Originally posted by zorgon

But I find it very interesting the brightness of some of these objects, especially the ones in the dark areas that actually GLOW...

If you look around them you will see that they cast light on the surrounding terrain, and that light cast is equal all around the object.. not like reflected light which would be varied according to the angle of the sun, {which is different in every segment of the whole image by the way }

Why would a crater "GLOW"?

Don't you think it has something to do with the False Color ?

The whole point is that different soils and materials reflect different wavelengths. The purpose is to "enhance color differences related to soil mineralogy and maturity."

What have these pictures got to do with alien/ufos?

Originally posted by undo

No. Nopers. Nada. In fact, if you look at the enlarged gray scale images that Savior of the Real was so kind to link us to, you will see that it even glows in the gray scale. In fact, there are thousands of glowing balls of light, glowing craters, glowing whatevers, all over the moon.

Yes and I don't see any "glowing" only craters. Also notice the BW image is generated in the near Infrared (NIR) range.

The moon_clementine_bw is the Clementine Lunar 750nm basemap data
The moon_clementine_bw or Clementine "albedo" is the brightness of the Moon as measured at 750 nm wavelength by the UVVIS camera. It is a black-and-white image.

Edit typo

[edit on 16-12-2006 by lost_shaman]

makeitso,

that, you would have to address to Zorgon as he knows the date the Arizona State site actually released the color photos and .cub files. They drew their data from the USGS site, which I'm assuming has been online for awhile but has not been readily available as they don't come up on moon searches. only if you specify certain parameters do they show up in the search.

This is the problem. If the public at large has no idea the moon is in color, they will not be looking for color pictures of the moon, so they will never find the sites with the color moon pics, especially the close-up ones such as those on the Arizona state site and the USGS site. You have to admit, when you compare the moon files in color to the moon files in grayscale, there's a massive difference in inference, just for starters. It's like trying to figure out a puzzle that was built with colored pieces, but trying to do it in gray scale.

This is how the whole thing started. Someone emailed Zorgon a link to nice high res files on the Arizona State site, this included .cub files (read only by ISIS program, or so we were assuming since we knew literally nothing about .cub files and the links said they were ISIS files!). I started searching around on the site and found a link to the USGS PDS site. That's how this whole thing came about.

As far as we were concerned, this information had been deliberately "obfuscated" as you say, by simply keeping it out of "moon" searches. It's a case of plausible deniablity, really. Either way, I'm just glad someone made the images in natural color, available.

Lost Shaman,


Ah, you just lost my respect for your position. I was willing to attempt an answer to your questions, but you've strayed over into head-in-the-sand territory, and I ain't goin' there.

Like I said you have to specify. The public doesn't know clementine from a hole in the ground and the only reason they'd search for false color images, is if they needed them for a class.

Please realize, that even though YOU may be a huge fan of the space program and know every little thing that comes out of it, the public at large is frankly uninformed. They pay taxes for these programs and hope these programs will repay the kindness by keeping them informed.

Check around. Most people who want to show anomalies on the moon have been relegated to posting only black and white clementine pics from the 60's, with a res of 1 pixel per 1 kilometer, instead of these nice ones that are coming out now at 1 pixel per 100 meters. The people who knew better stuff was available didn't bother to tell them about the availability either or didn't mention that these pics show equally interesting anomalies just not the same anomalie that the old ones did. And judging by your "infra-red" comment, doesn't sound as if it would've done them a bit of good anyway.

Originally posted by undo
Most people who want to show anomalies on the moon have been relegated to posting only black and white clementine pics from the 60's, with a res of 1 pixel per 1 kilometer, instead of these nice ones that are coming out now at 1 pixel per 100 meters.

How could they use Clementine pictures from the 60's if Clementine was launched in 1994?

Originally posted by undo
Like I said you have to specify. The public doesn't know clementine from a hole in the ground and the only reason they'd search for false color images, is if they needed them for a class.

Please realize, that even though YOU may be a huge fan of the space program and know every little thing that comes out of it, the public at large is frankly uninformed. They pay taxes for these programs and hope these programs will repay the kindness by keeping them informed.

I agree that average Joe out there somewhere likely doesn't know about Clementine images, that doesn't equal to a NASA cover-up or that NASA didn't want people to see "false color" images of the Moon.

Originally posted by undo

Check around. Most people who want to show anomalies on the moon have been relegated to posting only black and white clementine pics from the 60's, with a res of 1 pixel per 1 kilometer, instead of these nice ones that are coming out now at 1 pixel per 100 meters. The people who knew better stuff was available didn't bother to tell them about the availability either or didn't mention that these pics show equally interesting anomalies just not the same anomalie that the old ones did.

To that I'd simply have to say that maybe those people are poor researchers if they couldn't find Clementine pics. Still that's irrelevant to some of the claims and insinuations made on this thread.

Originally posted by undo

And judging by your "infra-red" comment, doesn't sound as if it would've done them a bit of good anyway.

Well a typo, Wow. I guess my opinion is disqualified IYO now , but at least I fact check what I'm saying. I'm not saying things like "clementine pics from the 60's" !!!

Lost Shaman,

I wasn't critiquing your spelling, I was commenting your infra-red critique. You're insinuating that the glow of these objects on the moon is related to near infra-red photos. The USGS pds site says they are Albedo (natural color), and those things were based on 43,000 albedo images (to determine light) and 400,000 Visible color images. I'm tired of this merry-go-round you got going so I'll leave you to it. *hops off*

ArMap,

Sorry, meant lunar orbiter not clementine (i get those two confused), but now that you mention it, I also referred to Clementine Lunar Browser,which offers only 1 pixel per 1 kilometer as the best res available on the site, and only in Black and White.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by undo]

ArMap,

Thanks. Google Moon has the same problem. The best res doesn't show anything like what's available. They surely make enough money to afford the bandwidth but who knows.

Originally posted by undo


Notice how false color and natural color are different choices and have different words like "false" and "natural"?

Yes I see that.

That means that you can choose to look at different data sets that the USGS has processed. One of those options is labeled (Natural Color) , but is still a computer generated "false color" image that is using "natural colors". No matter how you process the data you cannot get a "true color" image that would be the same as looking out the window of a Spacecraft and looking at the Moon with your own eye's.