THE MOON & ITS COLOR
March 7, 2010
Joseph P. Skipper
J. P. Skipper can be contacted at: email@example.com
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.
"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 side...it 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.
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
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