Escamilla’s Fans Just Got Conned! Deny Ignorance!

reply to post by undo


G'day undo

Here you go.....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/30072889e1a0.jpg[/atsimg]

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Maybe...maybe not



this black and white clementine browser, version 2 beta, does not get as close to the surface as the color one did. it's easier to browse though. that doesn't help much since i can't get a nice close up of the surface, so i can really see the features like i did originally with the color, as you can tell. that pic i posted is a nice close up



[edit on 15-3-2010 by undo]

undo:
...i'd love to see it in the black and white!

and just one page back:

undo:
now why would i want to look at the black and white version of the same image

Sigh...

By the way, if anyone has any further info on that image, let us know? I'll see if I can track it back and maybe get a nice high res LRO image or similar.

But like Maybe... I can see nothing there suggesting transparency. It is a 2d image, so the only possible clues would be very distinct recognisable features that are visible traversing the area of alleged transparency. But even then, they could simply be terrain or changing mineral content colour/lighting effects, especially given the deliberately false colouration and enhanced contrast. You simply cannot determine true transparency from a single 2d image.

And did I see they were also referred to as 'floating'? If that were the case, where are the shadows that would have to exist?

Sorry. To me, it is a very ordinary looking, if colourful, crater.


And can I suggest, if anyone finds an interesting image in future, *please* tag it (image reference no. and source), or at the very least, leave the original nasa filename on it.

reply to post by CHRLZ


well this is the thing. some of these craters are supposedly kicking up blue basalt. some even have blue lava tubes.

here:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/efd9eb4d1faf35a9.png[/atsimg]

so i theorized that perhaps in addition to the basalt and lava tubes (which are a sheer blue color), that we might also have some type of mix of melted basalt and ice, like in sheets, draping the walls of the crater, as if the basalt was in a molten state or something, and quick froze because of the angle of the sun on the surface and the proximity to one of the poles

Originally posted by undo
...well this is the thing. some of these craters are supposedly kicking up blue basalt. some even have blue lava tubes.

.. so i theorized that perhaps in addition to the basalt and lava tubes (which are a sheer blue color), that we might also have some type of mix of melted basalt and ice, like in sheets, draping the walls of the crater, as if the basalt was in a molten state or something, and quick froze because of the angle of the sun on the surface and the proximity to one of the poles

I'm sorry but you're not really backing up anything with any references, and my active mind is throwing up lots of questions about your claims, eg:

1. We don't know what processing was done to this image, so how can you assert that blue indicates basalt? It may well be, but who was it that 'supposed' it?

2. Why did you say they were a 'sheer' blue color? They are simply a varying blue color. There is no evidence that I can see of any 'sheer'-ness.

3. Do you have some sort of geothermal/geological/mineralogical explanation on how basalt (high melting point) and ice (low melting point) might fuse together in a molten state and become 'sheer'? Are you aware that the water/ice found on the moon to date is mostly bonded into the rocks and dust chemically, and has no transparent effect whatsoever?

4. Are you aware that in an airless environment the only way things get cold is by radiation and that this is a slow process, so 'quick freezing' may not be all that likely? And what makes you think it was near the poles? - the shadows do not give much of a clue about that.

And does anyone at all see the transparent effect that undo sees? If so, can you help by describing exactly what gives you that impression?

It just seems an awful lot of unsupported conjecture about something (ie the 'transparency') that only you, so far, are seeing. I'm genuinely trying to help, here, but frankly, I'm just not able to get my teeth into anything on that image or your claims.

reply to post by CHRLZ


somewhere on ATS one of the arguments that the tubes were not transport tubes was that they were likely basalt lava tubes caused by the impact that formed the crater. in the original color images many of the craters had a series of lava tubes around them.

at the time, there wasn't as much argument about the color of the images because the pds map a planet site, listed the color images from the map selection i chose, as natural color (albedo). it wasn't until recently that it became a sore spot with more people, primarly due to escamilla's decision to use earth colors to color the black and white images and his mixing of the two things together (the natural color albedo from map a planet and his own coloration).

Originally posted by undo
now why would i want to look at the black and white version of the same image when i have the color version of the same image, presented by the same people that presented the black and white version?

Because the colour version was made with at least three of the five different wavelengths, and probably they made some brightness changes in one or more to make a more natural look.

Having all the five images you can see the difference between them (the images from some wavelengths look less sharp, for example) and you can create your own colour images, if you want.

armap, i'm surprised at you. you're getting lazy.

I have been lazy all my life, but sometimes I it doesn't show.

And I know (as far as a sceptic can know something) that you didn't frack with that image.

reply to post by ArMaP


help armap! where can i get better resolution than this www.nrl.navy.mil... ? i can't find the crater images i posted on the previous two pages and what happened to the map a planet color maps? did they decide they were too messed up or get too many complaints or use too much bandwidth or ?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by undo
...well this is the thing. some of these craters are supposedly kicking up blue basalt. some even have blue lava tubes.

.. so i theorized that perhaps in addition to the basalt and lava tubes (which are a sheer blue color), that we might also have some type of mix of melted basalt and ice, like in sheets, draping the walls of the crater, as if the basalt was in a molten state or something, and quick froze because of the angle of the sun on the surface and the proximity to one of the poles

I'm sorry but you're not really backing up anything with any references, and my active mind is throwing up lots of questions about your claims, eg:

3. Do you have some sort of geothermal/geological/mineralogical explanation on how basalt (high melting point) and ice (low melting point) might fuse together in a molten state and become 'sheer'? Are you aware that the water/ice found on the moon to date is mostly bonded into the rocks and dust chemically, and has no transparent effect whatsoever?

Yes, the current theory is that anything we see in photographs illuminated by the sun is probably too warm to have a significant amount of ice, that's why we were looking to see if there's more ice in a polar crater the interior of which is shielded from sunlight. So, if you can see it, in a visible wavelength image, it's probably not ice.

[begin edit:] Do you have some basis in science on which to base a belief that visible ice can exist on the sunlit surface of the moon? That would seem to violate thermodynamics. [end edit]

I downloaded the color imagery from this web page:

ser.sese.asu.edu...

And from the "Lunar farside" 40mb tiff image I cropped the lower right section and converted to jpeg format here:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/99fa85ccb16f.jpg[/atsimg]

The lighting looks similar to me, to the photo you posted. I'm guessing that the whitish appearance in some craters being more pronounced is a result of either the age of the crater and/or the mineral composition given these images are composites of different frequency wavelengths which highlight different mineral compositions differently. The craters with less of that whitish appearance, look like they are older, judging from the shape of them, it looks like they are more filled with regolith.

If you ever find the coordinates we might be able to look at the images in different wavelengths to get more clues, since clementine had multiple cameras.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by undo

Is this what you're looking for?

It's interesting that you find it more difficult to find things in the greyscale version, I never user colour as a reference to help me find any feature, I only use the relative sizes as positions, those never change, but we all have our own ways of seeing things.

PS: they also have an infra-red version.

reply to post by ArMaP


yes thank you! the reason i'm having trouble with it is the black and white browser is not as detailed as the color because of the amount of zoom you're allowed and i never bothered to find it in black and white after i found it in color. plus it's been 4 years ago now and ye olde brain doth leaketh.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

then I can only think of the comment you made earlier in response to that:

that comment was in reference to nasa not the moon itself. i don't think that insult was necessary so i'm gonna skip your posts now, simply because i don't like mean people.

reply to post by undo

Sorry about that. I did apparently take your quote out of context and I didn't like it much when someone did that to me earlier, so I edited my post to remove your quote, and replaced it with a question.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


not a single shred of evidence or reason to believe it, other than what looks like alot of transparent surfaces. even sections of the mares on the nearside, have some transparency to them. or at least, they look that way to me. in the original color map a planet (natural color albedo) map, mares tranquillitatis and serentatis were very deep blue basaltic in appearance. but it also had that transparent look to it. i don't know how else to describe it. perhaps it's basalt and some transparent mineral capable of mixing and forming fairly non-crystalline surfaces? i dunno. all i know is what i know and what i see.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


reply to post by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by OrionHunterX

*snip*



Ah! The Earth in all its glory, in full color. From Moon orbit! You can even see some browns! And this one’s NOT from NASA!

What do you have to say to this Mr Escamilla? Oh yeah! I know! The Soviets faked their images too! Damn!

www.youtube.com...
www.planetary.org...

your posted image is a tampered version of your own cropping!!!

anyways..... from your link.....



the actual fake in full...... supposedly showing the earth-rise in 4 separate captured frames..... which in fact is just ONE single image of the earth copied in different positions of the various strips..... a complete flop show.... however credit should be given where due... the slight changes in the contrast/brightness made it almost impossible to detect..... wooops...... and the damaged curves n missing chunks from the gibbous.... hmmmm..... careless rough waxing.... mamamia.....

how about an 'unaltered' version from the same zond-7 mission....



in sync with the descriptions as highlighted in the video?

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
What do you have to say to this Mr Escamilla? Oh yeah! I know! The Soviets faked their images too! Damn!

Yes this would be the likely answer we would expect since he clearly claims that Japan's faking stuff too.

i suppose your recent failure at addressing this very issue, after i had clarified your earlier misunderstanding, was probably due to the removal of my post by the forum mods which contained the referenced data in regards to jaxa.... or was it?

well.... no worries.... i'll post again.....


the infamous aristarchus crater from jaxa's colour hdtv...... LINK




which completely fails to show any real data concerning the true nature of the observable known surface colours of said area.....

Optics: Meade 10” f/10 LX200GPS UHTC at f/28 with 18mm eyepiece projection.
Camera: Canon D60.

www.rc-astro.com...

ntrs.nasa.gov...


TRUE COLOURS vs FALSE COLOURS

A true-color image of a subject is an image that appears to the human eye just like the original subject would: a green tree appears green in the image, a red apple red, a blue sky blue, etc. When applied to black-and-white images, true-color means that the perceived lightness of a subject is preserved in its depiction. Absolute true-color is impossible to achieve due to the differences between the chemistries of the display media and an eye.

In a false-color image this close correspondence between subject color and image color is violated. That can happen in many ways. For example, a photographic negative could be called a false-color image, since it shows the complementary colors of its subject. However, the term "false-color" is typically used to describe images whose colors represent measured intensities outside the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (or outside the electromagnetic spectrum altogether).

en.wikipedia.org...

10. Aristarchus Plateau (Real Color)

A mosaic of more than 250 images showing the complex and diverse Aristarchus region of the Moon in approximately “natural” colors (blue = 415 nanometers, green = 750 nanometers, red = 950 nanometers). The plateau is an uplifted block of complex, highland terrain, partly flooded by later mare basalt lavas. Dark, pyroclastic glasses partly cover the uplifted terrain. The crater Aristarchus (47 kilometers in diameter) has formed in the southeast corner of the plateau, excavating both highlands and mare rocks.

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Color effect at Aristarchus and Vallis Schroteri's Cobra Head

"Early in the evening of October 29, 1963, Mr. Edward Barr and I had started our regular lunar observations... When I started to observe at 1830 MST I concerntrated on the Cobra Head of Schroeter's Valley... at 1850 MST I noticed a reddish-orange color over the dome-like structure on the southwest side of the Cobra Head. Almost simultaneously I observed a small spot of the same color on a hilltop across the valley. Within two minutes these colors had become quite brilliant and had considerable sparkle. I immediately called Mr. Barr to share this observation with me. His first impression of the color was a dark orange. No other color spots were noted until 1855 MST when I observed an elongated streaked pink color along the southwest rim of Aristarchus...at approximately 1900 MST I noticed the spots of color at the Cobra Head and on the hill across the valley had changed to a light ruby red...I had the impression that I was looking into a large polished gem ruby but could not see through it. Mr. Barr's impression of the color at this time was that a little more dense than I had described it... By 1905 MST it was apprent that the color was fading".

- Taking Science to the Moon- Lunar Experiments and the Apollo Program, by Donald A. Beattie, chapter 2, p. 25

Transcript quote by James Greenacre, employed at the time by th US Air Force Lunar Mapping Program at the Lowell Observatory.

Scope: TMB 80mm
Barlow: 2.5x barlow
Camera: DMK 41AF02

www.astronomie.be...

Colorful Aristarchus Plateau

ARISTARCHIAN COLORS

Aristarchus Crater
Credit: Mike's Astroimagery UK

If you haven't already seen the Full Moon that Mike took where this clip of Aristarchus is a small section, you can do so HERE. The picture above is Aristarchus Crater clipped from an image taken with a 10" Telescope in the UK. Compare this image to the high resolution image from the Clementine Satellite below and remember that this is a 10" telescope image.

www.thelivingmoon.com...

Credit: USGS/US Navy/Clementine Spacecraft

The image above is cropped from the full spread Clementine Nearside.tif image. Click on the image to see one cropped from the 65 meg version. Both the Clementine and Mike's image show the beautiful "Electric Blue" color of the crater

CNTD.......

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Why The Moon Appears Grey From Earth

Note in the first minute at about 120,000 miles from the Earth, he highlights the quote by Neil Armstrong: "It appears that we do not have the depth of color at this range that we enjoyed at 50,000 miles out, however the oceans are still a definite blue"

sorry.... pungent start..... the details mentioned in your very first sentence are FALSE...




Apollo 11 Technical Air-to-Ground Voice Transcription, July 1969, 626 pages

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Note carefully that the color change was perceived between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles out.

wrong again..... between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles.... would be at around 85,000 miles out

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you think most Escamilla fans would know there's no atmosphere to speak of 50,000 miles or more above the Earth?

at least its good that you didn't claim - on behalf of those who tend to agree with said contents..... that they had been conned & forced at gun point to believe that there is a non-stop atmosphere between the earth and the moon....

hmmmm... i suppose if you had bothered enough to also have checked the additional details provided along with said video.....

tblnfilms.com...

you might have responded maybe differently....

it would even be more clearer.... whilst considering that said video was actually intended for addressing, generally in laymen terms, to the wave of public inquiries concerning the non-visibility of any lunar colours from earth as it had been shown in the moon rising movie..... can you connect all the inter-related dots..... quite an evolutionary process in itself..........

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I would hope so, yet why would they believe this nonsense at 1m11s in the video:

"The fact is that this same gradual color fading that Neil Armstrong and other Apollo astronauts saw is also happening when we down here on Earth look up at the moon. The same atmospheric color diffusion principles occur because we are looking through the same atmosphere the apollo astronauts were when they were in space looking back at the Earth"

i dont find anything wrong in those statements.....

but what makes you so arrogantly sure to rather think that your 'ego' is di unique prime example i.e. based on your own perceptions, awareness, knowledge, intelligence to imagine setting out the rules in regards to why and what other people should believe???


"The fact is that this same gradual color fading that Neil Armstrong and other Apollo astronauts saw is also happening when we down here on Earth look up at the moon."

Extinction is a term used in astronomy to describe the absorption and scattering of electromagnetic radiation emitted by astronomical objects by matter (dust and gas) between the emitting object and the observer. The concept for interstellar extinction is generally attributed to Robert Julius Trumpler,[1] though its effects were first identified in 1847 by Friedrich Georg Wilhelm von Struve.[2] For Earth-bound observers, extinction arises both from the interstellar medium (ISM) and the Earth's atmosphere; it may also arise from circumstellar dust around an observed object. The strong atmospheric extinction in some wavelength regions (for example X-ray, ultraviolet, and infrared) requires the use of space-based observatories. Since blue light is much more strongly attenuated than red light in the optical wavelength regions, resulting in an object which is redder than expected, interstellar extinction is often referred to as reddening.

Extinction is often measured in units of apparent magnitude decrease per kiloparsec of distance (mag/kpc).

"The same atmospheric color diffusion principles occur because we are looking through the same atmosphere the apollo astronauts were when they were in space looking back at the Earth"

Atmospheric extinction varies with location and altitude. Astronomical observatories generally are able to characterise the local extinction curve very accurately, to allow observations to be corrected for the effect. Nevertheless, the atmosphere is completely opaque to many wavelengths requiring the use of satellites to make observations.

Atmospheric extinction has three main components: Rayleigh scattering by air molecules, scattering by aerosols, and molecular absorption. Molecular absorption is often referred to as 'telluric absorption', as it is caused by the Earth ("telluric" is a synonym of "terrestrial"). The most important sources of telluric absorption are molecular oxygen and ozone, which absorb strongly in the near-ultraviolet, and water, which absorbs strongly in the infrared.

The amount of atmospheric extinction depends on the altitude of an object, being lowest at the zenith and at a maximum near the horizon. It is calculated by multiplying the standard atmospheric extinction curve by the mean airmass calculated over the duration of the observation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So he is claiming that the loss in color intensity Neil Armstrong observed between 50,000 and 120,000 miles above the Earth is due to atmospheric color diffusion? This can't be true if there's so little atmosphere above 50,000 miles, can it?

though you have the wrong figures there..... and besides the fact that atmosphere does indeed play a major role...... why do you think that its forcing you to rule out all the other inter-related possibilities by limiting it to only 'atmosphere'????

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's obviously false as there's no appreciable atmosphere between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles.

you're clutching at straws if you think that such a claim was ever made..... its only in your head....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So Escamilla debunks his own claim that atmospheric diffusion makes the moon look gray with his own evidence in 2 ways:

1. He shows the color change (of the Earth) appears between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles where there's essentially no significant atmosphere, and
2. He presents pictures of the effect of atmospheric diffusion on the moon, showing that it makes the moon look reddish, not gray.

all the answers are in your own questions..... i dont think occam's razor would do you any harm here....

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Then he presents some grayish looking fog or smog a little after 3 minutes and claims that shows how the "atmosphere" makes things look gray in the distance.

The effect of haze is mostly a result of the haze itself and not necessarily an effect of the "atmosphere" itself, which can be quite clear in certain conditions.

some 101........

Haze is traditionally an atmospheric phenomenon where dust, smoke and other dry particles obscure the clarity of the sky. The World Meteorological Organization manual of codes includes a classification of horizontal obscuration into categories of fog, ice fog, steam fog, mist, haze, smoke, volcanic ash, dust, sand and snow. [1] Sources for haze particles include farming (ploughing in dry weather), traffic, industry, and wildfires.

Seen from afar (e.g. approaching airplane) and depending upon the direction of view with respect to the sun, haze may appear brownish or bluish, while mist tends to be bluish-grey. Whereas haze often is thought of as a phenomenon of dry air, mist formation is a phenomenon of humid air. However, haze particles may act as condensation nuclei for the subsequent formation of mist droplets; such forms of haze are known as "wet haze."

Haze causes issues in the area of terrestrial photography, where the penetration of large amounts of dense atmosphere may be necessary to image distant subjects. This results in the visual effect of a loss of contrast in the subject, due to the effect of light scattering through the haze particles. For these reasons, sunrise and sunset colors appear subdued on hazy days, and stars may be obscured at night. In some cases, attenuation by haze is so great that, toward sunset, the sun disappears altogether before reaching the horizon. Haze can be defined as an aerial form of the Tyndall effect therefore unlike other atmospheric effects such as cloud and fog, haze is spectrally selective: shorter (blue) wavelengths are scattered more, and longer (red/infrared) wavelengths are scattered less.

en.wikipedia.org...


just for the sake of good order for you to recall an earlier quote......

Extinction is a term used in astronomy to describe the absorption and scattering of electromagnetic radiation emitted by astronomical objects by matter (dust and gas) between the emitting object and the observer.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
With him doing all the work providing evidence to prove his own claims false, there's not much left for me to do except provide one more piece of evidence, this is the only one that Escamilla didn't already provide himself. If the moon looks gray because of atmospheric diffusion, why does the moon still look gray from the international space station?



That's a cool photo because you can see where the Earth's atmosphere is, and you can also tell that you're not looking through it to see the moon.

an interesting case.... which should not be dismissed at first hand..... but rather thoroughly investigated i.e. not to be retired as di only required piece of evidence to serve as a dogma tool for debunkery.....

what do you make of this example.....

S128-E-006611 (30 Aug. 2009) --- A gibbous moon is visible above Earth's atmosphere, photographed by an STS-128 crew member on the Space Shuttle Discovery during flight day three activities.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

OR....

Does anyone want to guess the real reason why the Earth or the moon look more grayish at greater distances?

and? full circle back to square one?


[edit on 15/3/10 by mcrom901]

reply to post by mcrom901

Your waffling knows no bounds! Going round in circles trying your best to obfuscate the issue. So what's new?

The fact is that Escamilla stresses that the Earth, as seen in the NASA image, cannot be in color but gray due to the distance from the Moon. In other words one wouldn't be able to see the Earth in color and therefore the NASA images of Earth from the Moon are all faked!

But Zond 7 shows Earth in color too and from the same distance! Here it is:



Can you see shades of blues and browns? I can because I ain't color blind. I'm not sure about you. Needless to say, you won't be able to see any blushing pinks and rowdy reds because all you can see from that distance are landmasses which are shades of brown and oceans which are shades of blue.

But as per Escamilla you can only see shades of gray due to the distance involved. So all the NASA color images of the Earth from the Moon are faked!

Or was the Soviet Union mixed up with NASA too, churning out fakes and conspiracies for public consumption with JAXA/ESA/ISRO/CNSA? All part of a secret NWO?




[edit on 16-3-2010 by OrionHunterX]

reply to post by mcrom901

You got me! From the video he says "about 130,000 miles", I said "about 120,000 miles" based on his "halfway" comment, but it's not like I said 121,357 miles, I was just giving rough numbers related to Escamilla's claim that the distance at the time of that transmission was more than twice the distance at 50,000 miles. I agree with you he actually claims 130,000 miles and not the 120,000 miles I said, if that makes a difference.

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Note carefully that the color change was perceived between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles out.

wrong again..... between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles.... would be at around 85,000 miles out

I'm not sure if you're saying Escamilla is wrong about the "about 130,000 miles" when you say "85,000 miles out" because 130,000 miles minus 50,000 miles is only 80,000 miles, but if we argue about these tiny differences I think we are missing the point which is simply that the transmission was made from over twice the distance of when they were 50,000 miles out. I do admire your desire for accuracy however in this case I don't think the discrepancies affect the validity of the claims

Originally posted by mcrom901

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's obviously false as there's no appreciable atmosphere between 50,000 miles and 120,000 miles.

you're clutching at straws if you think that such a claim was ever made..... its only in your head....

Clutching at straws? I don't think so, I made an exact quote from the video:

Why The Moon Appears Grey From Earth

"The fact is that this same gradual color fading that Neil Armstrong and other Apollo astronauts saw is also happening when we down here on Earth look up at the moon. The same atmospheric color diffusion principles occur because we are looking through the same atmosphere the apollo astronauts were when they were in space looking back at the Earth"

Note "the same atmosphere the apollo astronauts were when they were in space looking back at the Earth" and my point was that the difference in that atmosphere between 50,000 miles and 120,000-130,000 miles or whatever the exact number is, is insignificant.

Regarding my claim that there's "no significant atmosphere" above 50,000 miles, please note the word "significant" as this was my source for making that claim:

U.S. Standard Atmosphere

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1ede741d85c1.png[/atsimg]

It's a model and the exact curve can vary, but for the purposes of illustrating my point I think it's sufficient. That density graph in the middle shows approximately how the atmosphere is distributed by altitude, and while the graph asymptotically approaches zero on the left side, it's not actually AT zero by 50,000 miles which is why I said "no significant atmosphere" instead of "no atmosphere". Yes, I agree the value of atmospheric density is not zero above 50,000 miles. But look at the graph, in the middle, isn't that telling us that most of the atmosphere is below 30 km? That was my point.

For the "Unit challenged" among us, note that 50,000 miles = 80 km, and you can get some idea from that graph what percentage of the atmosphere is above 80 km.

Originally posted by mcrom901
though you have the wrong figures there..... and besides the fact that atmosphere does indeed play a major role...... why do you think that its forcing you to rule out all the other inter-related possibilities by limiting it to only 'atmosphere'????

If you think I was ruling out all other possibilities I think you misinterpreted my post, I was trying to say there's "no significant atmosphere" above 50,000 miles, so it's atmosphere I was criticizing, not all other causes.

Originally posted by mcrom901
what do you make of this example.....

That reminds me of what I said about the colors the astronauts reported on the moon:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
If you've studied the astronauts' transmissions, you know that the colors they see are dependent on the angle of the sun versus the surface they are looking at. They can look at the surface with the sun at one angle, and see tannish or brownish hues, and look at the exact same surface with their view or the sun at a different angle, and it can look gray.

Apparently the astronauts eyes aren't the only things capable of recording either grayish or brownish hues, the camera can do the same thing, and the colors recorded depend on many factors, the camera and sensor type, settings, any adjustments made after the image was recorded, etc.

So what do YOU make of it? The photo I posted came from an astronaut and the photo you posted came from NASA so I don't see how it shows NASA is hiding anything.

I don't have any dispute with the haze or extinction sources you quoted.

Here’s a grab of the movie trailer and the crater I’ve marked with an arrow showing what he claims is a UFO.

I watched this documentary and I don't remember him ever speaking on that picture with the craters, or ever claiming one of the craters to be a UFO.

As far as the moon only "appearing" grey b/c of our atmosphere. Why does Mars appear red? Its much farther from us than the moon. Why do we see color there, but none on the moon?



[edit on 16-3-2010 by Blender]