Liquid Water Found on the Moon?

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Hi, I was just wondering, why do you state that the rake is made of "unpainted aliminium"? You only give us a link to a site with B&W photos, so how do you know what color the rake has? I have not been able to find any color photos of it, so I don't think any of us can assume anything here.

The photo you reposted further up, is in colour. Also I should correct myself, it's not a rake, but tongs. The rake looks similar though. Anyway, here are some more colour pics of it.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
and one taken on Earth
www.hq.nasa.gov...

It looks like bare metal to me. Even in the B&W shots.

I don't think the gnomon looks right in the images NASA has given us. The colors (red, blue and green) should be primary colors, strong and clear.

Well it's a standard colour chart, so I don't know what to say. The colours are very similar to this one (squares 13, 14 and 15).

reply to post by jra


Hi, regarding the statement that NASA's images show true colors, I would like you to take a look at this image from the Apollo 15 mission, cropped version. Notice the astronaut's boot, which seems to be all grey/white:




Link to the full image (AS15-86-11563): www.hq.nasa.gov...


Now, let us take another look at the spacesuit which astronaut Scott used in the same Apollo 15 mission. Do you see that the astrouanut's boots look very different in this image? To me this is another proof that NASA's images have been tampered with.




Best regards, Ziggystar60.



[edit on 8-5-2008 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by ziggystar60


There is no need of tampering to explain different colours on two images of the same subject in different environments, any photographer can confirm that.

The colour of the light makes a lot of difference, especially on neutral coloured or white object, and the light on the photo of the space suit looks a little yellow, normal for an artificial light, while the light on the Moon was direct Sun light, something we never see inside the atmosphere.

Having said that, the Moon photos look a little blue to me, but nothing special. Also, those images from the Lunar Surface Journal were already adjusted, the images available at The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth are bigger but look more dull.

I will keep on trying to find something to use as a usable colour target.

reply to post by ziggystar60



Well firstly, they don't look "very different". A slightly different colour perhaps. Secondly, the lighting conditions are completely different. One is taken in direct sunlight, the other with indoor lighting. Different type/brand of film can also cause slightly different colouration. So that makes it kind of hard to compare accurately.

The crop of the boots on the Moon are also covered with lunar dust, where as the ones in the museum look much cleaner. The lunar dust had a tendancy of clinging to everything. Partly due to the particals having sharp, rough edges which help it to cling on to other things and there is also a static electrical charge in the dust as well. The astronauts had to continuously brush it off.

EDIT: Looks like ArMaP beat me to it.


[edit on 8-5-2008 by jra]

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by ziggystar60

 

The colour of the light makes a lot of difference, especially on neutral coloured or white object, and the light on the photo of the space suit looks a little yellow, normal for an artificial light, while the light on the Moon was direct Sun light, something we never see inside the atmosphere.

I am not sure I understand what you mean - do you mean that the image of the astronaut's spacesuit doesn't show it's real color? Or that the astronaut's boot aren't really light blue at the tip. and doesn't have two different colors (gold/white)? That artificial light has made the tip of the boot look light blue, when it is in fact white?

And what about the gnonom and it's color chart? If the direct sunlight could make the colors of the astronaut's boot disappear, why havent the colors in the chart also disappeared?

And what about the moon's surface? The Apolle 15 mission landed on a dark mare plain, according to Lunar and Planetary Institute:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

The dirt on the knee of the astronaut's spacesuit is brown, not grey. But the surface sure doesn't look dark or brown in the Apollo 15 images NASA has released.

I am still certain that the images have been tampered with, and that the true colors have been washed out of them.

Best regards. Ziggystar60.


[edit on 8-5-2008 by ziggystar60]

[edit on 8-5-2008 by ziggystar60]

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by ziggystar60

 

Well firstly, they don't look "very different". A slightly different colour perhaps. Secondly, the lighting conditions are completely different. One is taken in direct sunlight, the other with indoor lighting.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by jra]

I will give the same answer to you as I did to ArMaP:
If the direct sunlight on the moon could make the astronaut's boot look different in the Apollo 15 image, and it actually DOES look very different, why didn't the sunlight make the colors of the gnomon's color chart go away too? You yourself said that the color chart showed the true colours.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
I am not sure I understand what you mean - do you mean that the image of the astronaut's spacesuit doesn't show it's real color?

Yes, I think that the photo of the space suit is not showing the true colours of the suit.

Or that the astronaut's boot aren't really light blue at the tip. and doesn't have two different colors (gold/white)? That artificial light has made the tip of the boot look light blue, when it is in fact white?

I don't mean that the grey turned to blue, obviously, as I said that the light was a little yellow it can not turn grey into blue, but it can turn white into yellow or grey into brownish grey.

And what about the gnonom and it's color chart? If the direct sunlight could make the colors of the astronaut's boot disappear, why havent the colors in the chart also disappeared?

They have, I have finally found the closest thing to that gnomon. It's a different "model" but the colours are probably the same, and you can see that the colours are darker than on the Moon photos.

Original image here, the gnomon is near the right foot of Jim Irwin.

The dirt on the knee of the astronaut's spacesuit is brown, not grey. But the surface sure doesn't look dark or brown in the Apollo 15 images NASA has released.

I think that the brown on the space suit photo you posted is exaggerated by the light, as is attenuated by the light (and the way the film reacted) on the Moon photos.

I am still certain that the images have been tampered with, and that the true colors have been washed out of them.

As I said before, I don't see the need to "wash out" the colour, that can easily happen without human intervention, ask any professional photographer and see what kind of answer you get.

But if you want to see if this is just lack of colour, I can adjust the saturation of that photo with the rock.
Now it looks brown, not much, but it does not look grey. As I only enhanced the colours, this means that the colour was already there (I didn't add it), it only became more visible.

But if you want to see what that dirt looks like on an Earth laboratory (the Lunar Receiving Lab), you can see this photo.
Original photo here.

And if you want to see a glass-coated rock, here it is.
It almost looks like liquid, right?
Original photo here.

reply to post by ArMaP


Thanks for your reply. But I would just like to point out that the theory about the "liquid" moon rock is NOT mine - this is Zorgon's theory!

I think the interesting things about this "rock" is the little hole at the bottom with the colored crystals (?) in them, and the feature above the astronaut's rake. I have circled these two features in a previous post.

About the astronaut's spacesuit, your claim that the image doesn't show it's real colors because of artificial light, is very strange. If your theory is right, then we can't trust the image you posted with Irwin and the color chart either, since it also was taken indoors in artificial light!

Regarding the dirt on the knee of the astronauts's spacesuit, it is a FACT that the Apollo 15 mission landed on a dark mare plain. They did not land on a light grey surfase. There is no reason to believe that the image of the spacesuit with the dirt is not correct. There is no reason to believe that the colors of the astronaut's boot are not correct. And in NASA's image, there is not even the slightest hint that the boot actually has three different colors on it. That is still proof to me that the image has been tampered with.

And I hope I am not missing anything here, but I don't think you have commented on the colored "crystals" in the round hole on the rock. Even in NASA's official image they are visible. Do you have any explanation for them?

And by the way - I know we don't agree on this subject, but I would like you to know that I have great respect for your contributions to ATS. Your comments are always VERY interesting and educational, thank you for that.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

I've "tampered with the images" here. I did NOT change color. I only BALANCED and used the TARGETS to get the colors in this image.
You can clearly see the difference in the boot tip vs the gold ankle.



Also in the bottom images you can see how the rock is actually elevated. As far as the "sparkly change". there could be reflections of the suit, off the shiny rocks beside it and truly a million other reasons. I've looked at the crevasse / sparkle and the areas where the reflection changes in the same area where it is already a bit darker which further proves it's more of the dark basalt type material that looks like liquid..

It is not the reflections of a spaceship, liquid or anything else. A very simple mundane answer for this. Reflections..

there is nothing wrong here

b

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Bspiracy]

Originally posted by Bspiracy
I've "tampered with the images" here. I did NOT change color. I only BALANCED and used the TARGETS to get the colors in this image.
You can clearly see the difference in the boot tip vs the gold ankle.

...

It is not the reflections of a spaceship, liquid or anything else. A very simple mundane answer for this. Reflections..

there is nothing wrong here

b

[edit on 8-5-2008 by Bspiracy]

So you had to tamper with the image to get to see the color differences on the astronaut's boot... How very strange, if there is nothing wrong with the original NASA image...

And I have no idea why you are talking about "reflections of a spaceship". I may have missed something, but I don't think anyone has mentioned anything about a spaceship in this thread.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

reply to post by ziggystar60


Tampered meaning I used the very thing they purposefully placed within the image to let you correctly adjust the dynamic range to reflect a correctly exposed/balanced image.

So yes I tampered with it, but I did not do anything such as changing or replacing one color for another. Or enhancing one special color more than others, shift pixels or lose or damage pixels. I used the target, found the cleanest points of the target since it was dusty, median blurred that with other pure colors and set those as the points to match. Tampering with the image to correct the exposure according to a target can be a non-destructive and healing process for an image.
I also matched the medium gray portion which further balances the color.
If you look at the "corrected" image, the blue is purer, the black richer and the lights less blown out. Instantly achieved by using the target.

The dirt is dark like you mentioned it should be, the boot even matches the apollo 15 outfit image now. I did not coerce colors into a range I wanted them to go towards, I used the target.

Did I mention the target?

As far as the reflections of a spaceship comment I made.. I went off the deep end I guess in the same manner as the folks that believe these images are falsified and/or contain support towards a J.Lear type claim. I'm just laying the facts out, using a traditional and scientifically proven process to back up the mundane answer fact.

Better said, the reflections that "move" or "change" is merely an almost imperceptible change from the camera angle. If the crevasse has small reflective pieces/particles/substance that could be smooth or sharp; instant color change could come from a refraction of the substance. Or possibly a reflection of a nearby entity, such as an astronaut from America, or reflection of earth or even an alien spaceship with it's turning lights on..

I see the image I corrected as a properly exposed, color balanced and supports the mundane answer. sorry. party-pooper me

b

reply to post by Bspiracy


Hi, it is obvious that we are never going to agree on this subject, you have again confirmed that you have tampered with the image to show the real colors of the boot. In other words, NASA's original image does not show the true colors.

I still believe the image of the strange rock with the small, colored "crystals" has been tampered with by NASA. (And regarding the "crystals" inside the little round hole, I have NEVER EVER stated or believed that they move or change in any way. That animation was created by using two different images which was taken at slightly different angles.)

I will mention again the image of astronaut Scott's spacesuit, which he used in the Apollo 15 mission. ArMaP's theory that artificial light somehow has changed the colors of the spacesuit and the dirt on the knee, doesn't ad up at all - especially since he uses another photo - also taken in artificial light - to show the true colors in the gnomon's color chart.

The spacesuit has BROWN dirt on the knee. The Lunar and Planetary Institue says that the Apollo 15 mission landed on a "dark mare plain". Yet every one single of NASA's images from this mission shows the surface as light grey, no matter the sun's angle. It is obvious that something is wrong here.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Hi, it is obvious that we are never going to agree on this subject, you have again confirmed that you have tampered with the image to show the real colors of the boot. In other words, NASA's original image does not show the true colors.

Colour calibration needs to be done to all photos. There is nothing wrong with the colours of the Apollo photos as is, but some adjusting needs to be done if you need or want as much accuracy as possible. It's similar to playing with the white balance on a digital camera. The colour of an image can change a fair bit if you set your digital camera's white balance to different modes.

The Lunar and Planetary Institue says that the Apollo 15 mission landed on a "dark mare plain".

Hey wait a minute. I should have caught this sooner. Apollo 15 was the first mission not to land in a Lunar Mare. They landed in a more mountainous area called Hadley rille.

Originally posted by ziggystar60
reply to post by Bspiracy

 

Hi, it is obvious that we are never going to agree on this subject,
Best regards, Ziggystar60.

Agreed.. until you take a photography course or two, you won't understand or agree with reason. If that route is your choice then so be it.
we'll just disagree

b

reply to post by Bspiracy


Hi, Bspiracy and jra, here you have a scetch of the Apollo 15 landing site and the EVAs and their stations. The image of the rock with the "crystals" was taken at station 2, EVA 1. I have circled this specific area:




I have also circled the area in this image from Lunar and Planetary Institute. It is obvious that the image of the strange rock was taken in an area with dark lunar surface:





Link to both the scetch and the photo: www.lpi.usra.edu...

Best regards, Ziggystar60.






[edit on 9-5-2008 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by jra


Thanks jra for keeping the discussion realistic! Of course it cannot possibly be liquid water given that the lunar surface is almost a vacuum. It is clearly some glassy material. It seems some people are desperate to believe in impossible things...

reply to post by timelike


Hi I would just like to point out ONCE AGAIN that the theory about water on the moon was NOT mine - it was Zorgon's! If you read my comments in this thread you will understand that I have nothing to do with the "liquid" theory, and I really don't want it pinned to me! I also think it is highly unrealistic, you see.

Best regards, Ziggystar60.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by ziggystar60]

Originally posted by ziggystar60
Thanks for your reply. But I would just like to point out that the theory about the "liquid" moon rock is NOT mine - this is Zorgon's theory!

Don't worry, I know that is not your theory.

About the astronaut's spacesuit, your claim that the image doesn't show it's real colors because of artificial light, is very strange. If your theory is right, then we can't trust the image you posted with Irwin and the color chart either, since it also was taken indoors in artificial light!

I trust more that photo because I know that the spacesuits were white when seen with natural light and the space suits on the table in front of the stage in the photo I posted looks white.


Colour reproduction is one of the most difficult (or even impossible) things humans try to do. People see things in different ways, and even one person can see things with different colours depending on the eye used (I see things a little reddish with the left eye). And in the case of these photos, they were created by chemical processes that are far from accurate. After that the photos were developed with another chemical process. Then they were printed with another chemical process. Then they were scanned with a digital (I suppose) process. Then they may or may not have been adjusted after digitising. Then they are presented in our screens with different processes (and many LCD screens do not show all the colours the computer can make, most people do not know that), so we can never know what things really look like, only seeing them ourselves, but we can use approximations based on known colours (the white space suit, the gnomon, etc.).

Regarding the dirt on the knee of the astronauts's spacesuit, it is a FACT that the Apollo 15 mission landed on a dark mare plain.

It could be dark and not brown, one thing does not exclude the other.

They did not land on a light grey surfase. There is no reason to believe that the image of the spacesuit with the dirt is not correct. There is no reason to believe that the colors of the astronaut's boot are not correct. And in NASA's image, there is not even the slightest hint that the boot actually has three different colors on it. That is still proof to me that the image has been tampered with.

To me that only shows that photography is not an exact science. Light on the Moon is not filtered through the atmosphere, and I don't know if the scattering of light that makes the atmosphere blue also changes the colours we see. But that is why they included the colour target, to help achieve colours as fatefully as possible.

And why would they tamper the colour of those photos, to not show brown dust and instead grey?

And I hope I am not missing anything here, but I don't think you have commented on the colored "crystals" in the round hole on the rock. Even in NASA's official image they are visible. Do you have any explanation for them?

I haven't commented yet, and although I am still gathering data about this I may say that I think that I have seen something similar in other photos, not that bright but the same type of shine.

And by the way - I know we don't agree on this subject, but I would like you to know that I have great respect for your contributions to ATS. Your comments are always VERY interesting and educational, thank you for that.

Thanks, it's always a pleasure to talk with people that can accept that other people may have different ideas.

reply to post by jra


I concur it's glass and thanks for repeating it.Sometimes it takes many years of repeating facts before people see the light.Water doesn't bubble up and curve like those reflective flares indicate.The glass is smoothe from that high up and probably ground level too. I saw an asteroid hit the moon that was probably an iceball off a comet sept 29 1996.It impacted at Mons Moro in Mare Cognitum.There could still be a signicant amount of buried ice/water just below the surface there.I saw it naked eye and in a 30 or 40 x low power scope I had already sighted while moongazing,my eyes adapted well.I saw the plume of dust it kicked up off the surface brighter because underlit.How large would that bright ice ball have to be for me to see it naked eye observation? How many miles of ice would it have been? I'd say my eyes are better than average and not as good as a sharpshooter's eyes.What's the smallest object a person like me could see at Moon impact distance? Yes it depends on brightness.This object was small superfast and highly reflective/bright,like a snowball. photo credit A.Cidadao(Italy)

reply to post by vze2xjjk


Just a little correction, António Cidadão is not from Italy, it's from the same country as me, Portugal.