whatever theory

No body is helping "me" This is not about me. I will always remain anonymous and I am no scientist, so I have absolutely nothing to gain other then knowing that I made a contribution to society. If this can help science, then science is what you are helping by figuring out a proper technique, not me. I have already proven this to myself, I do not need any more proof. The proof is in the pudding and for every argument against this, I could provide 100 pictures that show proof that this is true. You can see it all around you everyday and that should be proof enough in itself. I feel like I have already done my service here and I know that there are some people out there that get what I am saying and some may put this to use in their own field. At the very least I know that everybody that has read this thread is now thinking and looking at nature in a whole new way, whether it be one way or another. I am sure this thread will spawn many others like it in the future. "Whatever" technique you decide to use or create is up to you. We have showed many examples on how to use this photograph technique and I am sure that others may come up with better techniques. If you decide to match colors from one to another then there is a 1 in 16+ million chance of them matching. You choose to use Tar's formula or if you want to combine all of these techniques together that might work to. It is really up to the individual person to figure out how much proof do they need in the work that they are doing. If only matching a few pixels is enough proof for you then just use that. Well since Tar was the only one suggesting on how to repair the techniques that others did not like, I do not see how I am going to continue here, knowing very little about science and math. So now it is up to you all to decide what happens to this thread. "Whatever" happens here now, I will continue to search for answers. I hope that you enjoyed watching and have learned something, like I have. Take Care

Hello Tar I have sent you a private message. Once we agree on all of the exact details I will provide all of the data on all of the bees. StringJunky there is plenty of material on the net that I do not find interesting so I just stay away from it, but I do not go to all of these sites and tell them that there work is useless and try to disrupt there conversation. You do not have to look at this thread, nobody is forcing you. I am sure that a lot of the exact same arguments were brought up when they were discovering DNA, like if we already know what a human is then why do we need to find out what their DNA looks like and there are other ways of determining a species that are already known to be the best ways, so why are you wasting time trying to figure out DNA. Like DNA if CGG is correct then yes a lot of the science books will have to be rewritten along with many of the claims by scientist in there fields, but to just stop trying to figure this out so that these same ideas, which are so comfortable to science do not need to be changed, is bad science. Would you rather we go to another science forum to figure all of this out? Or figure it out here? Sure my theory my be wrong but at the same time it looks to me like it is rite. Arete There maybe a common color that say 10 different species of a bee share in a certain area, which would be great because that could be the first value that determines it is a bee from a certain area. Now all you have to do is find out the differences in each bees color to determine it exact species. I think Tar is rite, only till recently has this technology been available to do these kinds of tests and the only way to test them is to capture their image. Until a new type of photograph is invented we have no choice but to use the current photographs available. To me arguing about whether there is a consistent color code in nature is like arguing that the Earth is Flat. You can go to "Google Images" and see pictures from outer space that the world is round and so to can you go to "Google Images" and type in pair of birds, fish, reptiles, etc. etc. and see that these color codes are consistent threw out the natural universe. Here is a picture of different bees from the same species and from the same geographic location, in each picture. I think it is clear to see that each bee is an exact twin to the rest in its colony yet each colony appears to be a little different from each other. These are the first 12 images I found in Google images when typing "many bees" Thanks I think something is wrong with this site. I can not upload this picture. I will try again later.

Hi Tar I really like your new formula. Thank you very much for taking so much time to figure it all out. From now I will refer to this as the "TAR Formula." I was thinking that maybe a good way to find the numbers is to do as I have done previously and take the highest Red and the Lowest red value. Then Find out exactly what color should be in the exact middle. Say the high value is 160 and the low value was 100 then the exact middle would be 130. Then if you wanted to take more reading you could find the midway point in between 100 and 130 then 130 and 160. So now you would have values at: 100, 115, 130, 145, 160. Then you could try to match these 3 midway numbers to the other subject or you could perform the same color range test on the other subject. Please let me know what you think. I downloaded the Pipette software, but I can not figure out how to load a picture into it. It is just a black screen. What do I do next? That would be great if there were an easier way of doing this.... Thanks again After thinking about the plant identification Apps I have answered one of my own questions about it. By using a piece of grid paper they are not only able to use this white grid paper as a white color control, but they may be using the grid to determine the species size by comparing the species to the size of the grid. Since I do not find size and shape being of much importance to a future App, using primarily color, this would not be able to add anything in this fashion. But if in the future we were trying to compare pictures that were taken in normal conditions, instead of just using a white or grey card in the picture, we could use a white/grey card that also had a grid on it. This grid would help you determine what distance you would want to take your picture from the subject, based on the grid. This way you would always be able to take your pictures from the same distance, as previously. I thought of a good example of when species will not share the same colors even if they are all in the same exact geographic locations. Lets say, that Mike owned an Alligator Park in the Florida everglades. "Mike's Alligator Sanctuary" Tar is the Chief Alligator Wrestler and he takes very good care of his gators and he feeds them a very special diet to make sure that they get all the nutrients that they need, but it is still not the same diet that the other Alligators, of the same species eat, outside of the park. Tar keeps there pools nice and clean and tries to replicate the waters outside the park, but this water is still not natural. Mondie is in charge of the sexual breeding program and is trying to breed very rare blue spots into his Alligators because the females are more attracted to these blue spot inside the park, where as outside the park females are trying to get rid of these blue spots by not choosing these freaks to breed with. That is why it is rare in the wild to see these blue spots. Studiot is the gardener and is trying to improve the red color of native plants, brought into the park, with special fertilizers. So now while all of these Crowded Alligators and flowers are in the same geographic location as the Non-Crowded Alligators and flowers just outside the park,they will have different colors then them. So instead of comparing them to the others outside the park you would only compare them to others inside the park. So in this case your location would be "Mike's Alligator Sanctuary" and not the "Florida Everglades." I am going to add a few question to my "Food For Thought" List, maybe now you will start to see a pattern emerge. 1. What color is light? 2. What color does a star mostly resemble? 3. What color is one of our most abundant minerals, salt? 4. What color would be first to have evolved, in life? 5. What is the one color that most all living creatures share? 6. What color is associated with bones and teeth and the outer part of an eyeball? 7. What color is associated with Brains? 8. What color is Space? 9. What is the second most common color most all living creatures share? 10. What color is the inner part of an eyeball? 11. What color is associated with a Tongue, Heart, Blood, Dirt, Lava, Fire? 12. What color is associated with Plants and most Reptiles? 13. What color is associated with the Sky and Water? 14. What could the answers of these questions have to do with how life evolves, from the very beginning?

Hello Mike, thank you for your comments. Nature has provided a unique color range for each species so that it can be identified, similar to your license plate, from a distance. Color is consistent threw out nature and no where is it not found. This should show that color may be natures number one means of identification. These next questions are just food for thought, maybe they are for another thread or time, but since we are on the subject of color I will ask them, but do not expect any replies. 1. What color is light? 2. What color does a star mostly resemble? 3. What color is one of our most abundant minerals, salt? 4. What color would be first to have evolved, in life? 5. What is the one color that most all living creatures share? 6. What is the second most common color most all living creatures share? 7. What could the answers of these question have to do with how life evolves from the very beginning? Maybe some day down the road I will share my thoughts on these questions. But the answers are now already available in our collective consciousness, so as Tar pointed out, you can all already tap into the answers, if you want. Very nice artwork Mike and as always your comments are enlightening and inspiring. Thanks Tar for your comments I see what you mean. I am going to try to think of a way to incorporate all of this into one technique. Maybe I will have some kind of solution tomorrow. Thanks again Thanks Arete for your comments and for participating in the discussion. Your expertise on these matters is very much appreciated. These bees are a perfect example of how this technique can be beneficial. Here you have 8 bees, of different species, that all appear, to the naked eye, to be the same color. Not only do they appear the same color as each other, but they all have most of the same characteristics other then color such has hair, shape, size, etc, to each other. So in this case identification of the species is going to be very difficult. If you notice the orange stripe closest to the bees rear end has the most amount of color variation in each bee. You can notice that this stripe is very different from one bee to the next. Some have almost a white and some are very dark. Some are very yellowish and some are more orangish. I have found the lowest Red RGB value for each bee which is the top set of numbers above each bee. Then I have found the highest Red RGD value for each bee, in this same rear end orange stripe, which is the bottom set of numbers above each bee. If you notice there is a clear difference in the highest, lowest and the ratios in between each bee. The next test I will perform I will try to compare bees of the same species to each other. The picture that you posted of the grasshoppers I did not want to touch, at all, because if you will notice the back ground in each picture is different colors. So I do not think the conditions are the same in all the photos. But I do see a pattern emerging from these grasshoppers between each other. The 2 on the bottom appear to have mostly the same shades of green and the upper right grasshopper appears to have these same shades of green on the bottom of his legs and this grasshoppers yellowish color appears to be the same shades as the one in the upper left hand picture. The 2 most important factors in determining species that I can think of are: 1. Geographic location and this can mean a lot of things. If say a wolf lived in Miami this same species of wolf that lived in Alaska would probably appear very different. But if a wolf lived in Montana it may share the same color as the one that lived in Alaska because the conditions are so similar. South Sea pearls that are grown in Australia, Philippines, and Indonesia usually have the same color ranges as each other but they do not resemble these same species from say Mexico. If there was a certain area that had a crowded population of grasshoppers, all of these crowded grasshoppers may all share color ranges with each other, but may not share the same color ranges as another colony of these same grasshopper a mile away that was not crowded. 2. Seasons may have some thing to do with the difference in species color and sometimes they may not. For instance the South Sea pearls I was just talking about. They appear to be the same color no matter what time of year they are harvested, because there are no real seasons, this close to the equator, and all of the other conditions are almost identical in these 3 locations. But in Alaska and Montana it will depend on what time of year you see the wolf, that will determine their color range. Here are the first 12 pictures I could find on Google images of pairs of grasshoppers from the same species, same geographic location, and the same time of year. You will notice that they all share the same color ranges as there same species pair. Thanks again P.S. I hope these Grasshopper pictures are not too offensive for this forum. These pictures are for you Mondie. "colorful sexual displays" OOOOO Yaaaaa....

Strange The links you provided are great. It seems like there are many different names of each App, NatureGate, iPflanzen, Gardenista. I have been wondering why no body ever thought of this before, now I know they already have. Even thought there are many Different names for these Apps all of them claim to have a 700 species database, so I am wondering if they are not all the same program, just with different names??? It seems from al of the comments that it does not do a good job of identifying species, from the test that everybody has performed. It also seems that they are just taking pictures in normal lighting and then comparing these photos to each other. But as we have been discussing we all know that they is many problems with doing this and that may be why there App does not work for anyone. It looks like they do all provide a certain colored grid paper, on which you need to photograph your subject on. But it looks like some Apps do not even do this. This is one of the issues we have been talking about here is that there needs to be some kind of control that is the same in all picture to compare to. Also by using Shape, Size, hairyness, thornyness I think it may be too many factors to consider. If you did not take your picture at the exact same distance from the subject every time or if your zoom was different in different pictures, then your sizes would be all over the place. So this may not be a good deciding factor. If a species lost all of its hair or a bug ate the hair off or if it was missing petals, etc., etc. the shapes and number of petals etc. would be different. Also the flower will change shape as it blooms. The only things that I can see that would stay consistent would be color. So by taking all of these other big problems out of the equation and just focusing on color, geographic location and time of year, may improve what they are doing also. I see that there is also a bird and fish identifying App, but I can not find links to them. Anyone have links? I hope that the developers of these Apps can join us here and maybe together we can help each other answer some questions. Also, an App or computer software is only the ideal end goal and if this goal is never reached, each field of science can use these techniques and start building there own Color Code charts. For instance the flower and plant App that already exist and it sounds like it does not really work, so for you this is not practical. Say the 700 species it contains are not even the same ones that you are working on. You can photograph all of your flowers and plants in your own black box. You can now share these with others. If you were the first one to figure out these species color ranges you could open your own website. Anyone that wanted to compare there photos against your in the future would just have to take their pictures in the same condition as you did. Hello Again I wanted to comment again on this statement: Another way my technique may identify previously unknown species is the example I have shown of the Zonkey. While it would take a lot of money and time DNA these species you can do the test I performed very fast and free. Also if my theory is correct it can also identify other things that DNA can not identify like minerals, gemstones, rocks and fossils. 'Whatever Theory" Score: 10 ---- "DNA" Score: 0 Thanks Tar, for explaining everything about your new formula for finding an average color. It took me a while, but I finally get it now.

Hello Strange Ok, so that is 1 point for DNA...BUT WAIT!!!... Below is a picture of fossilized bones, all of which appear to be from the same animal. It is clear to see that the manner in which the bones aged, at its location, have all aged the same way and all of the bones are the same color. Below is a picture of many of the same species, all from the same location and appeared to die around the same time. All of these creatures aged the same way and are clearly all the same color. Below is another picture of 2 of the same species that both aged to be the same color, because of there location and the mineral content of the soil, along with what species this has determined what color there fossils will be. Here is 2 leaves, from the same species that have also turned the same color, based on age, species type, location, and mineral content of soil. Here is a picture of many different kinds of fossils all from different species found in different locations. You can see that they are all different colors. So, if you were studying fossils you would have to take a lot of things into consideration and you would have to do some original test to find out how to identify different soil conditions based on the mineral they contain and how old the different layers of earth would be. Once you have a good idea of what a species of fossil would turn what color at what depth and at what mineral content of the soil. You can begin to build a chart of what all of this is. Then in the future if there was many different creatures all buried together you could take pictures along the way of digging and identify which species each bone belonged to. You could also learn what color each layer of soil would represent. So the first time you would have to study each layer of soil to determine age and mineral content, but once you have this data, at any time in the future you or someone else can identify this with a picture. Same with minerals. You have to first find out the difference in the color of minerals and then that would help you determine what effect these minerals have on the color of different fossils found in those minerals. Once you have gathered all of your soils and minerals data and you have compared all of the different fossils in these different areas, you should be able to paint a pretty picture of what is going on. I heard Mike is an amazing painter, maybe he can help paint the picture. hehehe Here is a picture of the earths layers. Notice all of the different colored layers. I completely agree with you Tar a way to find the average color is important. I still have not been able to get around to testing 36 pixels, but I will try to post it soon. I like what you have done with the snake but I have a few questions. I understand the first part of your formula: But I am a little confused on some of the rest of it. I don't get what happened to Blue (R/G 2.2) I do not understand what these letters mean either. (CMYK, Y/M 1.83) I also do not understand how to convert (1 part of magenta and 1.83 parts yellow) into RGB scale. And again what happened to blue or cyan? I used the Dropper tool to find the largest and smallest Red RBG value of a certain color range. These values were my lightest and darkest shades of that species particular color range. So if a computer app was ever developed it would have to look for the same things. But anyone can start using this to build a species color range at home with their computer now, you do not have to wait for an App or software to come out. I think that this technique is already ready to go if you are using very controlled condition like a "Black Box", but comparing photo to each other is far off. This area is where I am having the most amount of difficulties with also, and this is why I am trying to talk to people and try to find out all of the variables that need to be considered. Like the App that is already being used to identify plants, that Strange just posted a link to: http://www.gardenist...an-app-for-that It looks like they have not yet also taken all of these factors into consideration also. It sounds like it does not work. Maybe if they were using a black box and sticking more to only identifying color I think they would have a better chance of accomplishing there goal. I am not really trying to find any creature whole entire color range. It is too much work, but I am convinced that the technology exists to accomplish this. There may be some small areas from one creature that match another, that is why this computer program would have to analyze all of the colors to find the averages and same colors between species. I am just trying to demonstrate this color range between species, with my simple testes. If you were really serious you would want to take a lot of time on each species, but you would only have to spend all this time the first time. Then after that it would be easy to compare future species to your already known color code chart. Thank you for the suggestion Tar. I will ponder on this issue. Thanks for for posting the video and for supporting my theory. This is my main motivation behind all of my work "colorful sexual displays" OOOOoooo Yaaaa!!!... Thanks for posting the links Strange. Nice to know that I am not the only out there thinking about this. Hello Studiot I have been planning on doing a test were I take pictures with the different cameras in different lighting conditions of the same objects. At different times of day. I am going to use different setting and I will also try your suggestions to try different resolutions also and I will also do as you say and compare all of these images using different software programs and computers. Please let me know if you have anything thoughts on how to better this test. It has been raining for a couple of weeks so I am just waiting for a sunny day to do this test.

Geographic location has been the main reason why colors will be present in species, from day one in this thread and also my pearl thread. Nothing has changed here. Ok Strange I will try hard to fit my hypothesis into one or two sentences. Yes you are correct color is not the only deciding factor. Great, now can we move on? If after all of the research is in and if there are say 2 species with the same color ranges then it will limit your choices to these two. Now all you have to do is pick which one your species looks like from the 2 choices given. Then once you have chosen it will tell you the information about the chosen species. You are the one that suggested this butterfly test and in this technique I have been removed from the equation, so in this test, I think it "Works".

Hello I have been pretty sick so I could not post yesterday. Because I was also sick on the day I posted the Albino Anaconda test I did not do a very good job of explaining some things and the picture Was not so good for a couple of reasons. I posted it anyway, but the top snake had a lot of reflection on it and the bottom snake had a lot of shadows on in. If you notice most of the pics that I have taken from the web a in good lighting condition and the subjects are the same distance from the camera and are facing similar angles to the camera. I usually search threw many, many pictures before I find a good one from the net and in some cases like the Zonkey picture it is very difficult to find what you need all in one picture. So with this picture it was the only one I could find with mother Donkey, father Zebra and baby Zonkey all in the same picture. So I tested only areas that were all facing the same direction and that were in the sun light and not the shade. As for your suggestion Strange, I could not find any pictures of a Zebra and a cow in the same picture and I do not think that this one counts. The most important aspect, I think, besides what the species is, is geographic location. So this is always the first thing that you need to consider. If you had an App or software this would always be the first things that you noted and categorized. So in the case of a cow and a Zebra they do not live in the same area and would never be compared to each other. I am still going to try to find a picture of these 2 side by side however. Another thing that I need to emphasize is that this theory has a lot of potential, but you need to know how to use it. A natural (wild) thing is something that man has had no intervention with and the rules that apply to it are going to be different then rules that others things that are not Natural follow. So while this technique can identify species that are natural from one another you would not want to put them in the same category as non-natural things. So if you wanted to go compare food at your local grocery store then most of that food is going to be not natural. You can still use it to identify what breeds were bred to create this new food and you may be able to even find out what farm it was grown or if it is natural in origin originally, but you need to use this appropriately in each case. Strange when you argue: why is this technique important because we already have DNA I will list 4 reasons, I think,why this is better then DNA. 1. DNA is expensive (This is Free) 2. DNA Takes a long time, you have to mail it to the lab and then wait for them to test it then wait for the results. (My technique is fairly instant) 3. No body that I know has a DNA testing machine (Everyone already posses a computer and camera) 4. You can not test DNA from a picture. From what I gather, color is too hidden in DNA for them to be able to find any patterns yet, so maybe this will help DNA scientist figure out the missing pieces to their puzzle also. Of course there is going to be reasons that DNA is better for certain things then my technique but this is just 4 reasons that makes my technique better, in my opinion. Also when you make the point: if you already know what something is then why are you trying to identify it. DNA had to do this same thing at first. How would they know what the DNA of another human looks like if they did not test a human being first to find this out. After they did this first, extensive testing on humans they no longer need to do this same extensive testing each new time because they already have a good idea of what they are looking for. I am also sure that DNA as not yet tested every species on earth nor have they tested every strand of DNA on every subject before it was excepted by mainstream science, so why are you insisting that I do this. By saying that this is not worth accomplishing because we already have DNA is not a good attitude in Science, as far as I can tell. I do not think I can summarize this theory into one or two sentences. We are now on page 8 and I am still just trying to demonstrate the basics of my original techniques. In the beginning of this thread I was trying to start out simple by only testing one color, but my original technique is to find the entire color range of a species, which as not changed at all, since first posting in the pearl forum many months ago. Tar thank you for all of your thoughtful comments. I did not take the picture of the snakes I just found it on the web. I see what you mean about a tint of green. I was so sick that day I could not concentrate and I would have normally never chosen that picture because many of the conditions were not good. The snake on the top had a lot of reflections and the snake on the bottom had a lot of shadows. I did a simple test on the Watermelon and Cucumber and although some shades of green are similar I could not mach any of the exact colors to each other. I agree that the most common color that will collide when dealing with plants will be green. That is why I demonstrated that there are many different areas to consider when testing plants, in the previous leaf test. If you were to open that Watermelon up I am sure that the fruit and the seed colors would not match the Cucumber and If you were looking at the whole plant I doubt that the flowers, stems and leaves would all match either. I like how you have formulated all of the colors on the snakes to find an average color.. I would like to talk to you more about it tomorrow, but I am going to now demonstrate (from my original technique) how I find the color range of a species. Before I go on I would also like to explain that while doing the simple test, that I have been doing previously that is being accused of cherry picking, I try to stay in the middle of the first species color range with my first test. Example, if there is a light shade of brown which turns into a dark shade of brown, then you want to take this first sample, somewhere in the middle, in between the light and dark shades. This gives you the best chance of matching that same color to the second subject. In the instance of the snake, one animal may have a slightly darker shade of brown then the other subject from the same species. At the same time this other snake may have a slightly lighter shade of this same brown color then the first snake. So this lightest shade from the one snake would be the lightest shade of that color that could appear in this species and the snake that had the darkest shade would be the darkest shade of brown that this species could produce. Every time you found a new snake in the future that had a lighter shade, then the one already know, you would extend that species color range to a lighter shade and you would do the same thing every time you found a new snake with a darker shade of brown. If 1 of of every 1000 snakes produce say green spots then you would add a new color range category (for freaks of nature) and then in the future when ever one of these freaks would show up you compare it to this other green color from the previous freak snake. So with the previous shown technique, were I am matching one color to another, this is just a fast easy way of comparing color to each other.Just for example purposes alone... I like this technique and if you look at the number of possibilities that Tar has provided, I do not think the term cherrypicking makes any seance to me especially when you are testing more then one area. So I am still going to argue my case and I would really like to hear from all of the members, their thoughts on this. Matching how many pixels from one photo to the next would make you happy to show a good example?. Should it be 2,3,4,5,36? I think that even if you only match 3-5 it should be more enough to show a good example of something, which will allow us to move threw many different species at a fast rate. But if the time comes when (if) we get serious about actually measuring the entire species colors range, after all of the problems with the technique are fixed and we have figured out a standard of controls that should be used, then at that point we do the following procedure on each species. I do not expect to accomplish this task here, but if we figure out all the problems then everyone in their field can use this next technique to categorize (properly) the species that they are studying. After you have the entire color range of a species the first time It will be easy for you to quickly test a few pixels of any other species, in the future, and compare this to the original range to see where they fall on your original color range chart. The only time you change the original color range chart is when new shades of darker or lighter colors appear in new species you test, of the same species. By using this color range technique I am being completely taken out of the equation and the color and the Red Numeric value determines which pixel is tested. For instance, Below is the 2 species of Butterflies that Strange suggested I test. Although these 2 Butterflies are both Black and White, there is something that definitely stands them apart from each other. One has yellow in its wings, closer to its body and the other has pink spots near its body. In this first picture I want to find the lightest shade of yellow and I also want to find the darkest shade of yellow in these same areas on both wings. First thing I do is move my Dropper tool around, inside this area, and find the smallest RED RGB value that I can. When you are convinced that you have the smallest red number then you do this same thing and find the largest Red RGB value you can find in that area. Now that you have your smallest and biggest Red RGB value, you can find a Red RGB value that is somewhere in between the smallest and biggest, so that you can appreciate the pattern that develops within this series of 3 numbers. If you were studying a certain species, the more of these reading you took the better idea you would get of the full pattern that develops and will give you a better chance of fitting future species into this range. If you notice the red,green and blue dots in the photo represent this yellow color range of the creature on the left, and the yellow, light blue and pink dots represent this yellow color range of the creature on the right. Notice the pattern that is happening between the colors and their ratios. So by taking the lowest reading of Red and the Highest reading of Red combined between these 2 butterflies gives you your Yellow color range of this particular species. Which would be: red 145 - red 174 grn 142 - grn 185 blu 42 - blu 64 You could also calculate your average ratios, but I am still too sick to think that clearly. Below the picture, I have also found the Color range of the white, which match exactly from one butterfly to the next using a very small area on the body of these creatures. These are the represented by the Purple and Orange dots. In all of the tests, I have ever tested this is the first time that a creature had perfect shades of grey threw out its entire range. Example: red 233 green 233 blue 233 Below I have done this same color range technique on the other mentioned species of butterfly. Finding the color range of the pink and white areas. In the last picture I was ably to find both of these species in the same picture. I looked at many hundreds of pictures and this is the only one I could find. Fortunately there wings are at the same angles and distance from the camera and the lighting is the same on both creatures. Again as I did above I have let the smallest and biggest of the Red RGB values dictate which pixels where chosen. I have found the white and black color ranges for each butterfly. As you can see that even though these species color ranges was almost identical to each other in the previous pictures, these species colors do not match each other. . I know there is still a lot of comments I need to catch up with, so I will try to continue again tomorrow if I am feeling better. Thanks Hello Again One more thing that I wanted to touch on, that I think there is a lot of confusion about, is this. If say you did come across a (wild) Zebra in the same field as a (wild) cow and when you took there picture they had exactly the same color ranges, in all aspects to each other. (Which is highly unlikely) If these are the only 2 creatures in the world that had these exact same color ranges then a picture of a Zebra and a picture of this same species of cow would appear on your screen. If you picked the picture of the Zebra it would tell you this is a Botswana, Zebra from Africa. If you chose the cow it would tell you this is a wild species of cow from the plains of New mexico called the Speckled MooMoo Cow. If the cow was a certain breed rather then a natural breed, it may say something like, this is a man made breed from California called the California cow. If there where other creatures that also fit into this Cow and Zebras color ranges, a picture of them would pop up also. So now it is up to you to pick from a few possible choices, but you already can see what your looking at so the chose would be clear. If you were confused whether something was either a bird or if it were a fish because they had the same color ranges, you would simply click on the picture that best looked like what you were looking at and it would tell you there species. Hope all this makes seance.

I have read the Wiki definition of photonic crystals and I really can not comment much on this matter. I will have ponder on the subject a bit before I can make any comments on this. I have thought of a test that I could perform in my black box to test this. I was thinking about taking a picture of the same subjects a few times and then comparing them to each other. I can put a number 1,2 and 3 in each photo so that you know I am not just using the exact same picture over again. Please let me know what you think. Thank you for your comments, I need all of the nudging I can get. I have not forgot about trying your resolution tests, but it may take a few days, because I am trying to explain my techniques and catch up with "cherry picking" comments right now. Tar, thank you for taking the time to explain exactly what I am doing wrong and for providing ways that may help people take this more seriously. I was going to do as you suggested, but I just want to catch up on comments and finish showing how I have been doing my techniques now. Hopefully by tomorrow I can prepare a presentation with the data collected n the ways that you suggest. I am not totally sure about soap bubbles, but is soap natural in origin? There is something called overtones on pearls. This is not the actual color, of the pearl but a group of colors that appear over the color in certain lighting conditions, these overtones do look very similar to the iridescence of soap bubbles. Even though many different pearls have overtones which usually range from pink to blue I have found that these shades of pink and blue are also unique to their species. So I would think that 2 different kinds of soap may be the same way. Just a guess. I will try to do some research on soap bubbles. I quess I missed the question about Peacock feathers also. Can you please tell me what the question was? I never thought of this before. I was thinking that while I do the test, I was just describing to Klaynos, I could perform this same test, in a series of 3 pictures, and put something colorful in each different picture to see if the colors in the subject change from picture to picture. Please let me know what you think. Thanks again for all of the thought that you have put into this thread. Thanks Strange for explaining what you meant. Sorry it is taking me so much time to understand a lot of the lingo and concepts of modern science. I read recently, but can not find it now, a Senior member was saying that no theory is ever really proved and never goes beyond a theory. This statement has had me puzzled seance then for a number of reasons, but now that I understand the sciences definition of confirmation bias I can see why. Because you will never really be able to prove something 100% The only thing I can think of to compare what I am doing, is to DNA. I know that my wife and I have never been DNA tested so does that mean that the DNA theory is not yet excepted? Because not every human was tested, to make sure that we all share the same DNA? And when they test a persons DNA do they test every strand of DNA in that person or just maybe a few from the hair or fingernail? So at what point does a speculation turn into a theory? I am sorry that you all have to put up with someone that is as non-scientific as me, and believe me I dreaded opening this thread for a long time, because I really know nothing about science. But at the same time there may be others that have good ideas, that are like me, that may come along in the future also. I think I may now understand what you and Tar are saying though. Like testing DNA they do not test every strand but, they make sure that the test that they are taking is a good accurate sample that represents the rest of the strands. By me only picking one pixel I may not be getting an accurate idea of what that area is. Did I miss something about Carrots? What was the contradictory evidence. It was my mistake for bringing up carrots as an example. What I should have said, and what I will say from now on, is Natural (Wild) Carrots. There has been a lot of talk about carrots lately and most of the Carrots we buy are cultivated and not Wild. I do not think I have falsified anything here though. I guess my ideas about proving/disproving are different then that of science. To me, I have always felt like if you are trying to prove something, then if you do not succeed, you have really disproved it. Say I was arguing with someone over a flower being pink color with someone. If I can prove that the color is pink by holding a pink crayon next to it then I am right. But if the color is not pink and it is yellow and I hold a pink crayon next to it then I am wrong. If someone else holds a yellow crayon next to it first then they are right and I am wrong. So I will try to look at things from your point of view but I am still uncertain exactly what you want me to do, to an extent. In the example of the meat test I showed first the differences in color from Beef, Pork, and Lamb then the next test I showed how each animal shared the same colors with its own species. But I can not do everything in every picture. In the case of the leaf, flowers, and purple pearl test I was able to compare the species with each other but I also compared them to the other species also. I believe in what is said in the little trailer line on Tar's Profile "There is not a one of us that knows more than all of us put together. I think that most theories are worked on for a long time before they present all of their findings and theory, but then science picks it all apart and they have to go and start over because there was some basic flaws in the techniques for proving it. So if I would have gone this route and spend a long time testing everything in nature and then presenting it the ways I am doing it, it would be all for nothing and then I would have to go and start over. I am trying to go this route because I would rather have science pick it apart now and help fix all of the problems along the way so that when we reached the finish it is all done and no one can pick it apart. I know I lack a lot of knowledge in a lot of areas but no matter how much I study Tar's statement is always going to remain true and someone will always have some information that you are missing. This is not true Strange. I have admitted in this site that I may be wrong and I have not tested everything in nature yet. This is only my speculation, but it is supported by other Scientific fields, as you have previously posted links to. I am just answering this, given what I think, whether it is wrong in the eyes of science or not. Just trying to describe my thoughts... What would convince me is that if I can not match the colors, but since I keep matching them I have not convinced myself that it is wrong. If one day I can no longer match colors then I would prove myself wrong. So for me I do not know how to prove it to myself other then keep testing. I hope you can help me figure out what you think I should do. No Strange. Maybe in my remarks some where I said I was trying to identify species by color, but no where did I ever say that you could do this with color alone. For instance if it is a pearl then you need to make sure first that it is a real pearl with all of the normal tests, xray, etc. Then once you know it is a pearl you can identify the species which has not yet been figured out in the pearl industry. If you are testing a "wild" Carrot because you want to collect its genetic color for future for breading purposes or to compare it to other "wild" carrots then you would need to know that it is a carrot or at least a vegetable before you tested its color. I will try to rewrite my hypothesis and post it soon. Let us say that you were a scientist exploring the amazon for medicinal plants. Some one has previously found a cure for cancer there, in a pant, and is sending you back there to find more. The original person found the genetic colors of this plant and you have the same camera with the same box that he did. There are many plants that appear to look very similar and some are poisonous. You already know you are looking for a plant so you have already categorized this thing as a plant. So even though you can identify that something is a plant does not mean that you can identify each species with only your eyes. You also would not want to test any lizards even though they may be the same color as the plant you are looking for. So that is were this may become beneficial. Everyone is already able to see if something is a bird, or a lizard or a fish, but what they may not know is each of these things exact species just by looking at them. Hope this all makes seance. In my most previous post I am only explaining how I have been doing this technique up until now and although I may change the technique based on everyone's suggestions, I am only trying to show how I have done things thus far. If anyone has pictures I would be happy to test theirs, but it needs to be in good conditions as I have explained before. Many of the pictures on the web are not taking into consideration my technique and can not be used. A part of the technique that I have not yet touch on much is how to try to find the color range of a certain area. In the picture below I selected a random pixel from what appeared to be the darkest brown from the first snake which are represented by red, blue and green dots. Then I took an additional samples from another brown spot on the same snake (pink and yellow dot) Then I chose 3 spots randomly from the second snake (Dark green, Dark blue, Orange Dots) The areas I tested were small so I just put the dots around the edges so I did not cover up the area. Originally when I took this picture my eyes were playing tricks on me and I did not realize until after I started testing it that the lighting and angle of the subjects is not so good, but I continued testing it to show an example of this technique. Normally I would have tried to match the second snakes color, but in this case all of the areas tested were completely random as Strange and Tar's suggestions. Maybe something like this may be a better way of trying to find a specific color range of an area. Eager to here what you all have to say. I was just joking about Mike being a Mascot. I know I am not the captain and I am not trying to act like one. So sorry if it appeared that way. I am trying to follow everybody advise the best I can. I feel like I am just trying to steer the ship and all of you are the captain. I appreciate all of your help and I hope I did not upset you Mike. But like a Mascot you are helping to lighten up the mood. That's all I meant. This is one of the main reasons I have come here. I do not want to reinvent the wheel, becuase I did not know it already exists. As Strange and others have pointed out in other fields are doing similar things, but from what I can tell most of it is in very generic terms. For instance I was recently on a tropical fish site and they used the colors of the fish to represent the species, but they were not the deciding factors. It read something like, this fish will have blue, red, purple and yellow coloring. Or in another site I saw how some bird people were describing the birds based on feather color but only again in very generic terms such as red, green blue. I have found were there are some horse and dog hybrid breeders that test there breeds colors to a paper color swatch. But it is only for the coats. In the case of pearl identification the only importance that they have yet placed on color is a way to identify what color it appears on a normal color wheel. They have yet to see any importance in color. So if somebody knows if someone is already doing and saying what I am then please tell me so I do not waste any more of my time. Thanks again Tar for your comments

Thank you all for your comments. Tar So there will be triplet colors along the scale? Will they ever be the exact same color or just slightly different? Is there a pattern to what these numbers will look like, such as how grey has a constant numeric values? This statement is very interesting and well written. Thank you I guess I missed the part about a grafted pearl. I will try to go back and find it. Thank you for showing the formula to figure this out. I knew that the number would be huge but I did not realize just how huge it would be. Some creatures have more then 6 different colored areas also, some may have 20-30 or more, such as certain fish and birds. I think these numbers also show how cherry picking is not so easy, especially when testing more then one color. If each color as over 2 million shades and you were to test each pixel every second it would take you 23 DAYS, nonstop, to test each pixel. 2,000,000pixels / 60seconds = 33333.33minutes / 60minutes = 555.55hours / 24hours = 23.148 days... Is this formula correct? When the species are the same and in same condition it usually takes only a few seconds to match there colors it is quite easy, although the rest of the process to design everything takes a long time. I did not realize there was a question about grafting, but I will try to find it. Albinos being freaks of nature should I think be treated as individuals and not compared to the rest of their species. I have been looking at pictures and I will try to do a future presentation dealing with different types of albinos and try to show that their color do match other albinos of the same species. Everyone can identify a carrot or a lizard or a clam so knowing this much can put you into the right category, then from that category you can find what species that is. Maybe down the road when all data has been collected on all of the different color codes in nature, we may see that there is no species on earth that share all of the exact same color ranges and if that happens then we will no longer even need to categorize everything, just take a picture and it will tell you what you are looking at. Just a guess. I think parasites should be like the rest of nature and there color should be determined by there species and their location. People that maybe have scales or some other skin disease that affects there skin's color should be treated like the albinos, comparing them to each other rather then to the rest of there race. Seasonal changes should effect everything in the same way that lives in those conditions. So even though a wolf's coat gets blacker in the winter all of the other wolfs from its same area will go threw the same changes. I will do as you say and collect the data and post a picture presentation which shows all of the data tomorrow, at that point I hope can explain what I should do with it. OK When you say 6x6, You mean 6 pixels by 6 pixels? Correct? You know what they say Mike, Go big or go home. So we are going big (from our homes) hehehe Love all of your comments and you always tend to brighten up the mood of this thread. I Hereby appoint you Mike Cosmos the Official "Whatever Theory" Team Mascot.. Mike "The Mascot" Cosmos Please say hi, to you Jack Russel, from me. Studiot, Thank you for explaining. At the end of this post I am going to explain my techniques if you still have any question feel free to ask. OK When you mean resolution, do you mean change the resolution settings on the camera for each picture? Should I take a different picture for each different resolution setting? Can you please explain how a program will provide list/graph of colors present. My computer learning curve is very slow and you may be able to help this research out a lot. Thanks again Dave thanks for your comments and concern. This is my free gift to the world. I am already using it to identify pearls and others studying nature can also build a black box and start collecting the (GCC) of whatever they are studying. So here you go.... Its free If we can build on this then anyone using it can benefit by what we do here. If one day we develop it into software everyone who contributed will still be a part. This is a group project now and if there is ever any money to be made down the road we can give it all to charity or maybe we can use it to throw a massive, huge, amazing party like the world has never seen, to celebrate what we have accomplished. I don't know rite now I am not thinking that far into the future and it is not what motivates me. I am going to try to go threw all of the basic of this technique. Hopefully this will help explain a lot of the same questions that keep getting asked and hopefully you all can help me improve on what I am doing. This should help any of you that want to start doing this at home or if you want to check what I am doing you will know how. First I will start with photography. To build a "black box" cut one side along the seam on three edges leaving one remaining edge connected so you can open and close the top. I put a piece of velcrow on mine to keep it sealed when shut. Next, line the box with white paper. If you are working with others and you want to compare your pictures with theirs, make sure you all use the same exact white paper and the same exact size box. Next build a small cardboard table to set you camera on inside the box. You may want to experiment with different distances from the subject to see what distance your camera works best at. My smart phone camera works best at around 4 inches away from subject. Here is a picture of my box and the table sitting inside it. When taking your pictures there are many things to consider. 1. Try to keep the area of the subject as small as you can and try to place them very near each other in a tight group. 2. Make sure that your subjects are facing the same direction to the camera. For instance if it is a leaf place them both flat facing the same direction right next to each other. 3. Look at your camera and see where the flash and lens are located and try to place the center of the flash directly over the center of your subjects. My flash and lens on my smart phone are located in the up left hand corner of my phone. Here is an example of what your photo may look like if your flash and lens were located in the same place as mine. When you transfer it to your computer you can crop away the extra background. 4.Try to place all of you future subject and your phone in the same area. even mark, with a pen, on your phone table the borders of your phone and mark inside the box the borders of your camera stand. 5. These are the settings I use inside the box: -Flash-On 5 seconds (Press the button and close the lid before 5 seconds and the camera shoots) -Marco Focus works best for close up shots like this -ISO 200 Now that you have your pictures and the are transferred to your computer screen, take a minute and look at the photo and try to find an area that the color seems to be most dominant in both species. Then take your dropper tool and go to that area, as you move your dropper around that area you will notice a pattern of the colors and the ratios, between the colors, is consistent. So choose one that keeps repeating it selfs in this small area. Now right down the RGB colors on a piece of paper and label that set of numbers by what ever color dot you have chosen to use to represent this area. Then take a small piece of tape and put it on the screen to mark this point. Now find that same color on the other same species in the photo and mark it also with tape. Now you can change your tool to a paintbrush, pick what color you want and mark the spots with tape on them. I always try to mark in the same place, which is directly above the chosen area, but not overlapping it at all. Now just repeat process for any other areas that you want to test. When you are finished you can design the rest of your presentation. When choosing pictures off the internet try to find pictures that are in good lighting and where both subject are facing is the same direction to the camera. In a good picture it is very easy to do this process on the same species. By using your eyes to try to identify similar colored areas first will save you a lot of time. So examine your photo well and stay away from muddy, reflections, shadows, transition colors, different lighting, etc. Ok I will try to pick up where I left of tomorrow. Gotta go...

I am not trying to disagree with you but, I can not figure out what you mean by, cherry picking. If I took a pixel from a very small area with very few colors, lets say an alligators eyeball and I tried to compare it to the entire RGB scale to match the number, or if I tried to compare it with a much larger area that contained all 2+ million shades of that color, then that would be cherry picking, but taking a pixel from one small area and finding that same exact color in another small area, to me I do not consider that cherry picking. Please explain what you mean so I can better understand your reasons. I do not feel I have ignored much counter-examples, some comments may take a little longer for me to answer then others, because I do not want to answer them off the top of my head and I want to think about it or try to do some research before I answere. Many of the concerns that have been made I have gone threw extra effort to try to even demonstrate my remarks with picture examples. If there are particular issues that I have not addressed, that you want me to, then please state them. I think that my theory that color is consistent is correct, I can see it with my own eyes and as you pointed out there are many different branches of science that are already convinced that color is consistent in their field, but as Studiot pointed out none of these fields have acknowledged that this maybe consistent with all things natural and most of these fields stay on the surface and usually do not go beyond the surface such as meat, organs, etc. Also When I am taking pictures, such as the leaf test, in a controlled environment "Black Box" I feel pretty confident that these pictures can be compared to each other and any one with the exact same equipment and procedures should get the same results. Also I do not find any problems with comparing objects taken in a single picture, that others have taken that I got from the net, as long as it appears that all of the subjects in the photo are in the same conditions inside the picture. Most of the problems that are arising are about how to compare pictures taken, outside a black box, in average conditions, and with all of these problems this may not be possible for a long time in the future. So maybe this new software will only be doable for everyone, only by taking pictures in a black box. The software would have to be built to allow for the differences of each camera type and all of the controls would have to be the same, but I think this is already easily doable. Albinos and chameleons are what I am referring to as a freak of nature and these types of things may need to be compared to each other rather then the rest of there species/family. For instance albino crocodiles would be compared to each other and other species of albino crocodiles and not normal alligators. A chameleon would be compared to other chameleons and not compared to other reptiles. Studiot Thank you for your contribution. I am having a hard time understand your question, can you please rephrase it or explain the meaning. Thanks Dave, Thank you for your comments and for providing the cited material. I have never disagreed with this, I think I have clearly shown that pearls can change there color based on where they are formed in the shell, but they will still belong to that creatures color range. In the cited material it does not say that they could be any color for any reason, only that based on where they land in the shell will help determine their color. This statement helps to support what I have been saying. Geographic location has a big deal to do with species colors. It is true that say a wolf or a pearls that lives in an area that snows will have different colors then that same species that lives in an area with no snow. Even though these same species have different colors from one another their color will still match those of the same species that live in the same geographic locations as them. Even though climate/seasons play a big part to what color the species is, if the species are all in the same area they will all go threw the same changes. Again this water temperature should have the same effect on all of the same species from that area. Don't you think? This is why I keep stating that it is good to have a wide variety of each species of shells, not only to find the complete color range this creature can produce, but also you need some new shells and some old shells, with as many in between as you can find, which will also help determine the age of the pearl since it was harvested. I cannot find a quote that you said in one of your recent post, but you had said that a friend of yours is a pearl farmer and from his farm he is producing a unique shade of color for that species and he does not contribute this to geographic area but rather to his large stock of shells. This also helps support my comments. If you find a pearl that has a unique color that you can not match to any of the shells of that species then you need to find more shells and eventually you may come across one that has this unique color. I have said many times that this is the case and in the case that you find a new pearl or shell with a new color, at that point you need to widen the range of that species. Some of your comments are unanswered for now and if I can not figure out, threw research, their meaning I may ask you to summarize them into turns I can understand. Thank you For some time I have been trying to figure out the basics of a technique that Dave is using in his fun with color thread. With the recent accusations of cherry picking I have spent the whole night trying to figure out a way to adapt Dave's technique to fit what I am doing. I have made some changes in the original technique which I think should eliminate shadow and reflections, by choosing a small area I can capture all of the pixels in a certain area. Taking too big of an area will may give you too many colors and they may not all fit onto the new chart. I am not sure on this and I am still experimenting. I am still having a lot of problems figuring out the best ways to do all of this technique, but I will show you what I have now and maybe the members can help guide me in fixing any errors. In this picture I have chosen a rectangle area from both of the leafs, I pasted these areas below each leaf that they came from and circled the area I took them from. Now I have taken each of these new samples and pasted them onto a new canvas. Using Dave's technique I have opened a color pallet. I have done this for both. Now I have pasted both of these new charts side by side. Now I will wait to hear from the members here about what should be done now. I have a few ideas, but would like to hear what you all have to say. Thanks

Do not play the role of the victim now, Dave. If you can't take it then you should not dish it out. Using words like "erroneously" and making up statements that I never made: I consider a personal attack on my honor. And as you said so yourself: So if there are many ongoing discussions else where, which have been going on for years, about what makes the color of a pearl, why are you acting like you have all of the answers to these same questions. If you want to work on those kinds of discussions you should go there to do this. By trying to take on all of these unanswered questions here is not the point of this thread. By saying that this theory has been debunked, by the few pages of material you have provided, tells me that you think that you are smarter then everybody here and these members do not have the right to decide what is debunked for themselves. You keep saying it does not work and I keep posting experiments that says it does. So why don't you give this thread the same respect and try to "prove" that it does not work, and not with just your opinions on certain matters, but with either known facts( please cite where you got each fact) or by using my technique, or any other that you can, to actually show us proof. By making the statement that any pearl can be any color for any reason, in my opinion is what is ridiculous. That is like saying a African Lion or Zebra can be any color at any time for any reason. Have you ever seen a bright pink Lion with a purple mane or a green Zebra with blue stripes???? You are asking for the thread to be closed because you do not believe we are doing enough, fast enough, to satisfy you, but I say that if you do not respond to my comments that I answered in regards to your comments, and if you keep insisting on making claims which there is no scientific proof and keep trying to influence the members here that the thread has been debunked, by you, then I ask the moderators to remove you from this thread. If you want to play nice and help us work things out, in a civilized manner, then we would be happy to hear what you have to say.

Hello Tar, Thank you for drawing an example of what your were saying previously. I hope you do not mind I cleaned it up a little and I have a few questions about it. How would you write this into a mathematical formula? Are you supposed to take your reading were the RGB meets the Frequency. Also I was hoping some one out there may know of a computer software program that would help us create this chart on an accurate scale. I was not sure about labeling the bottom "Frequency" Is this the correct term for this? What would you Label the new line that you created? The "Tar" line? Just a suggestion.... What would you like to name your new Chart? The "Tar" chart? hehehe... Just another suggestion, but if you like these names you should use them, but it is your choice. Hi Mike, I could not find the picture you were suggesting: Isbn 9781847922274 2014. On page 65 ​That is interesting that man has engineered the color of a carrot. It reminds me of how many food companies use color to subconsciously make people hungry or influence there decision of what products to buy. Maybe since carrots are a common staple and grow everywhere more people chose to buy orange carrots, over a period of time, to make there food more colorful and appetizing. Over time maybe farmers decided to grow only the most popular color. Just a guess... I hope this helps clear up many of the most recent comments. I have stated many times already, that while I am trying to show that species share a common color(s) sometimes with only one pixel, Doing these tests are very time consuming and not only this one pixel will match. When I have more time I test more colors, but I am simply trying to show a pattern that is constant. Technology will not allow me to test every pixel and these type of problems are what we are trying to figure out. Also I am not saying that identification can be made simply by color, but you must have a good idea of what kind of species you are looking at, whether it be carrots or pearls. You have to know it is a carrot before you can find it's specific species and you have to no that it is a real pearl before you can find out what species it is. Also I am not saying that only one color should be tested, because different species may share a common color or range but the chances of them sharing say 5 color ranges with a different species is even more unlikely. Also I have said that I may be wrong. I am going into this some what blind and I am letting science dictate the direction of this research. It has been raining here so I still can not do the previous test I was talking about, so I decided to work a little more on the leaf test I posted previously. These 2 leafs had one similar color to each other, although the lighter shade of green was not similar at all I decided to show how there would be at least 3 other areas to test on each species. Again you can see that these 3 new colors match each other but do not match the other species. The top row (below) is the same species as the first picture (above) and the bottom 3 pictures are of the bottom picture (above) So even though one pixel came close to matching each other on these species, that is only one pixel out of 16+ million, and once you started moving in the direction of the light green the numbers started moving away from each other. So the light to dark green range only, almost, collided for one small instant on the scale. With this new test you have 3 different colors here from each of the 2 different species that do not come anywhere close to matching the colors of the other species. Dave if you want to argue about what makes a pearls color I am sure you can find a place in another forum that will be happy to argue with you all day. Although these types of questions may be answered along the way or down the road, trying to examine every aspect of what make color in nature could take quite some time. What I am trying to show is that whatever makes a species colors match each other, in a photograph, is consistent. Like I said before there may be some problems down the road but we will get to them when we get there. Some things in nature may not follow these same rules, as others, and there will always be exceptions to every rule. People know the truth when they see it and I think many who have read this can see that it is true and may now see the world in a whole new way. Many of the top pearl buyers in the world have been comparing their pearls to the shells they come from to identify their species. This is nothing new Dave, what is new is this technique which helps to do this same test on your laptop and be precise and gives you the ability to share and compare this information with others. As for your questions about the bird, if you do not understand the very basics then I suggest you go back and read the previous pages. Laboratories are run by scientist, so you are saying that you disagree with modern science? About Albinos and Chameleons. Although you may not be able to match the colors from say a Albino crocodile to a regular crocodile, I think you should be able to match the albinos colors to another albino crocodile from the same species and area. I am sure,but I think that there has to be some colors that would match each other on both of the albino and regular crocodile. Like tongue, gums, etc. I will try to do some future research on albinos. Although Chameleons can change colors I doubt they can change to all 16+million colors. I think there range of colors that they can change will be the same as that of their same species. I owned a chameleon in the past and it seemed is color changing ability was limited and certain areas on the chameleon always stayed the same color. Here is a picture of both and you can see that there colors match each other. I have not internet for a couple of days so I will try to catch up on the remaining comments soon. Thanks

Thanks Tar, Klaynos and Mordred for your comments. That is a brilliant idea!!!... Sometimes it is a bit difficult for me to comprehend the meaning in written words. Is there any way you can show an example of how to do this? My original purpose was to see if the colors that were illuminated matched each other in the picture. Then to see if these same areas matched each other under normal lighting conditions. While the colors on #2 and #3 matched in both the UV and the normal picture, none of the other colors matched in the normal picture. I should have studied the normal picture a little more before I started because the area in #5 that I tested in the UV photo had a light reflection in that same area in the normal picture. So the results,in my view, show that even if a certain mineral illuminates a certain color under UV light it may or may not match the same area in a normal picture. That is why I do not really understand why this is happening. I have confused even myself with this test. Again I am having a little bit of a hard time understanding how to convert color to frequency on this chart. Any examples would be much appreciated. I will be traveling abroad next month and I will be looking for a UV bulb I can buy. We only have Chinese left over stuff available where I live and finding anything is a challenge here. I totally agree with what you are saying. In order to advance this, starting from the beginning and understanding the basics should be our first priority. As we move along having all of this surface knowledge will help guide us in the right direction. I understand the idea, but I am having a hard time figuring out exactly how to transfer the x,y and z into r,g and b. I will figure it out but it may take me a little while to study this. I have one leaf test that I already completed, so I will post it now, but I will wait before preparing any more such test until I can fully understand how to adapt you and Tar's suggestions to this technique. Any and all help will be very appreciated. This test I have tested 2 leaves of the same wild species, from different plants, to each other. I have tested what appeared to be the lightest and darkest shade of green on each species. Even though I was able to easily match the color between species I was not able to find any of these colors on leaves of the other species. In the first and second picture the dark shades of green were close to each other, but you can see that the light shades from both species were very different from each other. This may help show that even if a species share one color with another the entire range of that color may be unique to it's own species. I wanted to explain in detail the next test I am going to try, in hopes that you all will be able to find any flaws or ways to improve what I am about to do. 1. I will set my 2 cameras on the same settings: Flash-On, Focus-Macro, Timer 5 Sec, ISO 200 -I will take a picture of a grey/white card in my black box from the same exact distance with both cameras, with the lid closed so no outside light gets in 2. I do the same as above but I will put them in a light box, to block indirect light, and on these photos I will take one with each camera with the flash on and one with the flash off. I will try to have my house lighting the same, but the indirect light from outside will still be present - I will repeat this process in the morning afternoon and mid day 3. I will do the same as number 2 outside with no box, in indirect sun light. 4. I will compare all of the pictures using Corel Photoshop first, then using Adobe Photoshop. Next I will repeat this same process on a different computer. Ok thanks again for all of your help. I am starting to get excited. I feel like we are starting to move at a fast pace and that we may actually be able to figure all of this out -