posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:53 AM
Originally posted by mrkeen
Thanks for the clues. You suggest early dismissal of hypotheses, but I prefer to carefully study each one. This certainly deserves further
That is your prerogative certainly. I am just trying to make clear why it is not hugely convincing to someone who has a rough understanding of
atmospheric physics. I thank you again for being civil.
I can see the blue atmosphere very clearly here. And the moon has a purplish tint in this photo, this may result from the superimposition of
thin blue air over it's natural color.
Indeed, but a blue tint does not remove a brown colouration. The moon from the ISS appears much the same as it does from the ground. This would be
strictly impossible if your theory was correct. Not to mention that at night there's very little rayleigh scattering but the moon does not
significantly change colour.
Let's leave these b/w photos to mineralogists then. If you have a link that proves that the moon is grey from its mineralogical composition,
please share it.
I provided a link that showed the iron oxide concentration in lunar soil. Perhaps you missed it? The same link that had first hand accounts of it
That's the core problem with all those moon photos. Your linked image is grey, but the similar image in my above post is brown. How can that
be? Somebody had to alter the color in one of these images. Since you believe that the grey one is the original, you suggest that it was the blogger
who painted the moon brown for some reason.
Not at all. This is a rare argument and so implying that someone intentionally corrupted an image is fairly tenuous. My impression is that a lot of
these images are processed by eye or by 'auto white balance'. Both things that do not work effectively on photographs outside of the 'comfort
But the problem is NASA itself has photos, in some of which the moon surface is brown, while in the others it is grey. Hence, NASA had to alter
some of the photos, too. Why? The Apollo-8 pictures in which the moon is brown were made earlier than Apollo-11 images. By your logic, somebody had to
open the archive, paint the moon brown and post it on the NASA site.
Not at all! See the gif I just posted. Two images on identical film taken within seconds of each other both show significantly different saturation. I
think it's most likely the scanner but there are many explanations for this. Did Apollo 8 even use the 6x6 cameras or were they using the DAC or
similar? Lots of factors will affect the colour of photographs, not least the film.
Also what happened to the Galileo photos, which show the Moon as tan-colored? And what happened to countless asteroid debris on the Moon's
surface, did they all also turn grey?
edit on 6-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit
I'm not sure which Galileo you're talking about here. There are many photos showing significant colour variation yes. I don't understand why this is
so surprising though. If you've ever played with cameras for a significant amount of time, especially pre-digital cameras you know that colours are a
very flexible thing. Hell digital sensor colour reproduction is a hugely hot topic of debate and I assume you understand what 'white balancing' can
You seem to be acting as if it's a surprise that there are significant colour variations in photographs, but surely we've come to expect this? Surely
it's intuitive to a photographer?
edit on 6/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)