Hidden Planet/moon mineralogy and shrinkage

Why did some of our NASA teams of prestigious associate wizards
intentionally go out of their way to photoshop and publish this rather
nifty color saturation enhanced image of mercury
(257037main_caloris_color_350.jpg), so as to having selectively
modified its dynamic range in those color saturations in order to
having excluded the thin but hot atmosphere of Mercury, and otherwise
to having removed any possible artifacts of the surrounding background
outside of the planet itself?

Dramatic Volcanism Forged Mercury's Surface
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology...ory?id=5304781
An image of the planet Mercury, made during the January 2008 flyby of
the planet by the Mercury... (REUTERS/NASA/JHUAP/ Arizona State
University/Handout)

It seems entirely odd that their infomercial media has access to
publishing such modified images that are not as such listed within the
official MESSENGER gallery. In other words, we the public are only
getting to see an extremely small fraction of these 100% public funded
image archives related to this mission, such as this color enhanced
image is rather typical.

Too bad we still don’t have the same degree of color saturation
enhanced images of our Selene/moon, as to depicting the complex
mineralogy and better nature of those cosmic deposits on our
physically dark as coal Selene/moon.

An even better color enhanced image of Mercury that’ll show
atmosphere. Don’t be turned off by the extremely pail/pastel or
nearly monochrome first look, because you just have to crank up that
saturation and ever so slightly replace or shift the color of black.
If this is too complex for your expertise, I’ll gladly walk you
through it.

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

You simply need to have saved this image as is to file, or save it as
a JPG if you’d like, and then PhotoShop it.

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 that “HUE” by whatever amount makes you a happy
camper.

By the way; if Mercury has in fact been measurably shrinking by 1.5
km in diameter over its geological history,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...mercury103.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7489557.stm

so has Earth been shrinking (though likely by some greater volumetric
proportional amount). I further rest my case from a very old rant I’d
contributed as of many years ago, that pertained to Earth’s shrinkage
from its core cooling as well as from surface erosions (most all of
which ending up in our oceans, displacing water and thus also causing
oceans to rise).

In other words, our Selene/moon may not be moving as quickly as 38 mm/
year away from us, especially if Earth’s radius has been instead
shrinking by several mm/year. Another question might be; how large
was Earth to begin with?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 9, 10:25*am, BradGuth wrote:
I further rest my case from a very old rant I’d
contributed as of many years ago


We wish!!!

On Jul 9, 3:31 pm, eyeball wrote:
On Jul 9, 10:25 am, BradGuth wrote:
I further rest my case from a very old rant I’d

contributed as of many years ago

We wish!!!

I'd merely suggested that Earth wasn't entirely neutral or otherwise
expanding, thus making those supposed 38 mm/year worth of lunar
recession seem to be anything but absolute science, especially since
those of us outside of the NASA/Apollo O-Ring cartel were not exactly
able to independently replicate and thus objectively qualify such a
tight little measurement without taking other possible interpretations
into account.

For all we know, our Selene/moon could be closing in on us at the rate
of 38 mm/year.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 9, 8:22*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 3:31 pm, eyeball wrote:

On Jul 9, 10:25 am, BradGuth wrote:
I further rest my case from a very old rant I’d

contributed as of many years ago

We wish!!!

I'd merely suggested that Earth wasn't entirely neutral or otherwise
expanding, thus making those supposed 38 mm/year worth of lunar
recession seem to be anything but absolute science, especially since
those of us outside of the NASA/Apollo O-Ring cartel were not exactly
able to independently replicate and thus objectively qualify such a
tight little measurement without taking other possible interpretations
into account.

For all we know, our Selene/moon could be closing in on us at the rate
of 38 mm/year.

*- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Brad...you try too hard...

On Jul 9, 5:40 pm, eyeball wrote:
On Jul 9, 8:22 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Jul 9, 3:31 pm, eyeball wrote:

On Jul 9, 10:25 am, BradGuth wrote:
I further rest my case from a very old rant I’d

contributed as of many years ago

We wish!!!

I'd merely suggested that Earth wasn't entirely neutral or otherwise
expanding, thus making those supposed 38 mm/year worth of lunar
recession seem to be anything but absolute science, especially since
those of us outside of the NASA/Apollo O-Ring cartel were not exactly
able to independently replicate and thus objectively qualify such a
tight little measurement without taking other possible interpretations
into account.

For all we know, our Selene/moon could be closing in on us at the rate
of 38 mm/year.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Brad...you try too hard...

So did Einstein and most others that gave a damn. Sorry about that.

btw, it's looking good that certain moon rocks may contain small beads
or glass spheres (small basalt geodes) that contain roughly 260 PPM of
water.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200807...dinmoonsamples

That's 260 ppm more water than found thus far on Mars.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

In article
,
BradGuth wrote:

Why did some of our NASA teams of prestigious associate wizards
intentionally go out of their way to photoshop and publish this rather
nifty color saturation enhanced image of mercury
(257037main_caloris_color_350.jpg), so as to having selectively
modified its dynamic range in those color saturations in order to
having excluded the thin but hot atmosphere of Mercury, and otherwise
to having removed any possible artifacts of the surrounding background
outside of the planet itself?

Perhaps to make it more obvious what differences in mineralogy there
were on the surface. I bet if you looked, you could find the analogous
unprocessed image. But knowing you, you'd rather **** and moan about it
than try to find it, and if someone else finds the image, you can ignore
it and go on ****ing and moaning for another few weeks.

The rest of what you write is typical Brad Guth bull****. Yeah, yeah,
yeah... whatever.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot com http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

On Jul 9, 9:05 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:
In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Why did some of our NASA teams of prestigious associate wizards
intentionally go out of their way to photoshop and publish this rather
nifty color saturation enhanced image of mercury
(257037main_caloris_color_350.jpg), so as to having selectively
modified its dynamic range in those color saturations in order to
having excluded the thin but hot atmosphere of Mercury, and otherwise
to having removed any possible artifacts of the surrounding background
outside of the planet itself?

Perhaps to make it more obvious what differences in mineralogy there
were on the surface. I bet if you looked, you could find the analogous
unprocessed image. But knowing you, you'd rather **** and moan about it
than try to find it, and if someone else finds the image, you can ignore
it and go on ****ing and moaning for another few weeks.

The rest of what you write is typical Brad Guth bull****. Yeah, yeah,
yeah... whatever.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

I know which dynamic range limited and atmospheric removed pastel
color image they PhotoShop over saturated and contrast boosted.
Question is, why did they exclude using the other equally pastel color
image that also included raw atmospheric data? (not enough 5th graders
available for running their PhotoShop software on a 2nd image?)

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 10, 12:29*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 9:05 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:



In article
,

*BradGuth wrote:
Why did some of our NASA teams of prestigious associate wizards
intentionally go out of their way to photoshop and publish this rather
nifty color saturation enhanced image of mercury
(257037main_caloris_color_350.jpg), so as to having selectively
modified its dynamic range in those color saturations in order to
having excluded the thin but hot atmosphere of Mercury, and otherwise
to having removed any possible artifacts of the surrounding background
outside of the planet itself?

Perhaps to make it more obvious what differences in mineralogy there
were on the surface. I bet if you looked, you could find the analogous
unprocessed image. But knowing you, you'd rather **** and moan about it
than try to find it, and if someone else finds the image, you can ignore
it and go on ****ing and moaning for another few weeks.

The rest of what you write is typical Brad Guth bull****. Yeah, yeah,
yeah... whatever.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

I know which dynamic range limited and atmospheric removed pastel
color image they PhotoShop over saturated and contrast boosted.
Question is, why did they exclude using the other equally pastel color
image that also included raw atmospheric data? (not enough 5th graders
available for running their PhotoShop software on a 2nd image?)

*- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

You need to start sweet talking all those pretend athiests of yours.
You'll never convince them to admit to the coverup with insults.

On Jul 10, 5:54 am, eyeball wrote:
On Jul 10, 12:29 am, BradGuth wrote:



On Jul 9, 9:05 pm, Timberwoof
wrote:

In article
,

BradGuth wrote:
Why did some of our NASA teams of prestigious associate wizards
intentionally go out of their way to photoshop and publish this rather
nifty color saturation enhanced image of mercury
(257037main_caloris_color_350.jpg), so as to having selectively
modified its dynamic range in those color saturations in order to
having excluded the thin but hot atmosphere of Mercury, and otherwise
to having removed any possible artifacts of the surrounding background
outside of the planet itself?

Perhaps to make it more obvious what differences in mineralogy there
were on the surface. I bet if you looked, you could find the analogous
unprocessed image. But knowing you, you'd rather **** and moan about it
than try to find it, and if someone else finds the image, you can ignore
it and go on ****ing and moaning for another few weeks.

The rest of what you write is typical Brad Guth bull****. Yeah, yeah,
yeah... whatever.

--
Timberwoof me at timberwoof dot comhttp://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

I know which dynamic range limited and atmospheric removed pastel
color image they PhotoShop over saturated and contrast boosted.
Question is, why did they exclude using the other equally pastel color
image that also included raw atmospheric data? (not enough 5th graders
available for running their PhotoShop software on a 2nd image?)

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

You need to start sweet talking all those pretend athiests of yours.
You'll never convince them to admit to the coverup with insults.

That's certainly true enough, because returning insults by way of my
lose cannon methods of returning the topic/author bashing favor
clearly haven't worked as well as I'd intended. Perhaps that's the
final straw that made OBL go postal and subsequently got everyone's
attention, even if he didn't orchestrate 9/11, but instead having
followed his instructions from the New World Order that had been
pulling his strings and pushing his buttons from the very get-go.

Perhaps I should learn Yiddish and simply join their New World Order,
and get myself one of them brown noses just for good measure. What
could possibly go wrong? (besides getting myself put on a stick)

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 10, 10:20*am, BradGuth wrote:
What
could possibly go wrong? (besides getting myself put on a stick)

*- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

Just remember that the name Jose Jalapeno is taken.