The colorful elements of our moon and otherwise Venus, each havetheir issues

Our moon must have one hell of an atmosphere, as otherwise it simply would not be possible to replace the color "black" of most any given NASA/Apollo image of whatever is above the lunar horizon and its supposedly crystal clear and always black sky, and thereby manage to uncover so many interesting photographic doctoring and/or PhotoShop like artifacts.

Most photographic editing software offers the feature or option of replacing any given color with another, or to simply darken or lighten up any given specific color. If there are no photographic doctoring or PhotoShop issues to begin with is when this editing option runs smoothly and doesn't cause such artifacts to materialize, such as from that supposedly always black and crystal clear sky, that is unless our moon has a substantial atmosphere that is even affected by whatever else is depicted or rather as being artificially cloaked or as having been artificially added and/or color enhanced in order to suit their desired infomercial eyecandy.

Dan (Woj...) and apparently all others of our NASA/Apollo era, plus those subsequent generations of minions and brown-nosed clowns as having been thoroughly indoctrinated by their peers, as such are not even half as smart as a dysfunctional 5th grader that can easily tell that such infomercial images are simply loaded with those obvious PhotoShop like artifacts.

They keep showing us their usual archives of official images, and never once allowing access to any of their raw Kodak film. So, over and over they get to shove this mostly monochromatic crap of infomercial colorblind eyecandy into the K-12 indoctrinated brains of each and every snookered generation, of which nowadays doesn't even know what film is, nor much less comprehend optics, spectrum filters or dynamic range issues.

At this point they might as well claim they were on another planet instead of our moon, because from their Kodak film evidence and best available forensics, there's still no independently objective way of telling where if anywhere on the moon their monochromatic plus conditional Kodak color film recorded missions actually took place, other than in very inert as well as monochromatic and unusually reflective areas that always provided terrific surface tension to boot because there was hardly ever any depth to that crystal dry soil. (I wonder where most all the crater spoils and dust went)

There's so many PhotoShop like artifacts and impossible dynamic range issues in most of those official images, that we simply can not trust those as being the real thing, especially when the planet Venus and a few other items that should have easily been within the dynamic range of their Kodak film were always kept out of frame or as having been artificially removed.

None the less, our physically dark and paramagnetic moon is a color treasure trove of common and rare elements that even amateur astronomers can manage to record with relative ease.

Why were so many of the official NASA/Apollo images via Kodak color film intentionally doctored or nowadays PhotoShop revised? (do you folks need a pop-up book of examples and further instructions as to how you and any 5th graders can easily discover such obvious photographic manipulations on your very own?)

Are you folks suggesting that our NASA/Apollo plus Kodak era of "the right stuff" simply didn't have the necessary skills or technology in order to remove color saturations or to otherwise exclude or include other items that their unfiltered film by rights should have easily recorded without any further assistance? (because there are certainly plenty of examples otherwise)

In order to properly record any of the natural colors of a physically dark item, such as the perfectly illuminated naked surface of what our physically dark moon represents, one needs only to utilize narrow bandpass filters and then stack or create a digital scanned composite of all three, four or five colors derived from those dim primary plus any secondary/recoil photons from the UV that should have been impossible to exclude and thus easily recorded, not to mention allowing for whatever artificial color/hue assignments as to representing those non-visual IR and UV spectrums which most of their Kodak wasn't directly sensitive to.

Nowadays, anyone including our NASA, JPL and ASU can turn down their published color saturations to suit (even all the way down to monochrome), just as they can as easily increase color saturation in order to better depict those active and UV reactive surface areas of natural geology color elements that do exist.

In a monochrome or color removed image, gold looks exactly like dirt. In fact all elements of any natural colors that become artificially monochromatic are almost indistinguishable from one another, except for their natural surface reflectivity or albedo which can be easily fooled or simply skewed by the angle of their illumination and via shadows that on the moon should have always been extremely contrasty (except for a great deal of bluish planetshine).

Obviously our NASA, JPL, ASU and those of our oligarchs, Bilderbergs and Rothschilds as our peers do not want the average civilian of any republic to fully realize what other places like our moon might have to offer, and by simply keeping it as monochromatic as possible does the trick.

For those stuck in the NASA/Apollo era camp of all-knowing wizards that'll insist our trustworthy government agencies never fib or otherwise obfuscate as to their sharing the whole truth and nothing but the truth; What can anyone possibly say?

Are you suggesting that amateurs have been using fake/bogus (aka false) colors and otherwise intentionally PhotoShop colorizing the moon as they see fit?

Are you suggesting that narrow bandpass optical elements do not help us to detect or see those natural surface element colors?

According to the very best that team LROC of ASU/JPL can muster; seems they are still practically colour blind, and having to utilize their own version of PhotoShop whenever necessary for a published eyecandy infomercial so that their color/colour version of our moon is represented as mostly monochromatic, even though the LROC dynamic range per any given color channel is a thousandfold better off than anything amateur astronomy has to work with, and it's with no terrestrial atmospheric filtering or distortion issues.

The only scientific instrument better suited for depicting the surface mineral/element contents of our physically dark moon is by way of using a gamma spectrometer, and our guys have always had that option available from the very beginning. So, they have to have known what visual and UV reactive elements exist to the naked eye or to that of any unfiltered Kodak color film..

What I'm suggesting, is that if amateurs via narrow bandpass filters can put together a color composite of those natural surface element colors of our moon, then our fully public funded guys with all the right stuff should have been accomplishing this at least tenfold better from the very get-go, and thereby educating each generation as to the importance as well as the future value of such easily accessible elements.


On Sunday, May 11, 2014 12:01:40 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
What's honestly not to like about our physically dark and paramagnetic moon, plus an extremely nearby planet like Venus?



Even dysfunctional 5th graders can view-in and contribute on behalf of this one small radar topography mapped area of what "GuthVenus" has to offer, by simply using their smart phones, tablets and you-name-it computers along with most any browser or Photozoom. Then they can start asking their teachers why our NASA is still acting so indifferent by keeping their media goons and FUD-masters busy at topic/author stalking and trashing anyone taking any interest in whatever GuthVenus or that of our moon has to offer.



Was our Magellan mission of radar imaging Venus bogus, and were all of our Apollo era wizards colorblind?



Kids could also ask the same of their parents, except most parents are just as scared to death of our government and wouldn't dare so much as even look at whatever a nearby planet like Venus has to offer. If pushed on this issue, most parents would have to put their kids up for adoption, rather than ever having to admit how mainstream snookered and dumbfounded they actually are.



Don't hold your breath on this one, kids. Your teachers, peers, parents and grandparents are absolutely scared to death of going up against the mainstream status quo, especially when it also points out how easily snookered and dumbfounded they've been all along, as even complicit in the act of fooling everyone including themselves.



Besides what Venus has to offer (just about everything imaginable), it seems our physically dark moon isn't nearly as monochromatic and inert or even nearly as reflective as our NASA/Apollo era has always suggested to us, and its innards could be yet another treasure trove of good stuff including mineral brines and easy access to numerous common and rare elements, while everyone involved with TBMs and exploitation remains perfectly failsafe and cozy. In other words, where's the down side?



Amateurs as even obstructed by our polluted atmosphere can do so much better than any of our NASA, JPL or ASU has to offer.

http://www.astronomie.be/christophe....lor/index.html

As once again we get to see for ourselves, with proper narrow bandpass color filters and proper composite image work, using only the natural colors as merely enhanced though not even by 10% as good as our NASA, JPL and ASU could have accomplished decades ago with their heat and radiation proof Kodak film, and otherwise especially as derived from their spendy LROC. None the less, once again we get a full visual spectrum look-see at what seems to depict a treasure trove of common and rare elements.



Go figure, and no wonder China has become focused upon exploiting it first.