Yes, is certainly is! All visual imaging at this website presented as visual evidence from Mars is just as real as the official science data satellite imaging from which it is directly drawn. This record of visual imaging evidence seen here is thoroughly supported 100% by the official science data, although certainly not by the official entities NASA or JPL or any of their associate partners as all continue up to this point to ignore this evidence as though it didn’t exist at all.
The only adjustments I’ve made in the original official imaging has been to lighten or darken and sharpen to help clarify the evidence visually. This in no way alters or changes the evidence, only brings it into greater clarity. The official data is normally in black and white and often with a slight color tint artificially added to the overall image to improve contrast. I to often add a bit of color tint to the overall image where I believe it to help sharpen up and differentiate detail. On the other hand, I never add color to any portion of the overall image nor do I make any other alterations, changes, or enhancements. Likewise, I never use filters of any kind as the applications of these can often alter evidence subtly.
Now, as many of you are aware, my reports often contain my opinions/observations as to the presence of image tampering in the official science data and I’ve presented evidence of this. However, please remember that none of this tampering in the imaging is any of my doing in any way shape or form. As I have often reported, this is something that has been done at some point at official level before the imaging was released to the science and academic communities and the public.
The anomalous evidence that I present here is the tiny amount that I have discovered that has occasionally escaped this tampering. By far the great bulk of any anomalous evidence on Mars is thoroughly hidden by the tampering with only the tiniest percentage escaping its effect. So don’t get this official level tampering and secrecy agenda confused with me and my work.
In fact, I understood and appreciated early on that I would be sticking my neck out with the kind of controversial evidence from another world seen here. That tender sensitive feeling on my neck has always been a constant reminder to keep my evidence imaging simple, straight forward, faithful to the evidence as it appears in the original official imaging as well as readily reproducible and verifiable and thereby easily defensible. I might add that this has also been my normal habit in evidence gathering to start with as a professional insurance claims investigator with over 30 years experience.
Further, every visual discovery here is accompanied by directions on how to access and verify this evidence behind me in the official science data by anyone with a computer, Internet connection, and browser. In many cases this verification process requires only a few minutes and will not require any other tools but in some cases a graphics software program may be needed to adequately manipulate the image to obtain better views and detail.
In all cases, verification of the evidence is encouraged and facilitated so that all can directly satisfy themselves as to the visual evidence’s unequivocal truthfulness and legitimacy. That way no one has to decide on accepting “claims” on a leap of faith as to the discoverer’s credibility. That’s the advantage of dealing with the hard visual evidence seen here at this website. Because hard visual evidence is available and readily verifiable in NASA and JPL’s own official science data, everyone can then make up their own mind as to its merit making any question of some person’s credibility irrelevant. If it is clear enough, the visual evidence usually tells its own story and points the way.
On the other hand, my commentary accompanying the visual evidence represents my subjective interpretation of that evidence just as it is with NASA, JPL, or anyone else. No one’s interpretation of the visual evidence should be considered established fact and that includes both myself and any official sources as well. You should judge for yourself whether the visual evidence has merit or not and then consider balancing what others have to say against what you can see for yourself.
In defense of my personal credibility, I do believe that I have a unique objective ability that enables me to sidestep prejudice and make these discoveries of anomalous evidence irrespective of my feelings or reaction to a discovery. In my opinion, the evidence supporting that is in the large number of anomalous discoveries that you will find here, far more than you will see any where else. I believe this same relatively dispassionate objective quality also translates into better more objective interpretation of these discoveries as well. Additionally, I have now viewed many tens of thousands of official science data images and have acquired the experience with this satellite imaging that inevitably and necessarily comes with that substantial exposure.
Conversely, I suspect that preconceived views as to what is possible and not possible and what should and shouldn’t be on Mars has generated prejudice that has blinded most of the scientific and academic communities clouding both their ability to make anomalous discoveries and likewise to interpret them adequately. However, you must decide any question of this for yourself.
No matter how much quality of evidence is made available, there will always be those who remain unconvinced or at least uncertain. So, here is my challenge.
If any are still inclined to suspect that I have somehow manipulated these images to create the appearance of water or life on the surface of Mars, I welcome the opportunity to back up the visual discoveries with imaging proof by, as my time permits, demonstrating the visual development process at work from beginning to end in front of any serious and objective investigative body, including if necessary teaching them to do this work in their own “hands on” process so there can be absolutely no doubt of the integrity of these independent discoveries and that I am not altering, adding anything to, or taking anything away from the original visual science data in my imaging work.
When it comes to the visual evidence, this should satisfy the most hardened skeptic (if that skeptic is at all reasonably objective) as to the integrity of this evidence and only those fearful of truth would shy away from such a proposal. So, is anyone up to such a test? If so, contact me through this website at the link below. I look forward to it.