Conspiracy theorists confident Photoshopped NASA image is a cover-up

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbomb456
They are stilla public agency, are required to release their findings.



LOL.....okay! Just like our government is 'supposed to' fear their people or..........cops who are 'supposed to' serve and protect us, right?
Required? Looks like a word that'll be obsolete within a few years anyway....

Listen, these old cliches are just that; Old cliches. Were living in different times and no one trusts their officials anymore.

What's 'supposed to be', just isn't anymore. Please stop being complacent. They love it when you are!




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The problem is that people who don't understand how digital imaging and transmission work jump all over any little processing artifact and try to turn it into something else.


A little processing artifact... for aesthetic reasons uh huh..

Kinda like over enhancing the Earth and making the Moon surface gray scale so they can kep the myth alive on a colorless moon



But as I said they are sloppy...



Here is the original



So I never thought I would live to see the day when ATS skeptic image analysist say that NASA does 'heavy editing' for "aesthetic reasons"



Editing is editing... just confirms Never A Straight Answer's policy

I wonder how many of those Moon landing images were 'heavily edited' for "aesthetic reasons"
edit on 8-10-2010 by zorgon because: Classified



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbomb456
They are still a public agency, are required to release their findings. Also to answer that question about the seeming contradiction, it would make sense if their were two factions within NASA; one concerning itself with keeping findings hidden, and another wanted to release them into public domain.


Ah yes sure thing NASA a public agency... so they MUST reveal all

Or else what? If they hide stuff... what we gonna do about it?

The two factions... yes that is why some astronauts are coming out saying UFO's are real... but what do we do with that? We ridicule them, the once hero is now the doddering old fool out to make a buck or get attention

NASA public?


Try looking at the bottom on ANY NASA website see all those links? Try one

You want info? No problem


If you do not know the exact title of the document you are seeking, you should provide a reasonable description of the documents. The more information that you can provide about the document, such as its author or date, the more expeditiously your request will be processed. Your request will be logged and a tracking number assigned to it. The tracking number assigned is of great importance to you as a requester because, in the event you would like to check the status of your request, the number enables us to locate where in the process your request is.


www.hq.nasa.gov...

That will take you here

AVAILABILITY OF AGENCY RECORDS TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
www.hq.nasa.gov...

That LIST has exemptions where you will read..

Subpart 3--Exemptions
Sec. 1206.300 Exemptions.

(b) The requirements of this part to make Agency records available do not apply to matters that are--
(1)(i) Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and
1(ii) Are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order;

(3) Specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than 5 U.S.C. 552), provided that such statute:
(i) Requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or
(ii) Establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;


So ANYTHING that is deemed National Defense or anything declared 'classified' by executive order' is withheld. I wonder what heading UFO's and Aliens fall under?



If you have a complaint try here
Welcome to the NASA Office of Inspector General
oig.nasa.gov...

Now look at this

Welcome to the NASA/DoD Agreements Archive


This page provides access to all the currently active NASA/DoD interagency agreements held in the archive maintained by the Aerospace Technology and Interagency Liaison Division (Code ID) at NASA Headquarters. Separate lists are available showing these agreements grouped by both NASA and DoD organizations. NASA assigns a unique number to each agreement that reflects the DoD organization with primary responsibility. The numbers for Air Force agreements start with "AF," Army agreements with "USA," Navy Agreements with "USN," and U.S. Space Command agreements with "USS." Numbers for agreements with all other DoD organizations start with "DOD." Individual agreements can be accessed through either the list for the responsible NASA organization or DoD organization. Within each list, agreements are arranged by agreement number---except for NASA Headquarters, where they are arranged first by Headquarters Code and then by agreement number.


www.sti.nasa.gov...

NASA - NASA and Department Of Defense Partner For Aeronautical Testing


Feb 26, 2007 ... WASHINGTON - NASA and the Department of Defense recently signed an agreement to develop an integrated national strategy

www.au.af.mil...

NASA AND Department of Defense Merge

Recommendation 5
Incorporate Space Exploration Initiative requirements into the joint NASA-DOD Heavy Lift Program.
govinfo.library.unt.edu...



Oh and that thing about knowing the exact file name really works
Got a file on Mars Methane from them and ordered an image, but that image in an 11x14 print with 600dpi scan of the negative set me back $110.00

edit on 8-10-2010 by zorgon because: Classified



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ngchunter
Normally such composites when released by NASA do not require such photoshopping, but when you have two objects moving relative to each other between color filtered images, heavy editing is required to produce a color photo. Some of the PR photos released from Cassini may have this kind of editing done if they show moons that actually moved noticeably between images, but the way NASA does it is probably much more professional.


AWESOME I about fell off my chair

ngchunter says "...when you have two objects moving relative to each other between color filtered images, heavy editing is required..."

"...Some of the PR photos released from Cassini may have this kind of editing done.."

"..but the way NASA does it is probably much more professional"

priceless gonna screen capture this one

I'll look at the photos later, but I have a few proofs of sloppy editing myself




If you do not understand the difference between a PR photo and a raw photo or the clear and simple reasons why such editing is done on PR photos then I can't explain it to you any better than I already have.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
If you do not understand the difference between a PR photo and a raw photo or the clear and simple reasons why such editing is done on PR photos then I can't explain it to you any better than I already have.


I understand it just fine... what YOU don't seem to understand is that if they do any editing at all for publicity photos, why would we trust them to not edit out things that would be better left out of the public eye? Skeptics seem to feel that they can trust them not to change important details like UFO's and structures, but its okay to alter them for PR purposes.

Skeptics accuse believers of selective beliefs, but this is the same thing

You can't have it both ways.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Not sure why that is still such a bug in your....um, hair.


.....so they can kep the myth alive on a colorless moon ...


Help us out, here....in the examples (slightly off-topic, since we've already determined that the Saturn moon composite photo was NOT the result of NASA manipulation) Is there any evidence that NASA needed to ,or intentionally wanted to keep any "myth" alive for any reason? I mean, so what if it looks slightly "ecru" in one shot, more "grayish" in another and slightly "brownish-grey burnt umberish" (**) yet again, in subsequent lighting and various exposures, Sun angles, etc? Why must this be ascribed as some sort of "vast NASA conspiracy"? Or, as suggested, merely be aesthetics-driven? (People look up, from here on Earth, and what do they see? Grayish-white, and a bit darker grey in some areas. Naked-eye viewing from Earth, unless through the thick atmosphere at Moon-rise/-set, I've never seen and "brown" hues).

(**) In some photos, as shown in your post, there is a hue similar to the stones in this image:



Of course, as with all photographs, the tonality and hues vary greatly not only with different lighting, but with differences in distance too.

It is disingenuous, it seems, to use such tenuous examples and extrapolate to allege some sort of on-going "agenda" in all instances of NASA-released images. :shk: This rather requires the suspension of one's logic, too....to require a person to believe that NASA is so naive (or incompetent), that they (NASA) think they could "get away with it" (
) in today's era of every Tom, Dick and Harry scrutinizing everything remotely associated with NASA!

I mean, anyone who's paid attention to the Apollo EVAs knows that there were many cases where, up close and personal, the Astronauts saw various colors. Just as, on Earth, closer you get, more detail you see. Farther back, colors blend and become more homogeneous-looking. It's not a big "hidden" secret, it's in the transcripts and audio soundtracks records.

(Apollo 17, in 1972):


165:15:49 Schmitt: What it is, I think...

165:15:51 Cernan: ...It's a blue-gray.

165:15:52 Schmitt: ...it's a big blue-gray rock, itself is crystalline, I believe. The inclusions are much more sharply defined, and it's non-vesicular; and it's included, or at least it's in contact with the very vesicular anorthositic gabbro. Right up there. See that?

165:16:13 Cernan: Yeah, a whole big one. I just...

[Jack is discussing Fragment 1. See the Station 6 plan view.]
165:16:15 Schmitt: Did you get some pictures of it?
165:16:17 Cernan: As I bounced around there, I took pictures of it.

165:16:18 Schmitt: Look, we can get some of that light-colored stuff in there, along with the blue-gray.


www.hq.nasa.gov...

There's a whole host of other evidence...heck, don't remember exactly when or which mission, but they saw ORANGE soil too, I believe. And, I daresay on a typical geological field trip on Earth, similar color variables would be seen too. But, from far enough away? Earth has been described as a "Pale Blue Dot". (Carl Sagan).

Sorry, but I don't think accusing NASA of any "Moon color cover-up" flies anymore. BUT, such accusations lend fuel to stoke the flames of others who stumble over each other to "prove" something or other on so many occasions.....as evidenced by the (three, or more?) threads already about this particular YouTube video that is OP here.


Now, all of that being said.....let's investigate whether or not any actual, physical or reported and verifiable evidence of ET existence is known by NASA and being deliberately withheld.

More facts that lead to a solid "conspiracy" foundation, to draw more informed conclusions, and fewer anonymous YouTube videos, please.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ngchunter
If you do not understand the difference between a PR photo and a raw photo or the clear and simple reasons why such editing is done on PR photos then I can't explain it to you any better than I already have.


I understand it just fine... what YOU don't seem to understand is that if they do any editing at all for publicity photos, why would we trust them to not edit out things that would be better left out of the public eye? Skeptics seem to feel that they can trust them not to change important details like UFO's and structures, but its okay to alter them for PR purposes.

Skeptics accuse believers of selective beliefs, but this is the same thing

You can't have it both ways.


You seem to think that NASA should only produce raw images, sadly for you this is not the case. Raw images do not contain edits, there IS a difference. If you want to talk shenanigans I'm curious as to why your server still hosts an image purportedly from John Lenard walson but is actually stolen from amateur astronomer Paul Rix.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
WOW .... That picture was kind of creepy....I wouldnt doubt that there are ships floating around out there in the vast universe.... all beings need to know the same thing, are we alone? I guess one day we shall see!!



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Nothing like having a defense against an unproven enemy.
Like having no defense.
And making up an enemy due to unproven cover up.
There is something there by virtue of a smudge.
Promotion of more and more unknowns just helps cover up something we should know
and is bring obscured.
Special for zorgon : Moon landings of oval ships recently called to my attention by the gallery owner.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Help us out, here....in the examples (slightly off-topic, since we've already determined that the Saturn moon composite photo was NOT the result of NASA manipulation) Is there any evidence that NASA needed to ,or intentionally wanted to keep any "myth" alive for any reason? I mean, so what if it looks slightly "ecru" in one shot, more "grayish" in another and slightly "brownish-grey burnt umberish" (**) yet again, in subsequent lighting and various exposures, Sun angles, etc? Why must this be ascribed as some sort of "vast NASA conspiracy"? Or, as suggested, merely be aesthetics-driven? (People look up, from here on Earth, and what do they see? Grayish-white, and a bit darker grey in some areas. Naked-eye viewing from Earth, unless through the thick atmosphere at Moon-rise/-set, I've never seen and "brown" hues).


yawn... u didn't comment much on the following last time... anywho, just to reiterate.....







Apollo 11 Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription, July 1969, 626 pages
www.jsc.nasa.gov...





Apollo 11 Onboard Voice Transcription-Command Module, August 1969, 248 pages
www.jsc.nasa.gov...





Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is disingenuous, it seems, to use such tenuous examples and extrapolate to allege some sort of on-going "agenda" in all instances of NASA-released images. :shk: This rather requires the suspension of one's logic, too....to require a person to believe that NASA is so naive (or incompetent), that they (NASA) think they could "get away with it" (
) in today's era of every Tom, Dick and Harry scrutinizing everything remotely associated with NASA!


but according to nasa....


069:51:04 Gerald Carr (CapCom): "Apollo 8, Houston. What does the ole Moon look like from 60 miles? Over". (Pause)
069:51:16 James Lovell: "Okay, Houston. The Moon is essentially grey, no color; looks like plaster of Paris or sort of a grayish beach sand.





hmmmm... coloured moon / grey earth ex zond...



check the colours of earth in light of the linked video...


n what was all the fuss with this one.....


069:17:35 Borman (onboard): Alright, I'm supposed to - Let's see; 16, 18, new C, exposure, 1/250th; 1 foot per second, one Mag[azine].

[Frank is reading from his column in the Flight Plan. Interpreting the instructions, he is to set up the 16-mm movie camera with an 18-mm lens attached, likely looking out of the left rendezvous _ His next item really means he should use one new magazine of C-EX (colour-exterior SO368) film. The shutter speed should be set to 1/250th second and the camera set to take one frame, not foot, per second. Three additional lenses for the Maurer camera include a 200-mm, a 75-mm and a 5-mm.]

069:17:44 Anders (onboard): [Garble.]

069:17:53 Borman (onboard): Yes, new C.

069:17:55 Anders (onboard): Check.

069:17:56 Borman (onboard): Right.

069:18:08 Lovell (onboard): Hey, you know something; it's gray, huh?

[Presumably Jim means the Moon is gray. That will be his comment to Earth twenty minutes after they regain contact.]

069:18:10 Borman (onboard): Yes.


history.nasa.gov...




anyways, its all irrelevant right?


but then, why the colour/grey manipulation?








hmmmmm... and what about dod's clementine....



www.lpi.usra.edu...



www.lpi.usra.edu...



www.lpi.usra.edu...

i hope you won't say 'false' instead of true/real colour....




Originally posted by weedwhacker
I mean, anyone who's paid attention to the Apollo EVAs knows that there were many cases where, up close and personal, the Astronauts saw various colors. Just as, on Earth, closer you get, more detail you see. Farther back, colors blend and become more homogeneous-looking. It's not a big "hidden" secret, it's in the transcripts and audio soundtracks records.


quite the opposite (in case of the space agencies).... the closer you get the reverse affect is applied...

watch the infamous 'aristarchus crater' by jaxa's hdtv





and the same region captured from a backyard here...



Optics: Meade 10” f/10 LX200GPS UHTC at f/28 with 18mm eyepiece projection.
www.rc-astro.com...




Scope: TMB 80mm Barlow: 2.5x barlow
www.astronomie.be...

is it comparable to this... jaxa b/w



and finally just to clear up some of your nasa programmed confusions....


LUNAR SURFACE OBSERVATIONS

Color

The lunar maria were described as brown at high sun angles, and greyish brown near the terminator (the color reproduced in frame 5149 of landing site 2 was described to approximate the real color in the latter case). The crew reiterated their commentary which accompanied the TV transmission following TEI where they noted a color mottling of Mare Serenitatis, light brown and tan brown, as compared to the darker "chocolate brown" color of Mare Tranquillitatis." The astronauts emphasized the lack of any green tints which are apparent in some of the color film.

The color of the lunar highlands was described as tan . (frame 5079 approximates the real color). Deviations from the tan color are caused by mare material (brown), fresh impact craters (chalky white) and a number of "jet black" layers and blocks. It was indicated that the contrast between the white and black outcrops as produced on the black and white film is less than the real contrast; white is brighter and black is darker on the lunar surface than on the film.


Apollo 10 Photo Debrief - Case #340
ntrs.nasa.gov...




Originally posted by weedwhacker
Sorry, but I don't think accusing NASA of any "Moon color cover-up" flies anymore. BUT, such accusations lend fuel to stoke the flames of others who stumble over each other to "prove" something or other on so many occasions.....as evidenced by the (three, or more?) threads already about this particular YouTube video that is OP here.


nasa's immunity vaccine had expired a long time ago.... please welcome jaxa...



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Now, all of that being said.....let's investigate whether or not any actual, physical or reported and verifiable evidence of ET existence is known by NASA and being deliberately withheld.


LET'S ?


edit on 8/10/10 by mcrom901 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:39 PM
link   
this just in!: supermodel on cover of national fashion magazine found to be PHOTOSHOPPED!

Indesputable evidence of Aliens!



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


links please?




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Help us out, here....


I'll try... but not sure I can


we've already determined that the Saturn moon composite photo was NOT the result of NASA manipulation


Really? I must have missed that post



I mean, so what if it looks slightly "ecru" in one shot, more "grayish" in another and slightly "brownish-grey burnt umberish" (**) yet again, in subsequent lighting and various exposures, Sun angles, etc? Why must this be ascribed as some sort of "vast NASA conspiracy"?


Well gee just look at all the Mars threads arguing about true color on Mars. Seems it IS important to many people and the color issue most definitely is one of the biggest NASA conspiracies talked about on the net... Why even YOU seem to feel the need to come in on any color issue



.to require a person to believe that NASA is so naive (or incompetent),...


LaCross mission perfect example of competency



But, from far enough away? Earth has been described as a "Pale Blue Dot". (Carl Sagan).


Carl was out in space? Kewl



Sorry, but I don't think accusing NASA of any "Moon color cover-up" flies anymore. BUT, such accusations lend fuel to stoke the flames of others who stumble over each other to "prove" something or other on so many occasions.....as evidenced by the (three, or more?) threads already about this particular YouTube video that is OP here.


So you say it doesn't fly anymore and then say there are many threads about it already... Seems Weedwacker 0 Public interest 1

Well at least the NAVY doesn't lie to me...

Reiner Gamma Clementine 1994 Magnetic Anomaliy Nearside



Mare Marginis Clementine 1994 Magnetic Anomaliy Farside



GO NAVY!!! (bucking for a ride on one of their star cruisers :cool



Now, all of that being said.....let's investigate whether or not any actual, physical or reported and verifiable evidence of ET existence is known by NASA and being deliberately withheld.



Specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy

www.hq.nasa.gov...

What part of that do you not understand?



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker


AH thanks Mcrom...just what I needed...

See Herr Weedwacker? If NASA turns everything gray scale.. then I would miss such pretties as Aristarchus when the lights are on




We would never see the pretty blue glowie

Aristarchus Crater
Galileo Spacecraft
December 7, 1992





Section of the Apollo 11 debriefing log



Reprinted from Sky & Telescope Magazine, March, 1991.

LUNAR TRANSIENT PHENOMENA (LTP)
by Winifred Sawtell Cameron,
La Ranchita de la Luna, 200 Rojo Drive, Sedona, Arizona


On July 19, 1969, the Apollo 11 command module had just achieved orbit around the Moon when the Mission Control Center in Houston, Texas, received word that amateur astronomers reported transient phenomena in the vicinity of the crater Aristarchus. Asked to check out the situation, astronaut Neil Armstrong looked out his window toward the earthlit region and observed an "area that is considerably more illuminated than the surrounding area. It just has -- seems to have a slight amount of fluorescence to it." Although he wasn't sure, Armstrong believed the region was Aristarchus.

www.unexplainable.net...

Aristarchus blushes for clementine


"A satisfying rebuke to the TLP naysayers was recently delivered by JPL's B. Buratti at the October 1999 meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Padua, Italy. Her specific TLP occurred on April 23, 1994. At that time, about one hundred amateur astronomers noticed a 40-minute darkening near the edge of the bright lunar crater Aristarchus. Happily, when this hundred fold "illusion" took place, the lunar satellite Clementine was mapping the area around Aristarchus. Defying the dogmatists, Buratti scrutinized the Clementine data again. Sure enough, Aristarchus had really turned redder after the TLP reported by the amateur astronomers." - Science Frontiers #127, JAN-FEB 2000. © 1997 William R. Corliss

www.science-frontiers.com...

So why is it a bug in my ear when NASA takes and changes the colors in photos? Seriously what kind of truth seeker are you if it doesn't matter if its gray or not

:shk:



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Apparently, the NASA artist tried to explain it this way but the question I have now is, are all of NASA's images photoshopped? If so, as it would seem from the explanation, then how can anyone trust the images?


"Cassini takes colour pictures by snapping three sequential photos through red, green, and blue filters," she said.

"In the time that separated the three frames, Dione moved, so if I did a simple color composite I would be able to make Titan look right, but not Dione; or Dione look right, but not Titan.

"So I aligned Dione, cut it out, and then aligned Titan, and then had to account for the missing bits of shadow where the bits of Dione had been in two of the three channels."


You forgot to add something in that quote... the line just before that says who 'SHE' is...


The person responsible for the manipulation, Emily Lakdawalla, told a forum of excitable theorists that she made the changes because of the way Cassini takes photos.

SOURCE

The Planetary Society Blog
By Emily Lakdawalla
planetary.org...

Meet Emily and her good buddy Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy



edit on 9-10-2010 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Oh good lord, I have a picture of myself standing next to Fred haise, that doesnt make NASA responsible for anything I do. Emily was just a regular space fan and apod used her image. I have a newsflash for those who think that's strange; apod uses images from amateurs alllll the time. Those images are heavily "photoshopped" more often than not. Not for nefarious reasons, and not to remove any real data, but because processing is part and parcel of astrophotography.



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Oh, sheesh! Not again.

All of those overly-colorized photos, from YOUR website again?

I'll make this brief: Since the provenance of the images is masked by them having been linked directly from the "livingmoon" site, it is difficult to tell WHAT they looked like, and what spectra they each exhibit...in other words, are they supposed to be representative images of what would be seen in the VISIBLE spectrum? That is, to the Human naked eye? (I kinda doubt it, you know....unless you want to tell people that there are actual light-blue craters dotting the landscape all around the Aristarchas Crater....as that enhanced image shows)....

Or, as I expect (and anyone else may certainly search the Web to look up Clementine, and Reiner Gamma and Galileo, and Aristarchus) to find out what OTHER EM spectra were used to examine these Lunar features, and the images that resulted, and how they appear to US when we gaze upon them (whether reproduced onto photographic paper, or in this case, seen on a computer monitor)

A good start would be to study what sorts of imaging devices and equipment are specific to those two mentioned missions --- Clementine and Galileo.

Or....is it going to be the claim, which is apparent in the provacative and somewhat (it seems) exaggerated nature of those photos, as presented) that if I, or anyone else, were to be in Lunar orbit with my own digital camera in hand, and could shoot a photo out the window, that those areas would look (to unaided Human eyes) EXACTLY as shown in the images linked from the "livingmoon" website????


AS TO the image of Saturn's moons.....WHY is this dead horse about "NASA LIES" still being flailed? Oh, it's suposedly "proven" by a video made by that outed FRAUD, Jose' Escamilla??? (Plenty of ATS threads about his recent escapades. I wouldn't wish to be touting HIM as an example, under the circumstances).

Jumping a bit, as it occurs to me...from one of your posts, and the link to the (embolded in red snippet....please give me, and others, a break....and don't insult our intelligence by "quote-mining". (Though, to credit you DID link the full document...but how many people will bother??). It is certainly no secret that NASA has occasional responsibilty for handling and launching MILITARY payloads, and it is therefore no surprise that there would be "national security" issues involved that applied to certain FOIA requests, when those requests might tread into that territory.

The attempt to conflate that snippet, with "NASA photomanipulation scandals" (
) is innuendo-dropping at best, and disingenuously misleading at worst. Isn't it a bit???



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
All of those overly-colorized photos, from YOUR website again?

I'll make this brief: Since the provenance of the images is masked by them having been linked directly from the "livingmoon" site, it is difficult to tell WHAT they looked like, and what spectra they each exhibit...in other words, are they supposed to be representative images of what would be seen in the VISIBLE spectrum? That is, to the Human naked eye? (I kinda doubt it, you know....unless you want to tell people that there are actual light-blue craters dotting the landscape all around the Aristarchas Crater....as that enhanced image shows)....


The POINT was I want to see them in color, not the NASA gray scale version

Okay wacky that's it your back on that ignore list. This post just proves your only purpose is to confuse and spread lies. You know full well that I have ALL the links to the originals and well documented. Also the photo that Mcrom posted is by a French astronomer and its easy enough to follow that link which is NOT on my website

So now your pitiful attempt at obfuscation is saying those astronomers are fudging color? Good grief man, your getting desperate now... I have no more time to waste on your feeble attempts

edit on 9-10-2010 by zorgon because: NO!!



posted on Oct, 9 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I'll make this brief: Since the provenance of the images is masked by them having been linked directly from the "livingmoon" site, it is difficult to tell WHAT they looked like, and what spectra they each exhibit...in other words, are they supposed to be representative images of what would be seen in the VISIBLE spectrum? That is, to the Human naked eye? (I kinda doubt it, you know....unless you want to tell people that there are actual light-blue craters dotting the landscape all around the Aristarchas Crater....as that enhanced image shows)....


i would suggest you, for the sake of not confusing your own self, to at least try and quote the specific items which you intend to discuss, than rather pile up such loads of incoherent ramblings... more importantly, acquaint yourself with the actual data (aristarchus crater; in this case) so as to not sound so comical... well, i'm not trying to be disrespectful here... but if that's intentional on your part, then you're miserably failing at it...



One doesn't need high color-sensitivity to observe the curious green and violet near Aristarchus. Gruithuisen seems to have been the first one who observed the typical green of the quadrangular spot west/northwest of Aristarchus, of which he compared the colors (yellowish-greens) with those of terrestrial woods, meadows, and cornfields. Even the not experienced observer could catch this yellowish-green region in the wink of the eye. -Translated from the Dutch book Op Ontdekking in het Maanland by A.J.M.Wanders, 1949



Originally posted by weedwhacker
Or, as I expect (and anyone else may certainly search the Web to look up Clementine, and Reiner Gamma and Galileo, and Aristarchus) to find out what OTHER EM spectra were used to examine these Lunar features, and the images that resulted, and how they appear to US when we gaze upon them (whether reproduced onto photographic paper, or in this case, seen on a computer monitor)


translation: i haven't even researched the subject which i'm desperately trying to debunk here...



Originally posted by weedwhacker
A good start would be to study what sorts of imaging devices and equipment are specific to those two mentioned missions --- Clementine and Galileo.


translation: never to be implemented 'research pre-planning'


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Or....is it going to be the claim, which is apparent in the provacative and somewhat (it seems) exaggerated nature of those photos, as presented) that if I, or anyone else, were to be in Lunar orbit with my own digital camera in hand, and could shoot a photo out the window, that those areas would look (to unaided Human eyes) EXACTLY as shown in the images linked from the "livingmoon" website????


unfortunately it's apparent from the nature of your rhetoric that you're only interested in spewing unfounded speculative opinions, without the backing of any 'homework'.... alas....




Aristarchus Plateau (Real Color)

A mosaic of more than 250 images showing the complex and diverse Aristarchus region of the Moon in approximately “natural” colors (blue = 415 nanometers, green = 750 nanometers, red = 950 nanometers).


www.lpi.usra.edu...


Originally posted by weedwhacker
The attempt to conflate that snippet, with "NASA photomanipulation scandals" (
) is innuendo-dropping at best, and disingenuously misleading at worst. Isn't it a bit???


hmmmm.... more empty words?????????


next



posted on Oct, 11 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Abnormal bright lights on the Moon.
That sure is a mystery.
Unless we assume some of the bright unknown lights we see in the
Earth skies at night and in daytime are waiting for us on the Moon.
It is a scientific fact that a brighter glow is achieved in a vacuum
due to agitation around the ship hull because its not because
any ship forgot to turn its lights out.
Obviously a rescue ship of advanced nature waiting for Buzz
in case things went bad as they did with Travis Walton.
ED: Just connecting the lights.
edit on 10/11/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/11/2010 by TeslaandLyne because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join