Proof of NASA tampering By Jeff Behnke
The UFO Resource Center thanks Jeff Behnke for this report:
Proof of NASA tampering
Date:Sun, 15 Aug 1999 20:58:45 PDT Status:Normal
From:"Jeff Behnke" twitch02@hotmail.com
Hey there,
How about me and you conduct an experiment to prove that the NASA picture of
the MARS FACE was tampered. The picture enclosed was released in April 1998
and placed in all the papers of the world 'proving' that the face was a
natural formation. Now, if you take a look at the image, it looks like crap.
I saw it and said to myself, "Oh geez, is that all it was?"
But then when I heard it had been tampered with because everything was
inverted, where the black pixels were turned into white pixels and vice
versa, I jammed it into photoshop and fireworks, went up to Xtras and hit
'invert.' I got a chill, because what we have THEN is a lion's face with a
black nose, pupils, and whiskers! It's what the Sphinx originally looked
like before a pharoah came along and decided to carve his own face over that
of the lion which was the thousands of years earlier!
Spooky. Give it a try. Anybody can do it. Take the enclosed image and invert
the pixels with fireworks or photoshop. It freaks you out. And it gives more
proof that NASA is seriously trying to cover it up.
UFORC thanks the editors of the Paranormal News Network for this release and full report on NASA tampering:
Pixel Inversion - NASA's Misinformation on the Mars Face
Posted: August 25, 1999, 6:00 PM
By: Paranormal News Staff
Related Link: http://www.enterprisemission.com
NASA was formed in 1958 at the height of the Cold War when space science was spurred on by by the development of more efficient war machines that could travel outside the atmosphere. Space exploration itself, thus, has always been directly linked to warfare and defense policies. And as you know, anything related to national security has been placed under strict codes. Just look at any FOIA released document from the CIA. Everything blacked out has been done so in order to maintain needed security.
These polices have, in turn, effected many NASA laws which discourage the dissemination of information related to its findings. As you can see in Section 102 of the Act of 29 July 1958:
NASA is charged with the making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance...Information obtained or developed by the Administrator in the performance of his functions under this act shall be made available for public inspection except:
a) information authorized or required be Federal statute to be with-held, and
b) information classified to protect national security."
Therefore, as stated in the government's own laws, NASA does indeed withhold information from the public. But which information, and can it be justified? That's what many UFOlogists want to know.
One of these controversies originally appeared in 1976, where a researcher by the name of Tobias Owen discovered in Viking frame 35A72 a picture of an anomalous figure in a region named Cydonia. The first words out of his mouth were, "Oh my God, that looks like a face."
Once the discovery was made, NASA was quick to dismiss the image as a trick of natural light, and Gerry Soffen,a spokesperson for the Viking project, showed it before the press a few hours later, stating, "Isn't it peculiar what tricks of light and shadow can do. When we took a picture a few hours later it all went away. It was just a trick, just the way the light fell on it."
However, this second photo was never found. Misinformation?
It's also interesting to note that if there was a second photo taken a few hours later, the entire image would be dark because the area had already slipped outside of the view of the Sun, and the Viking itself had moved on elsewhere.
The next incident that took place concerning the Mars Face was with the Viking 2. Originally slated to land in the Cydonia region, a decision was made to land elsewhere as Cydonia was suddenly deemed unsafe. The new landing location was Utopia, and James Hurtak later claimed the decision to be poor. "It was like choosing the Sahara Desert as a suitable landing site on our own planet." Why not land in Cydonia? The debate continued.
In 1993, the Mars Observer was sent up to take clearer images of Mars to help remap the surface. The next imaging allowed details of up to 1.4 meters per pixel as opposed to the 50 meters per pixel of the early Vikings. Yet at the last minute, contact was lost. It was later discovered that this loss of contact occurred deliberately when a radio link was shut off. NASA claimed it was an accident, and it would seem to be so, considering that the potential loss was in the billions. But was it?
As growing interest in the Mars Face continued, Dan Goldin, a NASA administrator promised to get a new image of the face, and after another probe was sent up in 1998, the prospects looked good. On the 25th of March 1998, a shot was taken where it sat overnight while the world waited. The next morning, many people logged on to Dan Goldin's sight waiting for the official word. After the processing was finally complete, the words appeared on Dan Goldin's site: "It's not a face." The image followed a short time later:
This new photo, however was extremely different than the ones originally taken on the early Viking, but it was given out to the news media who in turn published it to show how crazy the whole idea had been to begin with.
Conspiracy theorists attacked the new image and spurred on the debate even more where NASA had hoped the story would die. Is this, in fact, the very image that they took?
Or has it been altered? The pupil seen on the original Viking seems to be missing, the forehead seems to be off, as well as the coloring. Could it be that NASA had inverted the pixels, changing the whites to black and the blacks to white to hide the original shot of the photo?
After a quick adjustment and a re-inversion of the pixels, the following image is obtained. Could this lion with a dark nose and whiskers be what had originally appeared on the face of the Sphinx before a pharoah had come along and hacked his own into it? As usual, you decide.
________________________________ REFERENCES:
#1. Hoagland's Web Site entitled: THE ENTERPRISE MISSION (www.enterprisemission.com)
#2. "THE MARS MYSTERY;" Graham Hancock
