Hidden Planet/moon mineralogy and shrinkage

Why did some of our NASA teams of prestigious associate wizards
intentionally go out of their way to photoshop and publish this rather
nifty color saturation enhanced image of mercury
(257037main_caloris_color_350.jpg), so as to having selectively
modified its dynamic range in those color saturations in order to
having excluded the thin but hot atmosphere of Mercury, and otherwise
to having removed any possible artifacts of the surrounding background
outside of the planet itself?

Dramatic Volcanism Forged Mercury's Surface
 http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=3D5304781
An image of the planet Mercury, made during the January 2008 flyby of
the planet by the Mercury... (REUTERS/NASA/JHUAP/ Arizona State
University/Handout)

It seems entirely odd that their infomercial media has access to
publi****ng such modified images that are not as such listed within the
official MESSENGER gallery.  In other words, we the public are only
getting to see an extremely small fraction of these 100% public funded
image archives related to this mission, such as this color enhanced
image is rather typical.

Too bad we still don=92t have the same degree of color saturation
enhanced images of our Selene/moon, as to depicting the complex
mineralogy and better nature of those cosmic deposits on our
physically dark as coal Selene/moon.

An even better color enhanced image of Mercury that=92ll show
atmosphere.  Don=92t be turned off by the extremely pail/pastel or
nearly monochrome first look, because you just have to crank up that
saturation and ever so slightly replace or ****ft the color of black.
If this is too complex for your expertise, I=92ll gladly walk you
through it.

The atmosphere of Mercury: c1000_700_430.png @[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  or 2X  (doesn=92t
matter)
 http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sciencePhotos/pics/c1000_700_430.png

You simply need to have saved this image as is to file, or save it as
a JPG if you=92d like, and then PhotoShop it.

PhotoShop: Image Adjust / Replace Color (select: Image)
FUZZINESS: 200
HUE: 0
SATURATION: +100
LIGHTNESS: +5 up to +50  (try using +20)

Next, try out ****fting that =93HUE=94 by whatever amount makes you a happy
camper.

By the way;  if Mercury has in fact been measurably shrinking by 1.5
km in diameter over its geological history,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=3D/earth/2008/07/03/scimer=
cury103.xml
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7489557.stm

so has Earth been shrinking (though likely by some greater volumetric
pro****tional amount).  I further rest my case from a very old rant I=92d
contributed as of many years ago, that pertained to Earth=92s shrinkage
from its core cooling as well as from surface erosions (most all of
which ending up in our oceans, displacing water and thus also causing
oceans to rise).

In other words, our Selene/moon may not be moving as quickly as 38 mm/
year away from us, especially if Earth=92s radius has been instead
shrinking by several mm/year.  Another question might be;  how large
was Earth to begin with?

 - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth