The Moon is not what you think it is - and it is not uninhabited

[mojo]

You could point Hubble at the moon, but the images taken would be too low res

Not so sure on that...Perhaps the Hubble Deep Field Research Project would prove that otherwise as far as low resolution, in fact after the reconfiguration done to the mirror and avionics upgrades it's pretty amazing IMHO. Check out the NASA Hubble image library and see how detail they are. I bet the Hubble would detect a small bug on the seat of the lunar rover.

[jagman]

Posted by eni-al (here)
Sorry, but most of the claims in the video are a bit ridiculous. The anomalies likely to be meteorites,
Bright spots, exposure of the camera . The 'smoke' trails, dust blasted away and debris trails from impacts of comets, meteorites etc.
Not sure if when they increased brightness and contrast at one point in the video to show what would look like glowing cities, just exposure again and the surfaces pocketed with craters and the surface kicked up exposing more lighter surface.
Pretty much, the moons surface is highly altered by meteor impacts, and moon quakes, ground, all sorts of shapes can be formed.
Liquid water on the surface of the moon would boil away due to lack atmosphere, so it cannot exist there naturally.

You could point Hubble at the moon, but the images taken would be too low res, be like if you were to read a book in your hands with binoculars.

How do you know the moon has no atmosphere? Have you been there? Or did you read that in a science book or let me guess? A astrophysicist or professional astronomer told you that.

[eni-al]

Well, I did not quite say it had no atmosphere at all, as there are gases coming within and will linger on the surface as well as from meteorites and solar winds (which also will lead to carrying away molecules), it just lacks one sufficient to allow liquid water to exist on the surface through no atmospheric pressure virtually. The moon does not have a sufficient gravitational pull to retain a atmosphere permanently, if it suddenly gained one, it'd not last long.

Posted by mojo (here)

You could point Hubble at the moon, but the images taken would be too low res

Not so sure on that...Perhaps the Hubble Deep Field Research Project would prove that otherwise as far as low resolution, in fact after the reconfiguration done to the mirror and avionics upgrades it's pretty amazing IMHO. Check out the NASA Hubble image library and see how detail they are. I bet the Hubble would detect a small bug on the seat of the lunar rover.

Not to sure what kind of things they did with it, don't think they can replace the lens, so still be subject to 'Dawes Limit' unfortunately.
More focus should probably be put on the moon again, and getting higher res imagery, I'm sure they could get great detail.

[RMorgan]

Well, I´ve heard a lot of things about the moon.

However, I´ve looked to the moon several times through powerful telescopes and wasn´t able to see all those colors. Its surface is pretty much a variation of grey tones.

I don´t know what they did to achieve that colorful look, but it must have something to do with digital manipulation.

Anyone can go to the local observatory and look at the moon or just join an amateur astronomers group and see it for yourself. It´s not colored.

UPDATE:

I just did a little experiment with Photoshop, to see how easy it is to get those colors from the moon. What I did here is nothing extraordinary or complex.

I just increased the blue, red and yellow hue levels, using an average image collected from google.

Natural grey tones aren´t just black and white. They usually have primary colors mixed up. Also, you must be aware that Earth´s surface colors, which are mainly blue, also reflect on the moon, just like the moon reflects light on Earth.

So, I still think the moon is completely grey because I´ve seen it with my own eyes several times, through several different telescopes.

Manipulating a moon picture to get all those colors ends up with a non realistic representation of it.



Anyone can do this experiment in photoshop. Just load an unfiltered high resolution moon image, press (ctrl+u) and mess up the the color saturation slides. I suspect this is exactly what they did to end up with these colorful images, plus additional layers of moon images taken with several exposures, to end up with a high dynamic range image (HDR), so they could have those bright spots that resemble artificial lights.

So, I´ll only believe the moon is colored when I see it with my own eyes, without any special filters or image manipulation techniques.

Have in mind that I´m not trying to "debunk" any theory about the moon. I really don´t know if there´s something abnormal there, just like anyone else. I´m just saying that these colored images are not a realistic representation of the moon.

Raf.

[Cidersomerset]

I must admit Raf the moon looks grey to me. I presumed they had some sort of filters to pick up the colour ??


This is supposed to be by hubble ??





When i posted the color pic there were several choices i can't find them at the momment !!

[Cidersomerset]

3. If Mars were terraformed (artist’s conception)



http://thefabweb.com/51800/30-best-s...uly-25th-2012/

Nothing to do with the Moon , just looked beautifull imo....LOL..

[Cidersomerset]

Giordano Bruno crater far side of the moon...



http://thefabweb.com/51800/30-best-s...uly-25th-2012/

There are some lovely pictures on the above link...the picture of the crater is very clear
and high resolution even clearer on the link. So they must have very clear pictures
somewhere and if they wanted to end speculation. they could !!

I often wonder its suits TPTB to have us speculating all over the place, while they get
on with their mischief ..LOL..

(If you press the name of the picture on the link you get a even higher resoluton )

[RMorgan]

Indeed my friend.

If the moon was colored, we wouldn´t even need telescopes to see its colors, anyway.

We would be able to see them with our naked eyes, specially in full moon nights.

If it reflects that much light from the sun, then it´s pretty logical to assume that the sun light that bounces on it would reflect the moon´s colors as well.

Raf.

[Spiral]

The argument they put is that the Earths atmosphere "bleaches" the subtle colours out, which wouldn't be that surprising as they muck about with the colour of Mars something rotten.

[Cidersomerset]

The argument they put is that the Earths atmosphere "bleaches" the subtle colours out, which wouldn't be that surprising as they muck about with the colour of Mars something rotten.

Thats something I was contemplating as well ...

[RMorgan]

Posted by Cidersomerset (here)

The argument they put is that the Earths atmosphere "bleaches" the subtle colours out, which wouldn't be that surprising as they muck about with the colour of Mars something rotten.

Thats something I was contemplating as well ...

This argument is invalid.

We´re talking about colors, which are basically light reflecting in different frequencies.

If our atmosphere could filter colors reflected from the moon, then we wouldn´t be able the perceive different light colors emitted from stars and reflected from the closest planets.

Look at the sky at night; look at the stars. You´ll perceive different colors, which will vary according to their distance and other variables.

If our atmosphere had the properties required to filter the colors supposedly reflected from the moon, it would also filter the colors reflected/emitted by other bodies as well.

Also, if you believe any space photography of planet Earth is genuine (including those taken from the moon itself) , than you must agree that our atmosphere didn´t filtered Earth´s colors, otherwise, Earth´s pictures would look grey as well.


Raf.

[Cidersomerset]

I'm looking at the hubble site trying to find a picture of the moon ...
Heres a nice one of Mars ...

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/entire/pr1995016d/



Hubble Imagery of Aristarchus Plateau on the Moon


Close-Up of Crater Copernicus on Earth's Moon


Hubble Visible Imagery of Apollo 17 Landing Site on the Moon, Camelot Crater




These pictures of the Moon from the Hubble web site are not very clear and
we know from Giordano crator in the above post they can give us clear pics if they wanted.
via satalite or whatever, Minus the Airbrushing out !!

[conk]

Posted by eni-al (here)
Sorry, but most of the claims in the video are a bit ridiculous. The anomalies likely to be meteorites,
Bright spots, exposure of the camera . The 'smoke' trails, dust blasted away and debris trails from impacts of comets, meteorites etc.
Not sure if when they increased brightness and contrast at one point in the video to show what would look like glowing cities, just exposure again and the surfaces pocketed with craters and the surface kicked up exposing more lighter surface.
Pretty much, the moons surface is highly altered by meteor impacts, and moon quakes, ground, all sorts of shapes can be formed.
Liquid water on the surface of the moon would boil away due to lack atmosphere, so it cannot exist there naturally.

You could point Hubble at the moon, but the images taken would be too low res, be like if you were to read a book in your hands with binoculars.

I guess NASA stayed up late for years blurring and smudging nearly all photos from the moon in order to cover up those meteor impacts. Yeap.

[RMorgan]

Posted by conk (here)

Posted by eni-al (here)
Sorry, but most of the claims in the video are a bit ridiculous. The anomalies likely to be meteorites,
Bright spots, exposure of the camera . The 'smoke' trails, dust blasted away and debris trails from impacts of comets, meteorites etc.
Not sure if when they increased brightness and contrast at one point in the video to show what would look like glowing cities, just exposure again and the surfaces pocketed with craters and the surface kicked up exposing more lighter surface.
Pretty much, the moons surface is highly altered by meteor impacts, and moon quakes, ground, all sorts of shapes can be formed.
Liquid water on the surface of the moon would boil away due to lack atmosphere, so it cannot exist there naturally.

You could point Hubble at the moon, but the images taken would be too low res, be like if you were to read a book in your hands with binoculars.

I guess NASA stayed up late for years blurring and smudging nearly all photos from the moon in order to cover up those meteor impacts. Yeap.

I don´t trust NASA for a second, but our friend eni-al is correct when he states that "You could point Hubble at the moon, but the images taken would be too low res, be like if you were to read a book in your hands with binoculars."

Every optical device has focal distance limitations, including telescopes.

Anyone who understands a bit of photography knows that you can´t take a picture of a grain of sand 5mm away from your camera with a tele-objective lens; you would need to change the lens for a macro.

Even our eyes have focal distance limitations; With one eye closed, look to your finger with the other, placing it about 15cm away from your eye. Now move your finger to 1cm from your eye; your finger will look blurred.

Telescopes work in the same way, except that big ones like Hubble use mirrors instead of lenses. They are made to observe distant objects, not close ones. The most powerful a telescope is, the more its unable to observe close objects. Hubble´s minimum focal distance is way past the moon.

Earth based telescopes are much more adequate to observe the moon than Hubble.

Raf.

[meat suit]

there is always John Lenard Walsons moon footage to look at, great detail .... structures etc... not much colour

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...n-moon-footage