Great missions STS-122 & Expedition 16

On Feb 28, 6:01*pm, BradGuth wrote:" The point
is, you and others of your silly kind have known exactly what I'm
after"

yeah, your gibberish is all over the place, but your thinking is one
dimensional, and so your posts are easy to predict, dissect, and
reject....

Nice Aurora picture from expedition 16

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...=E&frame=27108
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-27108
ATLANTIC OCEAN
PAN - AURORA BOREALIS, ISS

On Feb 28, 11:43 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Feb 28, 6:01 pm, BradGuth wrote:" The point
is, you and others of your silly kind have known exactly what I'm
after"

yeah, your gibberish is all over the place, but your thinking is one
dimensional, and so your posts are easy to predict, dissect, and
reject....

Nice Aurora picture from expedition 16

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...ISS016&roll=E&...
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-27108
ATLANTIC OCEAN
PAN - AURORA BOREALIS, ISS

Is that why you folks can't deductively think for yourselves?

Is that why you have no staff or team of brown-nosed minions?

Is that why you must continually hide with a pretend name that goes
along with your pretend atheism?
.. - Brad Guth

On Feb 29, 11:38 am, BradGuth wrote:"Is that why
you folks can't deductively think for yourselves? Is that why you have
no staff or team of brown-nosed minions? Is that why you must
continually hide with a pretend name that goes along with your pretend
atheism?"


laughing, your personal attacks and illogical questions really don't
interest me, and because you lack the understanding of subjects you
pretend to know so much about, you really shouldn't waste your time on
such petty questions as you did in your above post, and instead
concentrate your efforts on how to alleviate your overwhelming
ignorance with respect to image analysis....

PHYS1330: The PHYSICS of COLOR and LIGHT
Provided through the Department of Physics and Astronomyat The
University of Toledo.
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/_color/p1330.html
Trichromacy lesson
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/...23_trichro.htm
Opponency lesson
http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/...4_opponent.htm


Expedition 16 image of glacier in Argentina
The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...=E&frame=24730
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-24730
ARGENTINA, UPSALA GLACIER, LAKES, SNOW

On Feb 29, 10:01 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Feb 29, 11:38 am, BradGuth wrote:"Is that why
you folks can't deductively think for yourselves? Is that why you have
no staff or team of brown-nosed minions? Is that why you must
continually hide with a pretend name that goes along with your pretend
atheism?"

laughing, your personal attacks and illogical questions really don't
interest me, and because you lack the understanding of subjects you
pretend to know so much about, you really shouldn't waste your time on
such petty questions as you did in your above post, and instead
concentrate your efforts on how to alleviate your overwhelming
ignorance with respect to image analysis....

PHYS1330: The PHYSICS of COLOR and LIGHT
Provided through the Department of Physics and Astronomyat The
University of Toledo.http://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/_color/p1330.html
Trichromacy lessonhttp://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/_color/23_trichro.htm
Opponency lessonhttp://www.physics.utoledo.edu/~lsa/_color/24_opponent.htm

Expedition 16 image of glacier in Argentina
The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earthhttp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS016&roll=E&...
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-24730
ARGENTINA, UPSALA GLACIER, LAKES, SNOW

Is that your Third Reich boot camp thinking, or is it something faith-
based in order to stick within the Old Testament of LLPOF?

It's almost as though I'm replying to a robot or perhaps another Borg
of the mainstream status quo that has one of those MIB holding a
loaded gun to your head.

Your NASA has no such deductive observationology expertise, at least
none better off than our resident LLPOF warlord(GW Bush) in looking
for all of those Muslim WMD.

Here's a somewhat better JAXA/Selene HDTV image file that doesn't seem
nearly as doctored as those before, except for the unusual lack of
dynamic range and poor color saturation (especially of the naked moon
surface as looking so unusually monochrome)
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_6_l.jpg

Cranking up those color saturations and of merely replacing the color
black with a 10% lighter version of dark gray is what allows us to see
the radiation belt or sphere of whatever's surrounding Earth, and for
some odd reason makes our physically dark moon look as though
greenish. Too bad we're still not being given any look-see at those
original HDTV color images as is. Apparently, of anything JAXA/Selene
is either taboo or having become nondisclosure rated, so that our NASA/
Apollo rusemasters can keep those lids on tight, because otherwise a
10 meter/pixel resolution image is entirely capable of depicting some
of our large as well as bright and shiny Apollo remainders.

BTW, is Google Usenet Groups having another bad archive/server day?

It's interesting to note how the Google 'search for' or of their
'search groups' is all screwed up again, such as a 'search groups' for
"brad guth" and then apply their 'sort by date' keeps turning up this
old topic of "Query for Brad Guth", as though it was of the most
recent of contributions as having incorporated my name.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 1, 4:59 am, BradGuth wrote:" Here's a
somewhat better JAXA/Selene HDTV image file that doesn't seem nearly
as doctored as those before, except for the unusual lack of dynamic
range and poor color saturation (especially of the naked moon surface
as looking so unusually monochrome)
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_6_l.jpg
Cranking up those color saturations and of merely replacing the color
black with a 10% lighter version of dark gray is what allows us to see
the radiation belt or sphere of whatever's surrounding Earth, and for
some odd reason makes our physically dark moon look as though
greenish."


No need to get frustrated my friend, as we are just having a
discussion, and I know you think that lame personal attacks and petty
questions should be a driving force for our conversation, but I
disagree, I would rather just share information. You see brad, I have
no personal qualms with you (even though you seem to have one with
me), and I don't really care, about your words of hate, as they are
just a function of you and not me, so you really shouldn't post such
personal attacks and then maybe you wont take it personally when I
don't take the bait. Now with respect to changing the saturation of
an image, doing so changes the colorfulness, but not the brightness,
and therefore you are skewing the data to a direction for which you
have very little reference, and may cross a threshold to producing
false colors. False colors may look pretty and vivid to you, as you
seem to want to blow out the neutrals, for the purpose of punching the
color up, but they don't show the how the colors appear relative to
each other as the human eye would see, or correctly represent shading
and shadows. An artist's use of colors is extremely specific when
they are choosing to represent reality, as the color choices of
highlights, shading and shadows in the scene give the proper
perspective of depth and dimension, meaning the mid-tones and less
vivid colors are necessary to make a scene real, and not appear to be
falsely colored. So just as an artist makes choices from a palette to
produce a realistic looking painting, you make color choices for
objects in the image you are working on the computer screen, but you
have no calibration reference to guide your corrections, only the
earth, moon, and darkness of space, resulting in the question of how
blue should the earths oceans be in such an image etc. So once again
if you are punching up the saturation, you are changing the
colorfulness to an unknown degree without any calibration or scaling,
and without compensating for the brightness. The corrected
(oversaturated) image may look nice and vivid to you, but you have not
balanced the grays in the image, which will result in biased and way
to vivid of shading, and shadows....

Great information on color imaging.
http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/PDFs/AppearanceLec.pdf
Color Appearance Models: CIECAM02 and Beyond IS&T/SID 12th Color
Imaging Conference Mark D. Fairchild
RIT Munsell Color Science Laboratory



Nice clouds images from the expedition 16 crew...

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...=E&frame=15217
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-15217
PACIFIC OCEAN
STRATOCUMULUS CLOUD BANK

On Mar 1, 7:52 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:59 am, BradGuth wrote:" Here's a
somewhat better JAXA/Selene HDTV image file that doesn't seem nearly
as doctored as those before, except for the unusual lack of dynamic
range and poor color saturation (especially of the naked moon surface
as looking so unusually monochrome)
http://wms.selene.jaxa.jp/data/en/hd...tv_000_6_l.jpg
Cranking up those color saturations and of merely replacing the color
black with a 10% lighter version of dark gray is what allows us to see
the radiation belt or sphere of whatever's surrounding Earth, and for
some odd reason makes our physically dark moon look as though
greenish."

No need to get frustrated my friend,

Not the least bit frustrated, just sharing the best available science
that's peer replicated. Not going for eye-candy, just hard science
that can be peer replicated.
.. - Brad Guth

as we are just having a
discussion, and I know you think that lame personal attacks and petty
questions should be a driving force for our conversation, but I
disagree, I would rather just share information. You see brad, I have
no personal qualms with you (even though you seem to have one with
me), and I don't really care, about your words of hate, as they are
just a function of you and not me, so you really shouldn't post such
personal attacks and then maybe you wont take it personally when I
don't take the bait. Now with respect to changing the saturation of
an image, doing so changes the colorfulness, but not the brightness,
and therefore you are skewing the data to a direction for which you
have very little reference, and may cross a threshold to producing
false colors. False colors may look pretty and vivid to you, as you
seem to want to blow out the neutrals, for the purpose of punching the
color up, but they don't show the how the colors appear relative to
each other as the human eye would see, or correctly represent shading
and shadows. An artist's use of colors is extremely specific when
they are choosing to represent reality, as the color choices of
highlights, shading and shadows in the scene give the proper
perspective of depth and dimension, meaning the mid-tones and less
vivid colors are necessary to make a scene real, and not appear to be
falsely colored. So just as an artist makes choices from a palette to
produce a realistic looking painting, you make color choices for
objects in the image you are working on the computer screen, but you
have no calibration reference to guide your corrections, only the
earth, moon, and darkness of space, resulting in the question of how
blue should the earths oceans be in such an image etc. So once again
if you are punching up the saturation, you are changing the
colorfulness to an unknown degree without any calibration or scaling,
and without compensating for the brightness. The corrected
(oversaturated) image may look nice and vivid to you, but you have not
balanced the grays in the image, which will result in biased and way
to vivid of shading, and shadows....

Great information on color imaging.http://www.cis.rit.edu/fairchild/PDFs/AppearanceLec.pdf
Color Appearance Models: CIECAM02 and Beyond IS&T/SID 12th Color
Imaging Conference Mark D. Fairchild
RIT Munsell Color Science Laboratory

Nice clouds images from the expedition 16 crew...

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...ISS016&roll=E&...
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-15217
PACIFIC OCEAN
STRATOCUMULUS CLOUD BANK

If that's all it takes (aka eye-candy) for making yourself a happy
camper, then so be it. I'll take whatever raw image file, as is.
Unfortunately we're seldom if ever given such access to those full
frame and raw/maximum file format images. Why is that? What are you
folks afraid of?
.. - BG

On Mar 1, 9:33*pm, BradGuth wrote: Not the least
bit frustrated, just sharing the best available science that's peer
replicated. * Not going for eye-candy, just hard science that can be
peer replicated.
If that's all it takes (aka eye-candy) for making yourself a happy
camper, then so be it. *I'll take whatever raw image file, as is.
Unfortunately we're seldom if ever given such access to those full
frame and raw/maximum file format images. *Why is that? *What are you
folks afraid of?"

Actually true color images make me happy, as they are harder to
produce than the oversaturated false color images you prefer. The
funny thing is, for as much as I like to work on color images, Id
rather work on with black and white, from film, and not generated from
a de-saturate tool, or a conversion to grey scale. You see im used to
observing nebula and galaxies through my telescope, which are objects
that appear as grey smudges in the sky, and may be disappointing for a
person who prefers false color images like yourself. The human eye
cannot detect the colors of nebulae, and so in my opinion some of my
best work and what is closest to what a person sees through a
telescope, are my black and white astrophotos. The best
astrophotography film in my opinion was Kodak tech pan a black and
white film that is now discontinued, but it had the best resolution,
and produced the smoothest transitions, which is needed for the fine
details in nebula, or capturing a galaxies nucleus & spiral arms. So
brad the funny thing is between the two of us, you prefer over
saturated false color images, and I see the beauty of images composed
of whites grays and black only, while at the same time I understand
how hard it is to make true color images, which essentially means you
have the sweet tooth by preferring oversaturated eye candy false color
images...

More great stuff from the expedition 16 crew
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...=E&frame=15254
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-15254
MEXICO
FOLD STRUCTURE NW OF MONTERREY

On Mar 1, 11:50 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Mar 1, 9:33 pm, BradGuth wrote: Not the least
bit frustrated, just sharing the best available science that's peer
replicated. Not going for eye-candy, just hard science that can be
peer replicated.
If that's all it takes (aka eye-candy) for making yourself a happy
camper, then so be it. I'll take whatever raw image file, as is.
Unfortunately we're seldom if ever given such access to those full
frame and raw/maximum file format images. Why is that? What are you
folks afraid of?"

Actually true color images make me happy, as they are harder to
produce than the oversaturated false color images you prefer. The
funny thing is, for as much as I like to work on color images, Id
rather work on with black and white, from film, and not generated from
a de-saturate tool, or a conversion to grey scale. You see im used to
observing nebula and galaxies through my telescope, which are objects
that appear as grey smudges in the sky, and may be disappointing for a
person who prefers false color images like yourself. The human eye
cannot detect the colors of nebulae, and so in my opinion some of my
best work and what is closest to what a person sees through a
telescope, are my black and white astrophotos. The best
astrophotography film in my opinion was Kodak tech pan a black and
white film that is now discontinued, but it had the best resolution,
and produced the smoothest transitions, which is needed for the fine
details in nebula, or capturing a galaxies nucleus & spiral arms. So
brad the funny thing is between the two of us, you prefer over
saturated false color images, and I see the beauty of images composed
of whites grays and black only, while at the same time I understand
how hard it is to make true color images, which essentially means you
have the sweet tooth by preferring oversaturated eye candy false color
images...

More great stuff from the expedition 16 crewhttp://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseop/photo.pl?mission=ISS016&roll=E&...
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-15254
MEXICO
FOLD STRUCTURE NW OF MONTERREY

Eye-candy pictures w/o science is just mindless eye-candy.

Eye-candy w/o deductive observationology is just worth squat.

Eye-candy w/o reason or logic for discovery of whatever's new and
improved is columbiaaccidentinvestigation having another happy face
experience (either that or simply another bout of flatulence that
about to blow).

As you should know, you don't even have to use color film or full
spectrum color rendering CCDs in order to appreciate color as obtained
from a given monochrome format, but don't tell that to anyone of NASA/
Apollo because it'll just ruin another part of their ruse/sting of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war days, that are still not over until our
fat lady sings.

As I'd said, unlike yourself, I'm looking for extracting actual
science, and not mindless infomercial crapolla that's intended for
snookering humanity for all it's worth. Perhaps you should try it.
It's called sharing "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", plus
a little something or another about God.
.. - Brad Guth

On Mar 2, 6:36 am, BradGuth wrote:
Eye-candy pictures w/o science is just mindless eye-candy.

Eye-candy w/o deductive observationology is just worth squat.

Eye-candy w/o reason or logic for discovery of whatever's new and
improved is columbiaaccidentinvestigation having another happy face
experience (either that or simply another bout of flatulence that
about to blow).

As you should know, you don't even have to use color film or full
spectrum color rendering CCDs in order to appreciate color as obtained
from a given monochrome format, but don't tell that to anyone of NASA/
Apollo because it'll just ruin another part of their ruse/sting of our
mutually perpetrated cold-war days, that are still not over until our
fat lady sings.

As I'd said, unlike yourself, I'm looking for extracting actual
science, and not mindless infomercial crapolla that's intended for
snookering humanity for all it's worth. Perhaps you should try it.
It's called sharing "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", plus
a little something or another about God.
. - Brad Guth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Laughing, I have explained with citations the specifics of what
actually makes the images you are viewing on your screen or that is
produced from your printer, how the human perceives the colors
contained within those images, and you have decided to post weak
attempts at insults, petty questions, all laced with lame
implications, but containing no relevance to the subject. My friend
there is no doubt you have skills in many fields, im not disputing
that, but it would do you some good to drop the rhetoric and fluffy
padded wording, and then you might find it easier to understand how my
posts directly answer your questions, effectively counter you
attacks, and assertions (when they are relevant). So now what you
have said is the images I post links to are not scientific unless they
are accompanied by peer reviewed science so let's see, here is the
image from the last post, with a link to a page on geomorphology
describing region in the image...

More great stuff from the expedition 16 crew
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/scripts/sseo...=E&frame=15254
Astronaut Photography of Earth - Display Record
ISS016-E-15254
MEXICO
FOLD STRUCTURE NW OF MONTERREY

http://daac.gsfc.nasa.gov/geomorphol...ATE_T-19.shtml
NASA - Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Center
Geomorphology
Chapter 2: Plate T-19
SIERRA MADRE ORIENTAL

As I'd said, unlike yourself, I'm looking for extracting actual
science
No. You wouldn't know actual science if it fell on you from a great
height. You understand so little real science that are unable to
appreciate how much you *don't* understand.

Don't bother replying, I've now killfiled you in here as well.