Revealed for the First Time Color Images of the Moon from Clementine Satellite

Originally posted by zorgon

But I find it very interesting the brightness of some of these objects, especially the ones in the dark areas that actually GLOW...

If you look around them you will see that they cast light on the surrounding terrain, and that light cast is equal all around the object.. not like reflected light which would be varied according to the angle of the sun, [which is different in every segment of the whole image by the way

]

Why would a crater "GLOW"?

Don't you think it has something to do with the False Color ?

The whole point is that different soils and materials reflect different wavelengths. The purpose is to "enhance color differences related to soil mineralogy and maturity."

What have these pictures got to do with alien/ufos?

Lost Shaman said:
Why would a crater "GLOW"?

Don't you think it has something to do with the False Color ?


My response:

No. Nopers. Nada. In fact, if you look at the enlarged gray scale images that Savior of the Real was so kind to link us to, you will see that it even glows in the gray scale. In fact, there are thousands of glowing balls of light, glowing craters, glowing whatevers, all over the moon.



here you go, see for yourself (this is make a shorter link, because the original was long as it is in a catalogue
masl.to...

Originally posted by thesneakiod
What have these pictures got to do with alien/ufos?

Can you explain this? You know about the moon, right? What's this doing on the moon? Is it ours? If not, what's it doing on the moon? Or better yet, what is it? Think about it.

undo
Do a google IMAGE search for the "moon" and see whatcha end up with.

I did, and you are accurate. Most all of the google moon images are a grey drab. That does not mean that the clementine data was unavailable to the public, as the NASA, and other sites are indeed available to the public. I agree that it means that people have to specifically search for "color" moon images. But I disagree that they are not publicly available.

yes, they have been available, but no, they haven't been available

The statements about the images not being available to the public seems simultaneously correct and incorrect due to ambiguity in our language, but as the statements were originally presented, they seemed disingenuous to the point of dishonesty in the face of the opposing information. So I welcome your clarification to help relieve me of this feeling, thanks.

SOTR
Then you need to check again...

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

"Clementine was a joint project between the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and NASA. "

= zorgon got owned (jk) :-)


Again, not to pick on anything or anyone. I am just trying to sort this information out, and I enjoy all your posts and the images. In that spirit, while looking into the dispairity of statements I found this sentance.

Most images were taken at low Sun angles, which is useful for petrologic studies but not for observing morphology.
Clementine mission-Ultraviolet/Visible camera

Would anyone care to help me understand the meaning of that seemingly overlooked but important phrase, and can anyone clarify which of the presented images are or are not taken at low sun angles? As far as I am aware:

morphologic - pertaining to geological structure

www.thefreedictionary.com...

petrology - branch of geology specifically concerned with the origin, composition, structure, and properties of rocks

columbia.thefreedictionary.com...

I say the phrase is important because as I read the definitions of the words, they indicate that the most of the images are only good to help determine the mineral composition of rocks, not the physical geography of the moon.

In otherwords, the colors represent the locations of specific minerals, and should not be misread as the structure or physical "lay of the land" or color or lighting. This is important since this thread seems to portray the idea that the images represent differences in the "lay of the land", and "underground structures" instead of mineral deposits.

Honestly, I dunno, can someone help clarify which photos are which, and the various distinctions per the statement quoted above?


[edit on 12/16/06 by makeitso]

Originally posted by undo

No. Nopers. Nada. In fact, if you look at the enlarged gray scale images that Savior of the Real was so kind to link us to, you will see that it even glows in the gray scale. In fact, there are thousands of glowing balls of light, glowing craters, glowing whatevers, all over the moon.

Yes and I don't see any "glowing" only craters. Also notice the BW image is generated in the near Infrared (NIR) range.

The moon_clementine_bw is the Clementine Lunar 750nm basemap data
The moon_clementine_bw or Clementine "albedo" is the brightness of the Moon as measured at 750 nm wavelength by the UVVIS camera. It is a black-and-white image.

Edit typo

[edit on 16-12-2006 by lost_shaman]

makeitso,

that, you would have to address to Zorgon as he knows the date the Arizona State site actually released the color photos and .cub files. They drew their data from the USGS site, which I'm assuming has been online for awhile but has not been readily available as they don't come up on moon searches. only if you specify certain parameters do they show up in the search.

This is the problem. If the public at large has no idea the moon is in color, they will not be looking for color pictures of the moon, so they will never find the sites with the color moon pics, especially the close-up ones such as those on the Arizona state site and the USGS site. You have to admit, when you compare the moon files in color to the moon files in grayscale, there's a massive difference in inference, just for starters. It's like trying to figure out a puzzle that was built with colored pieces, but trying to do it in gray scale.

This is how the whole thing started. Someone emailed Zorgon a link to nice high res files on the Arizona State site, this included .cub files (read only by ISIS program, or so we were assuming since we knew literally nothing about .cub files and the links said they were ISIS files!). I started searching around on the site and found a link to the USGS PDS site. That's how this whole thing came about.

As far as we were concerned, this information had been deliberately "obfuscated" as you say, by simply keeping it out of "moon" searches. It's a case of plausible deniablity, really. Either way, I'm just glad someone made the images in natural color, available.

Lost Shaman,


Ah, you just lost my respect for your position. I was willing to attempt an answer to your questions, but you've strayed over into head-in-the-sand territory, and I ain't goin' there.

Originally posted by undo

that, you would have to address to Zorgon as he knows the date the Arizona State site actually released the color photos and .cub files. They drew their data from the USGS site, which I'm assuming has been online for awhile but has not been readily available as they don't come up on moon searches. only if you specify certain parameters do they show up in the search.

But that wouldn't make it a NASA cover-up , that would be a Google problem.

At any rate you can get Clementine images in a Google search on the first page by searching "false color moon images".

Clementine Images ( BTW, notice the date posted here 3/1/94 )


[edit on 16-12-2006 by lost_shaman]

Like I said you have to specify. The public doesn't know clementine from a hole in the ground and the only reason they'd search for false color images, is if they needed them for a class.

Please realize, that even though YOU may be a huge fan of the space program and know every little thing that comes out of it, the public at large is frankly uninformed. They pay taxes for these programs and hope these programs will repay the kindness by keeping them informed.

Check around. Most people who want to show anomalies on the moon have been relegated to posting only black and white clementine pics from the 60's, with a res of 1 pixel per 1 kilometer, instead of these nice ones that are coming out now at 1 pixel per 100 meters. The people who knew better stuff was available didn't bother to tell them about the availability either or didn't mention that these pics show equally interesting anomalies just not the same anomalie that the old ones did. And judging by your "infra-red" comment, doesn't sound as if it would've done them a bit of good anyway.

Originally posted by undo
Most people who want to show anomalies on the moon have been relegated to posting only black and white clementine pics from the 60's, with a res of 1 pixel per 1 kilometer, instead of these nice ones that are coming out now at 1 pixel per 100 meters.

How could they use Clementine pictures from the 60's if Clementine was launched in 1994?

Originally posted by undo
Like I said you have to specify. The public doesn't know clementine from a hole in the ground and the only reason they'd search for false color images, is if they needed them for a class.

Please realize, that even though YOU may be a huge fan of the space program and know every little thing that comes out of it, the public at large is frankly uninformed. They pay taxes for these programs and hope these programs will repay the kindness by keeping them informed.

I agree that average Joe out there somewhere likely doesn't know about Clementine images, that doesn't equal to a NASA cover-up or that NASA didn't want people to see "false color" images of the Moon.

Originally posted by undo

Check around. Most people who want to show anomalies on the moon have been relegated to posting only black and white clementine pics from the 60's, with a res of 1 pixel per 1 kilometer, instead of these nice ones that are coming out now at 1 pixel per 100 meters. The people who knew better stuff was available didn't bother to tell them about the availability either or didn't mention that these pics show equally interesting anomalies just not the same anomalie that the old ones did.

To that I'd simply have to say that maybe those people are poor researchers if they couldn't find Clementine pics. Still that's irrelevant to some of the claims and insinuations made on this thread.

Originally posted by undo

And judging by your "infra-red" comment, doesn't sound as if it would've done them a bit of good anyway.

Well a typo, Wow. I guess my opinion is disqualified IYO now , but at least I fact check what I'm saying. I'm not saying things like "clementine pics from the 60's" !!!

Lost Shaman,

I wasn't critiquing your spelling, I was commenting your infra-red critique. You're insinuating that the glow of these objects on the moon is related to near infra-red photos. The USGS pds site says they are Albedo (natural color), and those things were based on 43,000 albedo images (to determine light) and 400,000 Visible color images. I'm tired of this merry-go-round you got going so I'll leave you to it. *hops off*

ArMap,

Sorry, meant lunar orbiter not clementine (i get those two confused), but now that you mention it, I also referred to Clementine Lunar Browser,which offers only 1 pixel per 1 kilometer as the best res available on the site, and only in Black and White.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by undo]

The Clementine Lunar Map 2.0 (Beta), as they called it now, has been available since maybe August (I think it was the first time I saw it) and it has a maximum resolution of 100m per pixel, but only in black and white.

Originally posted by undo


I wasn't critiquing your spelling, I was commenting your infra-red critique. You're insinuating that the glow of these objects on the moon is related to near infra-red photos. The USGS pds site says they are Albedo (natural color), and those things were based on 43,000 albedo images (to determine light) and 400,000 Visible color images.

Right , and my comment was about the Black and White picture you posted. That Black and White image was taken with the 750 nm filter ( Near Infrared ).

What that means is the Black and White image is going to be different than a Black and White image from the visible spectrum.

The whole point I'm making here about these images is that they are "False color" images.

www-pat.llnl.gov...


USGS Processed Imagery.

These beautiful (false color) images have been processed/produced by the USGS (United States Geological Survey) from Clementine's multi-spectral imagery.

From that link.



Note that all three of these images are "false color" images including the one on the right that you are referring to as the (Natural Color) images.

ArMap,

Thanks. Google Moon has the same problem. The best res doesn't show anything like what's available. They surely make enough money to afford the bandwidth but who knows.

Lost Shaman,

This is your choice on the USGS PDS site:


Select your preferred Lunar dataset below.

Clementine 750nm Basemap
Clementine Albedo (Natural Color)
Clementine Ratio (False Color)
Shaded Relief Airbrush
Clementine LIDAR Topography
Clementine UVVIS Multi-Band*

Notice how false color and natural color are different choices and have different words like "false" and "natural"? The color of the one on the right is nothing like the Albedo natural color image. You better go check it out.

pdsmaps.wr.usgs.gov...

[edit on 16-12-2006 by undo]

Originally posted by undo


Notice how false color and natural color are different choices and have different words like "false" and "natural"?

Yes I see that.

That means that you can choose to look at different data sets that the USGS has processed. One of those options is labeled (Natural Color) , but is still a computer generated "false color" image that is using "natural colors". No matter how you process the data you cannot get a "true color" image that would be the same as looking out the window of a Spacecraft and looking at the Moon with your own eye's.

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
"Clementine was a joint project between the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and NASA. "

Ummm not quite...

Nasa provide design advice and tracked it... but

Clementine is a Department of Defense program to demonstrate a new
generation of technology for both military and civilian space applications...

The Clementine satellite tested 23 advanced technologies during its
mission for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

The Naval Research Laboratory designed, fabricated, integrated, and
operated the spacecraft. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center and the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory provided design support. The NASA Deep Space
Network helped the Naval Research Laboratory track and communicate
with Clementine. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory designed,
developed, and calibrated the suite of on-board Clementine imaging and
ranging sensors.The launch vehicle was a Martin Marietta Titan IIG ballistic missile.

Get the textbook here class
Clementine Satellite

Anyway, I wish you and John many happy new recruits for the Holidays

LOL That's actually funny!!! hanks though, and a happy holiday to you and yours also.

Okay all you "new recruits", while we are on the topic of Clementine, can any of you tell me what happened to it AFTER 1994?

Well here is a hint.. they sent it to visit an Earth-crossing asteroid, 1620 Geographos in 1998. he mission was scrubbed but not much info available that we have found...

And where is it now?

just trying to help folks understand what they're REALLY looking at vs. what you'd like them to believe they're looking at.

Hmmm so are you saying that these color images we presented DO NOT SHOW CLEAR SIGNS OF EDITING? That is after all what we are trying to show here.. and ask WHY are these obvious areas covered up. We have repeatedly stated that the images existed for some time... the point is why are they edited and in such an obvious manner.

As to the color issue... on page one of the thread I posted a beautiful image of Aristarchus Crater in all its Blue Glowing Glory taken from Nearside.tiff... immediately after I posted a second image of that crater taken by an independent source ON EARTH with a relatively small telescope in normal color... this one Also shows the same Blue Glowing Crater, and in my opinion better than the satellite clip from the .tiff.

SAME BLUE COLOR. I also mentioned the Apollo 11 mission log where the Astronauts discuss the unexpected brightness and the "fluorescence" of the Crater Aristarchus and surrounding area and it was in their mission plans to specifically look at that issue

So you can say what you wish about "false colors" With that outside image to confirm, and USGS stating "Natural Color" we can put this to rest... and deal with the content yes?