanation to the effect that bad weather, - clouds and haze - over the much of the Northern Hemisphere of Mars was responsible for the poor resolution of the image. He went on to explain that it was so bad that attempts to image the Viking 2 lander site were completely obscured by clouds, and that for this reason those images would not be released. Unfortunately, Dr. Malin has proven himself as a less than trustworthy character in all of this, and we have only his word on the matter. He later released the wide angle camera image of  Cydonia, and it was certainly fuzzy. The problem is that he used the .JPG image format, the most "lossy" compression format around, and so again there is no way to confirm whether the data presented has been modified or not.

Dr. Malin could certainly alleviate most of these (well founded) suspicions by releasing full resolution .TIFF images of the wide angle Cydonia image and the Viking 2 data. Unfortunately, he is not bound to by his contract with NASA, so there is no way to pressure him to do so except to push NASA to ask him nicely.

The other issue regarding the resolution is the question of the Histogram. Hoagland quickly pointed out that there were very few tonal variations actually in the data (42 out of the available 256), and questioned whether other shades had been stripped away. Resultantly, the details in shadowed or washed out areas (like the eye Socket and the Mouth) would be blended together and the overall noise level increased. Malin and JPL posted a piece on their respective web sites - again only after Hoagland went on the radio about the issue - and explained that Mars was not a real contrasty place, the weather was bad, and after all, the MGS data was actually a little better than Viking. However, even accounting for the weather - which is not verifiable - the simple facts are that there was far more energy (in the form of light) available to the camera optics and the predicted resolution of the camera was supposedly on the order of 10 times better. What the Histogram shows though is that the MGS data is more like 10% better. Hardly worth the trip, eh?

The bottom line is that after 22 years, we got an image that is maybe 10% better than what we had before, even though we sent a camera that is %1,000 percent better. If you are to believe Malin, a demonstrable liar, all this was just due to some bad luck with a variety of issues outside of his control, and a good hearted attempt to get the researchers what they had asked for. A more realistic perspective might conclude that many factors, including taking the picture in the worst possible light, were carefully orchestrated to keep key features ambiguous.

So the question of whether this new image has been altered can best be answered by what was done to previous data. Malin's track record is one of deception on this issue, and we must press for a full accounting from him on the paper trail with these and subsequent images.