Has NASA's MESSENGER gone color blind?

On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting terribly hot, especially
by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hotter towards the equator and
obviously much cooler towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
bad that our NASA's MESSENGER team has such crappy CCD cameras and
otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded their
DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the hue/color saturation.
Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free cell phone
cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...rcury_Ice.html
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

It's a darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part such a
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of Venus do not have any pesky
nearby moon of such horrific mass, like that physically dark sucker
that has been somewhat recently keeping Earth so extra toasty from the
inside out, plus affecting each and every m3 of our thin crusted
surface, oceans and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and
subsequently thawing us out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever
see.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's unlikely
that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old water
ice, that is unless sequestered within polar geode pockets offering
thick enough basalt or protected by whatever mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind. Out of 1,213 images,
thus far we've got all of one extremely pastel color image to work
with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those interesting pixels I'd previously
discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and behold there's
not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited and somewhat
fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a closer look-see.
Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes wasn't using radar
imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been at least 4
confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft pastel kind of way, whereas at least this
limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever tell us the truth about such
things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of the one and only pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic
range) and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you like color, do it once again at +50 Saturation and 0
Lightness)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric related pixel artifacts. Of course the raw image itself
would have been so much better off if we were ever given access to
having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data to work with.
Replacing the color black with most any other color, such as a given
medium/dark gray does the trick for this next interesting extraction
of planetology, mineralogy and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset,
then perhaps you should not even be posting anywhere within Usenet
science, or contributing into most any other public space/astronomy or
astrophysics related forums, especially since so many of you folks
seem to lack the most basic of digital image observationology skills.
. - Brad Guth

Usenet is still color blind and pretend-atheist bigoted to boot. No
wonder China, Japan and soon enough India are doing so well.
. - Brad Guth


On Jan 31, 5:14 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting terribly hot, especially
by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hotter towards the equator and
obviously much cooler towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
bad that our NASA's MESSENGER team has such crappy CCD cameras and
otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded their
DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the hue/color saturation.
Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free cell phone
cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...tions/Mercury_...
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

It's a darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part such a
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of Venus do not have any pesky
nearby moon of such horrific mass, like that physically dark sucker
that has been somewhat recently keeping Earth so extra toasty from the
inside out, plus affecting each and every m3 of our thin crusted
surface, oceans and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and
subsequently thawing us out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever
see.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's unlikely
that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old water
ice, that is unless sequestered within polar geode pockets offering
thick enough basalt or protected by whatever mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind. Out of 1,213 images,
thus far we've got all of one extremely pastel color image to work
with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those interesting pixels I'd previously
discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and behold there's
not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited and somewhat
fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a closer look-see.
Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes wasn't using radar
imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been at least 4
confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft pastel kind of way, whereas at least this
limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever tell us the truth about such
things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of the one and only pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic
range) and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you like color, do it once again at +50 Saturation and 0
Lightness)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric related pixel artifacts. Of course the raw image itself
would have been so much better off if we were ever given access to
having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data to work with.
Replacing the color black with most any other color, such as a given
medium/dark gray does the trick for this next interesting extraction
of planetology, mineralogy and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset,
then perhaps you should not even be posting anywhere within Usenet
science, or contributing into most any other public space/astronomy or
astrophysics related forums, especially since so many of you folks
seem to lack the most basic of digital image observationology skills.
. - Brad Guth

I'm getting the selective Usenet banishment treatment of "An error
was encountered while trying to post, please try again later."

Why are only selective topics being moderated, as though taboo/off-
limits to receiving my words of wisdom?
. - Brad Guth


On Jan 31, 5:14 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting terribly hot, especially
by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hotter towards the equator and
obviously much cooler towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet within a
fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good potential for a
little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter Olympics?). Too
bad that our NASA's MESSENGER team has such crappy CCD cameras and
otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so terribly degraded their
DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the hue/color saturation.
Perhaps they should have ductaped a few of those free cell phone
cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...tions/Mercury_...
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

It's a darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part such a
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of Venus do not have any pesky
nearby moon of such horrific mass, like that physically dark sucker
that has been somewhat recently keeping Earth so extra toasty from the
inside out, plus affecting each and every m3 of our thin crusted
surface, oceans and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and
subsequently thawing us out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever
see.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's unlikely
that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old water
ice, that is unless sequestered within polar geode pockets offering
thick enough basalt or protected by whatever mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind. Out of 1,213 images,
thus far we've got all of one extremely pastel color image to work
with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those interesting pixels I'd previously
discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and behold there's
not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited and somewhat
fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a closer look-see.
Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes wasn't using radar
imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been at least 4
confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft pastel kind of way, whereas at least this
limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever tell us the truth about such
things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of the one and only pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic
range) and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you like color, do it once again at +50 Saturation and 0
Lightness)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric related pixel artifacts. Of course the raw image itself
would have been so much better off if we were ever given access to
having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data to work with.
Replacing the color black with most any other color, such as a given
medium/dark gray does the trick for this next interesting extraction
of planetology, mineralogy and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset,
then perhaps you should not even be posting anywhere within Usenet
science, or contributing into most any other public space/astronomy or
astrophysics related forums, especially since so many of you folks
seem to lack the most basic of digital image observationology skills.
. - Brad Guth

In places by day, the low albedo of Mercury can become so much hotter
than any of those Venus polar and elevated zones that can become as
cool as 600 K, and quite possibly a bit cooler by season of nighttime.

How colour blind was our spendy MESSENGER? (is there such a thing as
braille color?)

On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hottest throughout
midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly moon like cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet
within a fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good
potential for a little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter
Olympics?). Too bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such
crappy CCD cameras and otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so
terribly degraded their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the
mineral hue/color saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few
of those free cell phone cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...rcury_Ice.html
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

A darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part a rather
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of nearby Venus do not have
any extra thermal trauma from any pesky moon of such horrific mass,
like that physically dark sucker that has been somewhat recently
keeping Earth so extra toasty from the inside out, plus affecting each
and every cubic meter of our thin crusted surface, our rising oceans
and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and subsequently thawing us
out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever see, not to mention
what humanity has been contributing towards AGW.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's quite
unlikely that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old
water as any surface ice or salty brine, that is unless such h2o were
sequestered within substantial polar geode pockets offering a thick
enough basalt shell or otherwise protected by whatever thick layer of
polar mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind on us. Out of 1,213
images, thus far we've got all of two (possibly three) extremely
pastel and somewhat fuzzy color images to work with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those extremely interesting pixels I'd
previously discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and
behold there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited
and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a
closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes
wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been
at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft and fuzzy pastel kind of way, whereas at least
this limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever manage to tell us the whole
truth about such things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of one such pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic range)
and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you happen to like seeing mineral color, do it once again at +50
Saturation and 0 Lightness, and then crank up the contrast to suit)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric and/or magnetosphere related pixel artifacts. Of course
the raw image itself would have been so much better off if we were
ever given access to having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data
to work with. Replacing the color black with most any other color,
such as a given medium/dark gray does the trick for this next
interesting extraction of better appreciating planetology, mineralogy
and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

Here's another pair of those extremely pastel colour images, except
this time all of the extended atmospheric artifacts have been
artificially removed, leaving us with only the thin atmosphere that's
hugging to that physically dark surface, as seen only by giving this
one a maximum hue saturation and as using much as +40 Lightness
(you'll also need to zoom way in).
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...Prockter07.jpg

Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
Mercury.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/...ercuryInDetail

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset of
perpetual denial, then perhaps you should not even be posting
anywhere within Usenet science, or contributing into most any other
public space/astronomy/astrophysics or geology/planetology related
forums, especially since so many of you folks seem to lack those most
basic of digital image observationology skills, as most of you good
folks don't seem to even realize when you're being snookered and
summarily dumbfounded to death by your own kind.
. - Brad Guth

Hmmm, Usenet is still color(colour) blind and otherwise dumbfounded
past the point of no return. It must be some kind of silly brown-
nosed thing, quite a common DNA mutation within the sorts of pretend
atheists (aka Zionist/Jews of the Third Reich).
. - Brad Guth


BradGuth wrote:
In places by day, the low albedo of Mercury can become so much hotter
than any of those Venus polar and elevated zones that can become as
cool as 600 K, and quite possibly a bit cooler by season of nighttime.

How colour blind was our spendy MESSENGER? (is there such a thing as
braille color?)

On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215�F (hottest throughout
midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly moon like cold (as little as 80 K/-316�F and colder yet
within a fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good
potential for a little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter
Olympics?). Too bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such
crappy CCD cameras and otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so
terribly degraded their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the
mineral hue/color saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few
of those free cell phone cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...rcury_Ice.html
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

A darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part a rather
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of nearby Venus do not have
any extra thermal trauma from any pesky moon of such horrific mass,
like that physically dark sucker that has been somewhat recently
keeping Earth so extra toasty from the inside out, plus affecting each
and every cubic meter of our thin crusted surface, our rising oceans
and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and subsequently thawing us
out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever see, not to mention
what humanity has been contributing towards AGW.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's quite
unlikely that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old
water as any surface ice or salty brine, that is unless such h2o were
sequestered within substantial polar geode pockets offering a thick
enough basalt shell or otherwise protected by whatever thick layer of
polar mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind on us. Out of 1,213
images, thus far we've got all of two (possibly three) extremely
pastel and somewhat fuzzy color images to work with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those extremely interesting pixels I'd
previously discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and
behold there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited
and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a
closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes
wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been
at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft and fuzzy pastel kind of way, whereas at least
this limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever manage to tell us the whole
truth about such things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of one such pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic range)
and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
� Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you happen to like seeing mineral color, do it once again at +50
Saturation and 0 Lightness, and then crank up the contrast to suit)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric and/or magnetosphere related pixel artifacts. Of course
the raw image itself would have been so much better off if we were
ever given access to having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data
to work with. Replacing the color black with most any other color,
such as a given medium/dark gray does the trick for this next
interesting extraction of better appreciating planetology, mineralogy
and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

Here's another pair of those extremely pastel colour images, except
this time all of the extended atmospheric artifacts have been
artificially removed, leaving us with only the thin atmosphere that's
hugging to that physically dark surface, as seen only by giving this
one a maximum hue saturation and as using much as +40 Lightness
(you'll also need to zoom way in).
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...Prockter07.jpg

Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
Mercury.
http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/...ercuryInDetail

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset of
perpetual denial, then perhaps you should not even be posting
anywhere within Usenet science, or contributing into most any other
public space/astronomy/astrophysics or geology/planetology related
forums, especially since so many of you folks seem to lack those most
basic of digital image observationology skills, as most of you good
folks don't seem to even realize when you're being snookered and
summarily dumbfounded to death by your own kind.
. - Brad Guth

Come on team MESSENGER, give us at least one good composite close up
using maximum DR and full color saturation of that physically dark
planet of Mercury.

Don't tell us that our cell phone cameras are of better quality than
your spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes has to offer.
. - Brad Guth


On Feb 2, 8:41 pm, BradGuth wrote:
In places by day, the low albedo of Mercury can become so much hotter
than any of those Venus polar and elevated zones that can become as
cool as 600 K, and quite possibly a bit cooler by season of nighttime.

How colour blind was our spendy MESSENGER? (is there such a thing as
braille color?)

On Mercury it's certainly capable of getting moon like terribly hot,
especially by day averaging perhaps 375 K/ 215°F (hottest throughout
midday and of course much hotter towards the equator and obviously
cooler as you migrate towards either pole), but then by night it's
also terribly moon like cold (as little as 80 K/-316°F and colder yet
within a fully shaded polar crater), as such there's darn good
potential for a little polar ice to behold on Mercury (2024 Winter
Olympics?). Too bad that our crack NASA MESSENGER team has had such
crappy CCD cameras and otherwise such **** poor mirror optics that so
terribly degraded their DR(dynamic range) and lost so much of the
mineral hue/color saturation. Perhaps they should have ductaped a few
of those free cell phone cameras to that probe.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/mercury01/pdf/8059.pdf
"How cold is it in the craters near the poles of Mercury? The
temperature of interest is the maximum temperature throughout the
extent of the entire mercurian day (176 Earth days). Accurate thermal
models indicate that nonshaded polar regions reach temperatures near
175 K during the warmest part of the mercurian day [3]."

http://www.magicdragon.com/ComputerF...tions/Mercury_...
"Caltech/JPL observations suggest possible water ice at the north and
south poles of the planet Mercury."

"The surface is basically rough like the Moon, since albedo
(reflecting power) is very similar to the Moon, about 0.06 for
Mercury. Since perihelion and aphelion differ by 17 million miles, the
difference in received radiation may be about 50%. At closest
approach to the Sun, Mercury receives 12 times the radiation intensity
that Earth does; at the greatest distance from Sun, only 6 times as
much."

A darn good thing our sun is actually for the most part a rather
passive thermal dynamic kind of wussy star. Another good thing about
those planets of Mercury and especially of nearby Venus do not have
any extra thermal trauma from any pesky moon of such horrific mass,
like that physically dark sucker that has been somewhat recently
keeping Earth so extra toasty from the inside out, plus affecting each
and every cubic meter of our thin crusted surface, our rising oceans
and extensively water polluted atmosphere, and subsequently thawing us
out from the very last ice-age Earth will ever see, not to mention
what humanity has been contributing towards AGW.

Much like our physically dark and nearly naked moon, it's quite
unlikely that the planet Mercury is capable of holding onto plain old
water as any surface ice or salty brine, that is unless such h2o were
sequestered within substantial polar geode pockets offering a thick
enough basalt shell or otherwise protected by whatever thick layer of
polar mineralogy solids.

Thus far our spendy MESSENGER w/o brakes hasn't proven/disproven polar
ice. However, NASA's ongoing infomercial of their Mercury MESSENGER w/
o brakes has apparently gone nearly color blind on us. Out of 1,213
images, thus far we've got all of two (possibly three) extremely
pastel and somewhat fuzzy color images to work with.

Guess we all have to suck it up and live with whatever pathetic little
hue/color saturation our crack NASA MESSENGER team of such all-knowing
wizards are willing to share, but then if need be we can rather easily
improve upon that extremely pastel image by simply pushing up those
color saturations without ever distorting one damn thing.

I'd also recently checked to see if any of those Mercury flyby
obtained images of such unusually pastel and/or of limited gray scale
pixels had anything of interest to offer as potentially intelligent/
artificial looking (such as those extremely interesting pixels I'd
previously discovered as of 8+ years ago about Venus), and lo and
behold there's not one such collection or pattern of those DR limited
and somewhat fuzzy CCD pixels thus far that's worth our taking a
closer look-see. Too bad that our Mercury MESSENGER probe w/o brakes
wasn't using radar imaging, whereas each radar pixel would have been
at least 4 confirming looks and absolutely sharp as a tack.
-
Even in this very soft and fuzzy pastel kind of way, whereas at least
this limited color image is certainly offering us a whole lot better
science worthy look-see at Mercury. However, too bad their extremely
pastel image of such pathetic DR(dynamic range) is still so contrast
impaired and/or depth of hue saturation limited. Remember also that
the surface albedo of 0.12 is getting this moon like orb nearly as
dark as coal. Too bad that not even our NPR Sandy Wood as NASA's
StarDate infomercial whore can't ever manage to tell us the whole
truth about such things.

NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie
Institution of Washington:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...p?gallery_id=2

Of one such pastel color/colour image of limited DR(dynamic range)
and poor hue saturation thus far:
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: c1000_700_430.png
· Embedded: ColorMatch RGB ("use the embedded profile")

Image Adjustments: Hue Saturation
EDIT: MASTER
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +75
LIGHTNESS: -5

(if you happen to like seeing mineral color, do it once again at +50
Saturation and 0 Lightness, and then crank up the contrast to suit)

For a little fun, try out Image Size: RESAMPLE 2X (2048 X 2048)

Filter Image: UNSHARP MASK = 100%
RADIUS: 2
THRESHOLD: 4
Filter: SHARPEN (once)

There's a little more nifty PhotoShop work if you'd like to see those
atmospheric and/or magnetosphere related pixel artifacts. Of course
the raw image itself would have been so much better off if we were
ever given access to having the full DR worth of their raw pixel data
to work with. Replacing the color black with most any other color,
such as a given medium/dark gray does the trick for this next
interesting extraction of better appreciating planetology, mineralogy
and atmospheric science.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @1X or 2X (doesn't
matter)
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...00_700_430.png

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50 (try using +20)

Next, try out shifting the "HUE" by whatever makes you a happy camper.

Here's another pair of those extremely pastel colour images, except
this time all of the extended atmospheric artifacts have been
artificially removed, leaving us with only the thin atmosphere that's
hugging to that physically dark surface, as seen only by giving this
one a maximum hue saturation and as using much as +40 Lightness
(you'll also need to zoom way in).http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/...Prockter07.jpg

Of one more example of where a free cell phone CCD would have
accomplished a whole lot better DR and hue saturation job on behalf of
recording that physically dark (0.12 albedo) mineralogy of the planet
Mercury.http://bp3.blogger.com/_9gn6KLa5xtY/...ABT4/BLtXCZz13...

If any of this PhotoShop or whatever digital photographic software
usage is simply too much for your eye-candy speed or naysay mindset of
perpetual denial, then perhaps you should not even be posting
anywhere within Usenet science, or contributing into most any other
public space/astronomy/astrophysics or geology/planetology related
forums, especially since so many of you folks seem to lack those most
basic of digital image observationology skills, as most of you good
folks don't seem to even realize when you're being snookered and
summarily dumbfounded to death by your own kind.
. - Brad Guth