Google+ Followers

Monday, March 8, 2010

March 08 - THE MOON & ITS COLOR‏

Dear Friends,

Paste the link if you don't receive the images/can't access the links.

Be Well.



Report #181

March 7, 2010

Joseph P. Skipper

J. P. Skipper can be contacted at:

How much confidence do you have in your opinion of the Moon's color? Does it sound like a foolish question? Surely anyone who has looked at the Moon from Earth on a clear night knows the answer. When high overhead it's obviously shades of silver/gray from light bright to dark and subdued. Further, we've all been inundated with large numbers of images taken of the Moon from Earth, from Hubble, from space craft approaching the Moon, from orbit around it, and from astronauts on the Moon's surface.

Over and over this silver/gray color expectation and assumption is confirmed by the sheer numbers of images fed to us regardless of the source. For example, the above shades of silver/gray image of the Moon taken as recently as September, 2009 from the Indian Chandrayaan-1 satellite is so typical of this. We are media saturated with such images and by the sheer numbers of seeing what we expect to see we just assume that the Moon is this silver/gray and don't question it. But, is it really? Now take a look at the image below.

The above image was taken by the Galileo Orbiter on February, 1996 and is a color composite. Note the subtle color shadings with geological color tones that might be more expected, if one thought very much about it, of a raw surfaced planetary body like the Moon. If you thought about it and even though the color tones here are quite subtle, if you were to step out on Earth's Moon and explore around, you would expect to see just such color tones around you in varying degrees rather than solely black and white. However, it doesn't stop there. Take a look at the next image below.
Scroll down to "Galileo" & click on the 1st thumbnail image

Yes, believe it or not, the above 3rd image of the Moon with its stronger color tones is officially presented to be the exact same as the Galileo image #2 further above and both are part of the science data. However, as you can see, there is a fairly dramatic difference color wise between this and the silver/gray or subtle tan images. Yet all these images are supposedly representing the exact same thing and are available around at various official science data sites.

So which one is the real Moon in color? I am suspicious and you should be as well. Did someone tone down the above 3rd image in order to produce the 2nd image and then forget to sanitize the 3rd original image completely out of the data? I of course can't definitively answer that but consider the following additional evidence and see what you think.

Take a gander at the above 4th image from the 1972 Apollo 17 mission. It demonstrates Commander Eugene Cernan on the Moon in his suit holding the USA flag with the Earth a distant partial orb in the background dark sky over his head. Note the various strong colors of the flag, the blue NASA emblem on Cernan's right shoulder and his red armbands confirming that color film is being used here.

Now note closely the bright washed out uniform gray color of the Moon terrain surface visible in the background under Cernan's left arm in comparison to the bright colors of the flag. This is very typical of so many of the images of the Moon's surface taken by astronauts as they walked around on the Moon taking pictures and using color film.

In fact that gray color for the Moon just below Cernan's arm and the flag is just what you would expect to see and that is the whole point. We see what we are conditioned and expect to see. It may be that our many public images of the Moon's color as taken from space approaching the Moon as well as in orbit around the Moon and on the Moon may not be real and/or have been manipulated. In fact the last several generations of us may actually not know something as simple as what the Moon truly looks like when it comes to its true color. In retrospect, we may have never really been allowed to see its true color. This may at first blush sound stupid but have patience and move on here.

As I've stated before in the Mars imaging and as most of you know if you think about it, color plays a strong role in being able to discern increased detail and especially in detecting any presence of living organisms in terrain imaging. Likewise, the absence of color that we are so accustom to seeing with our eyes, such as with black and white only imaging, seriously inhibits the discernment of detail as well as the expectation of the detection of life in the terrain. Then add over saturation of black and white colors and needed detail is often for the most part obliterated from a scene.

For example, in the above 4th image, look closely at that light color patch of Moon massif (hill) rise in elevation in the terrain beyond and under Cernan's left arm and the flag. Since you are satisfied that there is no air on the Moon, you "assume" that it is rock and soil geology only. However, please note that there is no actual visible detail there in that over saturated washed blur to actually verify it or anything else. Our interpretation of the visual is based on an assumptive perception that we make based on the psychology of trust. So is someone abusing that perception and trust?

Remember, washed out terrain is equivalent to washed out detail. Note these examples in my previous Report #158 and Report #152. Now take a look at the Earth also distantly visible in this report's 4th image. Note that there are actually only two colors visible there. One is a washed out blue and the other is white.

The blue is of course associated with the fact that Earth is primarily a 70% water world reflecting back the massive blue color from its water coverage and the white comes from the sunlight reflecting off of the clouds of moisture in the atmosphere. Yet we live on and are familiar with Earth and know from direct experience that the planet surface is actually a place of many different colors besides blue and white. That fact is a clue.

The Earth's dense atmosphere influences in a major way how the Earth's colors are perceived from the Moon and the reverse is true of how the Moon is visually perceived from a distance through the Earth's atmosphere. For a good discussion of this, take a look at the video at the link below.

Here's some more evidence to consider. In the Apollo 17 mission, in an official quote found HERE, it noted that the landing site Apollo 17 landing site was on the southeastern rim of Mare Serenitatis in dark deposit between massifs (hills) of the southwestern Montes Taurus." Now you should know that this is the same Moon terrain area that was targeted as a landing site by the previous Apollo 10 mission.

Upon the previous Apollo 10's return to Earth, that crew went through a Photo Debriefing in June, 1969 by Bellcomm, Inc. Now Bellcomm was a subsidiary of AT&T established in 1963 to provide NASA with technical and management records and advise for the Manned Space Flight Program and ended in 1972 after the Apollo 17 mission. Below are some pertinent quotes having to do with Moon color from that old Apollo 10 debriefing at the link below.

Bellcomm Apollo 10 Photo Debriefing

"The lunar maria were described as brown at high sun angles, and grayish brown near the terminator..."

"....They noted a color mottling of Mare Serenitatis, light brown and tan brown, as compared to the darker 'chocolate brown' color of Mare Tranquillitatis."

"The color of the lunar highlands was described as tan .... Deviations from the tan color are caused by mare material (brown), fresh impact craters (chalky white) and a number of 'jet black' layers and blocks."

"As expected, they were unable to see much before passing over the sunlight terminator, but as soon as this is done, the moon glows at us...this moon looks like a Christmas tree here in the dark is highly illuminated from the earth."

Why am I providing this information? Well for one reason because the astronaut quotes are repeatedly describing Moon maria terrain including terrain in
Mare Serenitatis as being various shades of tan and brown where both Apollo 10 and 17 landed. Yet, we are not seeing that in the images publicly released either in this report's imaging or as exampled in my above Report #158 and Report #152 links. For another reason these statements tell us how difficult it is for the astronauts to see much of anything in full sunlight on the Moon's near side. Now with that information in mind take a look at the image below.

The above 5th image is a full size color view of Commander Cernan's Moon suit faceplate as blown up from the 4th image further up. I did this so that you can get a better look at the reflections there on that faceplate. First note the two small yellow arrows and what they point to. It looks a lot like two different people in different types of suits very similar to hazmat suits rather than Moon walk about suits. Evidence like this is what contributed to the debate that this image was actually taken on a set on Earth and is not from a location on the Moon at all.

After all only two astronauts were suppose to have landed on the Moon that being Eugene Cernan and Harrison H. Schmitt. The obvious question is, if these reflections of two different people in Cernan's faceplate are true, where did the third person come from and then there is the issue of the different types of suits probably not suitable for Moon exposure? Note also that the two people reflections are on different size scales as well. This might be explained by the fact that there are actually two different forward faceplate surfaces, an inner one and the outer one with a hollow space in between. Note the following image to this effect.

The above 6th image demonstrates a color image of Commander Cernan in his Moon suit. It is in a room with all three astronauts getting their suits pressure checked prior to lift off for the Moon. Looks like he's taking nap. There are both color and black and white images of this but I chose this color scene to demonstrate there isn't any tint to the helmet/faceplate material that might become a factor in trying to ascertain faceplate color reflections. The material is obviously clear.

Note the doubling of the ceiling lights reflecting off of Cernan's clear helmet. This why it would be premature to draw a conclusion that more than one person is reflecting off of Cernan's faceplate on the Moon. I'm not saying that it isn't so. What I am saying is that the evidence for two people of different size scales reflecting off the faceplate on the Moon is too questionable to be trying to draw any definitive conclusions from just that.

It should be noted that there is also what appears to be a very vague shadowy face deep inside Cernan's helmet and in the 2nd image that doesn't look much like Cernan's and in fact looks a lot like something not exactly human. The bottom yellow arrow points to what could be the right eye of this face further back in the helmet. This has led some to speculate that there is an alien in this suit rather than a human. For me, this particular evidence is just too vague and weak to be drawing such conclusions from it.

However, the blue arrow points to some much stronger evidence that we can draw some decent informed conclusions from. It is the reflection of Moon terrain and the Moon's dark sky over it. It is in fact one of the recognizable hills or massifs at this site and note that its color is clearly
tan to brown and that this reflection color is consistent with what the Apollo 10 astronauts had to say about the Moon in general and the Mare Seneritatis terrain color in particular. This evidence suggests that this is the true color of the Moon terrain with more natural geological colors familiar to us.

This in turn strongly suggests that the bright washed out gray color of the Moon terrain seen in so many public images has been artificially manipulated to achieve that look. Further, if so, it also suggests that who ever did so forgot to do something similar with the astronaut faceplate and its reflections.

Meanwhile, although most Moon imaging as released to the public is in black and white only, did you know that there are a very few images of the Moon terrain that do purport themselves to be in true color. That's just not true but take a look at the following split screen examples of this and see what you think. (left image) (right image)

The above 7th split screen images are examples of what is suppose to be Moon surface terrain in true color. They are not touched up or altered in any way by me but shown just as they are in the official science data. As you can see, they are more green than any kind of tan or brown. Do you really believe this color? It doesn't matter because in my opinion they do not represent any truth except for the gross craters outlines and dimensions.

Why do I say that? Well in the left panel with the single large impact crater, note that the crater is clearly in sunlight strong enough for the crater rim on our right to be throwing a pronounced sharp shadow to the left inside the crater. That sharply defined shadow clearly and unquestionably indicates strong sunlight. Note also that the sunlight reflectivity is also strong enough to light up the left interior crater wall where the sunlight is directly impacting it. That again clearly confirms strong sunlight.

However, at the same time, note how subdued that crater left interior wall sunlight reflectivity is. It is too subdued and generally the same greenish color as the rest of the terrain but just a lighter shade and less intense. Further, when we assume that this is all bare rock and soil geology, which is always highly reflective when not covered by sunlight absorbing life, note that the right
exterior wall surface has no reflectivity at all to it. Now the opposite would be the case in order for it to throw that strong shadow inside the crater.

Let's assume there is no bio-life on that slope to absorb sunlight and that it is just raw rock and soil geology. If so, then that crater's elevated right
exterior wall that is throwing that strong shadow inside the crater would be very bright sunlight reflective. Further, that reflectivity would be so great as to be hard on the eyes. Yet, it isn't there.

The fact that it isn't demonstrates that this area around the crater and up its right
exterior wall has been covered by smudge image tampering applications. Now smudge is something artificial added into the image and therefore nothing real in the terrain. It covers sunlight reflective surfaces destroying that reflectivity unless that reflectivity is artificially recreated and they didn't bother doing that here. It is the same in the right split screen panel with the terrain evidence there. The too strong green color is just another poor choice in the selection of the smudge "paint" color.

In a black and white image of the Moon surface, any objectionable object or objects (from the secrecy point of view) would be taken care of with a little spot smudge application and there are essentially no color variations to contend with except minor ones. However, a true color image reveals too much variety of detail and color variations, it must be consistent with prior manipulated imaging, and it must be handled with broad and complete smudge as the obfuscation application of choice to make sure that something unacceptable is not revealed including the image's terrain true color.

That's why all of the surfaces in the above 7th image are so uniformly the same greenish color. It's like a wall with a rough damaged place in it. If you paint over it without repairing the damaged spot, all minor imperfections are gone under the new paint except that the gross damaged spot still prints through. You don't see the real damage spot surfaces anymore but the gross rough place is still obvious enough. In the above 4th images, the semi-transparent smudge layers are added like semi-transparent paint until all the smaller "imperfections" are gone while the gross forms like the rougher terrain and impact craters still print through in order to maintain some semblance of realism.

It's just that the choice of that funky green color was a very poor decision when it comes to believability. Further, the complete elimination of that crater elevated exterior wall bright sunlight reflectivity was a very poor choice because it makes the presence of smudge (paint) application detectable in that place beyond any reasonable doubt. The net result is that in the 7th image there is very little of the Moon terrain there is real. Most of the original terrain is covered over and gone under that smudge.

When we're standing here on Earth looking at the Moon high overhead, we see it in shades of silver/gray. When we see it lower on the horizon, we may also see it in shades of yellow, orange, red, or sometimes even a pink or blue shade. All of these colors are a product of viewing the Moon through Earth's atmosphere and do not represent Moon color truth. As the the 4th image in this report and its distant view of Earth indicates, it is the same viewing Earth from the Moon from a distance. Again the view and the color is being influenced by the Earth's atmosphere.

Those that wish to indulge in secrecy understand that personal experience influences the public's expectation and assumption of what the Moon looks like. For the most part it looks silver/gray from Earth and so that is what we are provided. Further, a Moon in black and white color shades is much easier to deal with when it comes to obfuscating images and truth from the secrecy point of view and particularly with the technology of the 1960s and 1970s. So, if your goal is to obfuscate truth, then a Moon in black and white shades in imaging is a must and fortunately for secrecy that fits right in with public assumptions and expectations.

Raw geology in the form of relatively level terrain without much in the way of shadows in it or life is very sunlight reflective. In the mid day sunlight, the reflectivity can be over powering to unprotected human eyes. Anyone who has stood on desert sand or raw lime rock expanses can quickly confirm this as well as those on snow and ice. Now think about Cernan's clear faceplate and think about him and his eyes standing in the relatively level Mare Serenitatis looking around at mid day and assume for the moment that the site was the light reflective gray you see in the above 1st and 2nd images.

Once, as I was investigating a death site and taking photos, I stood in the middle of construction site covered by a large leveled fill area of graded white coral/lime rock bed. I thought the sunlight reflectivity off of the rock was going to burn my eyes out before I could get off of it.

In fact, if you will read more of the Bellcomm official record interview with the Apollo 10 astronauts, you see them acknowledge this high albedo factor as a problem washing out detail in the terrain. When they crossed over to the Moon's dark side (at the terminator), they indicated that it too was considerably visible due to Earth shine and that it looked like "...a Christmas tree." That "Christmas tree" reference again suggests a lot of color in the terrain and lot different color wise than the Moon images released for public consumption.

Yes that's the planet Earth you see in the above 8th image. More specifically it is the famous image named "The Blue Marble" that is suppose to have been taken of Earth from space. Huge size .jpg and .tif images are available at the above link under the globe with slow download times. Earth is beautiful isn't it.

So what does this have to do with the Moon? Well the real issue when it comes to the Moon imaging or space exploration imaging in general is trust and I want you to find out for yourself that your trust may be misplaced. Go to the above link under the Earth globe above and download the huge "globe_west_2048.jpg" image file listed there (4th down) and take a close look at the cloud patterns in the really big view. Look especially closely at the area from the equator down to the South Pole. You will find many duplicated or cloned cloud patterns demonstrating very obvious artificial manipulation in the image.

Why would anyone do this? I agree and yet there it is. Is someone testing our ability to discern truth from fiction and/or our gullibility capacity in this planetary subject matter or just testing developing graphics technology of the time on us? This brings up the obvious question as to whether any of this Earth image is real or not? The next observation is, if you can't trust in something as simple as a picture of Earth from space, how are you going to trust images purported to be of and from the Moon with its controversial issues? Much of what we see or think we see is based on trust of people and institutions that may be trying to scam us all with manipulated material at the most fundamental levels.

Upon reflection, this kind of messy space exploration information brings up another issue with this researcher. The more the Moon evidence uncovered, the more it points to manipulation, deceit, and nothing much real with respect to space exploration, at least as released for public consumption. The research always comes back over and over again to deceit and the manipulation of evidence to obfuscate truth. The Moon exploration visual imaging science data is so rife with it that very little of it can be trusted.

Further, the deceit and obfuscation just isn't that good and yet it goes unrecognized and not dealt with by a too trusting general public and the communities of scientists and media. This level of secrecy cannot be as successful as it clearly is without the willing participation of the bulk of the public and the bulk of the science and media communities. We are all distracted from important issues affecting all of mankind by the bones of entertainment and perceived threats against family and country security tossed to us. In other words, with each generation, it appears that we are collectively becoming more and more a bunch of clueless dummies and puppets dancing on someone else's strings.

Is this personal oblivion what we want for ourselves and our children on into the future generations, to become dummies never seeking the new and rationalize that we are not the subject vassals of a secret few as of old? Am I really wasting my time here trying to pry out and reveal some bits and pieces of greater truth if in the end we really can't handle that truth and must wait as vassals for a few to tell us what to think and do? If there is no spirit and will to strive for truth left in the world? Are we already bagged and tagged?

Joseph P. Skipper, Investigator

No comments:

Post a Comment



Click upon the circle after the small square for captions


How to Digitally Record/Video a UFO sighting:

Como registar digitalmente ou gravar um vídeo de um avistamento de um UFO:

Stabilize the camera on a tripod. If there is no tripod, then set it on top of a stable, flat surface. If that is not possible lean against a wall to stabilize your body and prevent the camera from filming in a shaky, unsteady manner.

Estabilize a camera com um tripé. Se não tiver um tripé, então coloque-a em cima de uma superfície estável. Se não for possível, então encoste-se a uma parede para estabilizar o corpo e evitar que a camera registe de maneira tremida e instável.

Provide visual reference points for comparison. This includes the horizon, treetops, lampposts, houses, and geographical landmarks (i.e., Horsetooth Reservoir, Mt. Adams, etc.) Provide this in the video whenever is appropriate and doesn’t detract from what your focus is, the UFO.

Forneça pontos visuais de referência para comparação. Isso inclui o horizonte, cimo das árvores, postes de iluminação, pontos de referência geográficos (como o Reservatório de Horsetooth, Mone Adams, etc) Forneça esses pontos no vídeo sempre que for apropriado e não se distraia do que é o seu foco, o UFO/a Nave.

Narrate your videotape. Provide details of the date, time, location, and direction (N,S,E,W) you are looking in. Provide your observations on the weather, including approximate temperature, windspeed, any visible cloud cover or noticeable weather anomalies or events. Narrate on the shape, size, color, movements, approximate altitude of the UFO, etc and what it appears to be doing. Also include any unusual physical, psychological or emotional sensations you might have. Narrate any visual reference points on camera so they correlate with what the viewer will see, and thereby will be better able to understand.

Faça a narração do vídeo. Forneça pormenores sobre a data, hora, local e direcção (Norte, Sul, Este, Oeste) que está a observar. Faça observações sobre as condições atmosféricas, incluindo a temperatura aproximada, velocidade do vento, quantidade de nuvens, anomalias ou acontecimentos meteorológicos evidentes. Descreva a forma, o tamanho, a cor, os movimentos, a altitude aproximada onde se encontra o UFO/nave, etc e o que aparenta estar a fazer. Inclua também quaisquer aspectos pouco habituais de sensações físicas, psicológicas ou emocionais que possa ter. Faça a narração de todos os pontos de referência visual que o espectador irá ver e que, deste modo, será capaz de compreender melhor.

Be persistent and consistent. Return to the scene to videotape and record at this same location. If you have been successful once, the UFO sightings may be occurring in this region regularly, perhaps for specific reasons unknown, and you may be successful again. You may also wish to return to the same location at a different time of day (daylight hours) for better orientation and reference. Film just a minute or two under “normal” circumstances for comparison. Write down what you remember immediately after. As soon as you are done recording the experience/event, immediately write down your impressions, memories, thoughts, emotions, etc. so it is on the record in writing. If there were other witnesses, have them independently record their own impressions, thoughts, etc. Include in this exercise any drawings, sketches, or diagrams. Make sure you date and sign your documentation.

Seja persistente e não contraditório. Volte ao local da cena e registe o mesmo local. Se foi bem sucedido uma vez, pode ser que nessa região ocorram avistamentos de UFOs/naves com regularidade, talvez por razões específicas desconhecidas, e talvez possa ser novamente bem sucedido. Pode também desejar voltar ao mesmo lugar a horas diferentes do dia (durante as horas de luz)para ter uma orientação e referência melhor. Filme apenas um ,inuto ou dois em circunstâncias “normais” para ter um termo de comparação. Escreva tudo o que viu imediatamente após o acontecimento. Logo após ter feito o registo da experiência/acontecimento, escreva imediatamente as impressões, memórias, pensamentos, emoções, etc para que fiquem registadas por escrito. Se houver outras testemunhas, peça-lhes para registar independentemente as suas próprias impressões, pensamentos, etc. Inclua quaisquer desenhos, esbolos, diagramas. Certifique-se que data e assina o seu documento/testemunho.

Always be prepared. Have a digital camera or better yet a video camera with you, charged and ready to go, at all times. Make sure you know how to use your camera (and your cell phone video/photo camera) quickly and properly. These events can occur suddenly, unexpectedly, and often quite randomly, so you will need to be prepared.

Esteja sempre preparado, Tenha sempre uma camera digital, melhor ainda, uma camera vídeo consigo, carregada e pronta a usar sempre que necessário. Certifique-se que sabe como lidar com a sua camera (ou com o seu celular/camera fotográfica) rápida e adequadamente. Esses acontecimentos podem acontecer súbita e inesperadamente e, por vezes, acidentalmente, por isso, necessita estar preparado.

Look up. Be prepared. Report. Share.

Olhe para cima, Esteja preparado, Relate, Partilhe.



Pf., clique no símbolo do YouTube e depois no quadrado pequeno, em baixo, ao lado direito para obter as legendas CC, e escolha PORTUGUÊS

埋め込み画像 4埋め込み画像 5

What time is Around the World?


AND YOU AND I - click image



NGC - UFO's in EUROPE (Porugal included)

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 - 7:00PM EST

FEBRUARY 7, 2013 - 7:00PM EST