Moon Mystery House/ Mystery Hut/ Cube: Secret Buildings in Background of the Photo

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I THINK we are meant to assume that the small illuminated "temple face" (from the first images)... is the lower-left portion of the Image 3 boulder.

I think it's the whole boulder, almost exactly as we see it on the close up photo.

I tried to explain it clearly and apologies if it's not clear. I will draw what I'm talking about.

That would help a lot understanding what you saying.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I THINK we are meant to assume that the small illuminated "temple face" (from the first images)... is the lower-left portion of the Image 3 boulder.

I think it's the whole boulder, almost exactly as we see it on the close up photo.

^Interesting, then we have been interpreting it differently this entire time. I hadn't even really expected that you might have been interpreting it completely differently (re: the "boulder shot" and how it matches up with the earlier "mystery hut" images).

I tried to explain it clearly and apologies if it's not clear. I will draw what I'm talking about.

That would help a lot understanding what you saying.

^I'm happy to do that.

But right now, I do need to spend at least some time away from the thread, and focus on real life needs.

Anyways I think you probably understand what I meant now, but a little bit later, when I'm ready, I will sit down and draw over the images... how I was interpreting the disparities, of trying to match up, the different images of the object.

As well, I will draw over the "boulder shot" and show how I had been interpreting... that I thought the original images "mystery hut" face... was supposed to be the lower left chunk of the boulder, I thought.

You probably get what I mean but I will enjoy sitting down with this drawing assignment, later on.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: M5xaz

Look it's just impossible to take you seriously that you're trying to have a real argument over US timeline of widespread computer adoption & usage.

Projection alert, buddy.
I provided you facts and figures in the US
You provided nothing but incorrect opinion


Stick to pizza delivery

originally posted by: ArMaP
No mystery for me, as I will explain on my next post.

It took a little more time, so my explanation was not posted on the post after the one I'm quoting, but here it is.

I think the image of the boulder in the PNG or in the big JPG image posted on Space.com are consistent with the close up of the boulder, so I tried to replicate what we see on those first images based on the close up photo.

First, as the first images were in greyscale, I converted the boulder image to greyscale and adjusted it a little to try to get less contrast.
(I think the close up photo of the boulder has more contrast because of a change in the direction of the light, but I cannot know without getting more information)



Then I removed the background, as the first photo was taken from a lower position than the close-up and doesn't have any background except the sky.



Next, I resized the image to a size close to that of the object in the PNG image, resulting in this:



I applied a little Gaussian blur to make it look more like the original image:



Then I resized it again to try to get close to the size of the object in the big JPG image:



Now, as I think the Sun was more behind the boulder on the first photo than on the close-up, I increased slightly the size of the shadows, resulting in this:



Last, I copied it into the big JPG, for comparison.



Not that different.

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: M5xaz

Look it's just impossible to take you seriously that you're trying to have a real argument over US timeline of widespread computer adoption & usage.

I provided you facts and figures in the US

You provided... irrelevant "facts and figures in the US."

You provided nothing but incorrect opinion

I provided actual relevant information on the topic. Plus I asked you what area of the US you grew up in, to be able to debate the scene in the first place?

You avoided answering because... you're trying to argue about a time-and-place that you didn't live through.

Stick to pizza delivery

What is your career? Trolling forums?

Yes, I would prefer... pizza delivery.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: ArMaP
No mystery for me, as I will explain on my next post.

It took a little more time, so my explanation was not posted on the post after the one I'm quoting, but here it is.

I think the image of the boulder in the PNG or in the big JPG image posted on Space.com are consistent with the close up of the boulder, so I tried to replicate what we see on those first images based on the close up photo.

First, as the first images were in greyscale, I converted the boulder image to greyscale and adjusted it a little to try to get less contrast.
(I think the close up photo of the boulder has more contrast because of a change in the direction of the light, but I cannot know without getting more information)

Then I removed the background, as the first photo was taken from a lower position than the close-up and doesn't have any background except the sky.

Next, I resized the image to a size close to that of the object in the PNG image, resulting in this:

I applied a little Gaussian blur to make it look more like the original image:

Then I resized it again to try to get close to the size of the object in the big JPG image:

Now, as I think the Sun was more behind the boulder on the first photo than on the close-up, I increased slightly the size of the shadows, resulting in this:

Last, I copied it into the big JPG, for comparison.

Not that different.

Hmm OK, well done. You did make the boulder look like the earlier images. And I really had not been interpreting it that way.

Later I will still draw in, how I had been interpreting it.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Are you considering the terrain as not really being flat (as it seems)... so it's lumpy / uneven, and distorting the shadow?

Yes, I think the areas marked in red in the image below are higher than the areas marked in blue.
The area in green is on a lower level, probably the inside of a small crater, with the boulder standing on the edge of the crater.

PS: the orange photo was taken several years ago, for another thread.

Well done.

I agree that you might have distinguished the different separate sections, as you colored them.

But also, I don't think the original image is really clear, in this way.

But it's certainly possible that you nailed it.

Now, why I think the shadow doesn't look like the shadow of a cube.







I know the Sun in the Moon photos appears lower than on my photos, but when the Sun gets lower I don't get any Sun on my balcony's floor.

Now a short (and shaky) video to show how the shape of a shadow changes according to the surface where it is projected on and the point of view.

originally posted by: M5xaz
Widespread usage of computers in the US started in the 80s, as proven by multi billion dollar sales.
Millions of units shipped in 1984 for the US market alone, rising to 37 million unit annually by 1994

How many of those millions of units were to businesses? JamesChessman is talking about widespread consumer usage. Why tf would any normie in the US in 1984 want a PC? There's no software, no games, no facebook, no nuttin'. I gather the Atari 8-bits and then the C64 were popular over there for consumers.

Over here in the UK, the Spectrum/C64/CPC464 war raged throughout the 80s, then the Atari ST/Amiga took over, and the Amiga was pwning the PC/Mac until around 1992.

Even then, these were still considered nerdy toys, no widespread computer uptake until about 1997.

originally posted by: ArMaP
Now, why I think the shadow doesn't look like the shadow of a cube.

I know the Sun in the Moon photos appears lower than on my photos, but when the Sun gets lower I don't get any Sun on my balcony's floor.

Definitely interesting to experiment like that.

But I'm not sure quite how helpful or similar it can really be (compared to the "boulder shot" and its angular-looking shadow).

I'd need to spend some time really focused on these diff. shadows, to really form a thorough conclusion... and I'm also not really going to do that, right now...

You are right that shadows can be distorted with terrain and POV. And yeah, maybe that's the deal with the shadow in the boulder-pic.


I thought the boulder-shadow looked angular, and I thought it looked like it could have been cast by a cube object... but I'm also really not up for... trying to figure out the exact properties of such shadows, at the moment.

It seems nearly impossible to nail down, accurately... with all the different factors that can distort shadows...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I thought the boulder-shadow looked angular, and I thought it looked like it could have been cast by a cube object... but I'm also really not up for... trying to figure out the exact properties of such shadows, at the moment.

It seems nearly impossible to nail down, accurately... with all the different factors that can distort shadows...

Exactly.

Even if we knew the ground in that area was completely flat, it would be impossible to know the shape of the object by looking at it's shadow.

originally posted by: baggy7981

originally posted by: M5xaz
Widespread usage of computers in the US started in the 80s, as proven by multi billion dollar sales.
Millions of units shipped in 1984 for the US market alone, rising to 37 million unit annually by 1994

How many of those millions of units were to businesses? JamesChessman is talking about widespread consumer usage. Why tf would any normie in the US in 1984 want a PC? There's no software, no games, no facebook, no nuttin'. I gather the Atari 8-bits and then the C64 were popular over there for consumers.

Over here in the UK, the Spectrum/C64/CPC464 war raged throughout the 80s, then the Atari ST/Amiga took over, and the Amiga was pwning the PC/Mac until around 1992.

Even then, these were still considered nerdy toys, no widespread computer uptake until about 1997.

Totally wrong

As I said, annual PC volumes reached as high as 37 million annually in the US by 1994.
This includes computers in schools as well

And the Apple Mac never was a business machine, neither was the Apple 2
Home machines


Both your opinion and Chessman's are NOT based on objective verifiable facs and numbers
Just drivel.


The computing world did not magically appear only as you came of age...

ATS
Deny IGNORANCE

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: M5xaz


What is your career? Trolling forums?

Yes, I would prefer... pizza delivery.

I am not questionning your pizza delivery expertise.
I am sure you are real good at it.

Historical facts, no so much.

You provided NO objective numbers nor sources to justify your position, except your (deprived) personal experience.

And you doubled down on proving your ignorance with statements like "I've also always heard that the United States was relatively behind-the-curve with computers in those decades "

Reality is that the US has been at the forefront of computing since the early 1960s, as demonstrated by the timeline in my earlier post

ATS
Deny IGNORANCE

originally posted by: JamesChessman

originally posted by: M5xaz

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: M5xaz

Look it's just impossible to take you seriously that you're trying to have a real argument over US timeline of widespread computer adoption & usage.

I provided you facts and figures in the US

You provided... irrelevant "facts and figures in the US."

You provided nothing but incorrect opinion

I provided actual relevant information on the topic. Plus I asked you what area of the US you grew up in, to be able to debate the scene in the first place?

You avoided answering because... you're trying to argue about a time-and-place that you didn't live through.

Stick to pizza delivery

What is your career? Trolling forums?

Yes, I would prefer... pizza delivery.

I am not questionning your pizza delivery expertise.
I am sure you are real good at it.

Historical facts, no so much.

You provided NO objective numbers nor sources to justify your position, except your (deprived) personal experience.

And you doubled down on proving your ignorance with statements like "I've also always heard that the United States was relatively behind-the-curve with computers in those decades "

Reality is that the US has been at the forefront of computing since the early 1960s, as demonstrated by the timeline in my earlier post

ATS
Deny IGNORANCE

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I thought the boulder-shadow looked angular, and I thought it looked like it could have been cast by a cube object... but I'm also really not up for... trying to figure out the exact properties of such shadows, at the moment.

It seems nearly impossible to nail down, accurately... with all the different factors that can distort shadows...

Exactly.

Even if we knew the ground in that area was completely flat, it would be impossible to know the shape of the object by looking at it's shadow.

I'd have to agree, that it seems practically impossible to take a shadow, and use it to know the shape of the object casting it.




I think what we CAN say is that the boulder-shot shadow... appears angular, with 3 straight sides... ALTHOUGH we can't know if we are really even seeing the shadow accurately (as per the diff. possible layers of dirt, etc.).




I think what we can also say is that... the shadow's seeming appearance of 3 straight sides... if taken at face value, it seems within the range of what shadows could be cast by a cube object. I think.

It also seems in the range of what an artist might draw... for a rectangular building's shadow. I think. Again taking everything at face value, and it might be more of an artist's imagination of such a shadow, more than the real thing.

But for example, if I was looking at graphic novels, and the cover of one had a building casting the same shadow, then I think it would look like it fit.





Ultimately the unknowns prevent a very definitive conclusion about the "boulder shot" image, including the shadow, as well as the terrain possibly having different layers, and just general terrain variation, etc.

Also this "Looking Back" shot, is pretty wild, and I never spent much attention on it.

But the light glare alone is strange and interesting.

Maybe it's just showing that the air-less environment, is making the sunlight seem extremely bright and glaring (just because the lack of air).

And / or maybe there are reflective spots on the moon, which are shining brightly, it could be as simple as shiny spots of glass / ice, even maybe shiny sand or rocks.

There's at least the one spot apparently blinding the camera, and then the other shiny spots seem like they're shining for no clear reason why.





To compare, here is the earlier "Image 3" landscape shot. Same general area but no sun glare (except maybe a tiny bit in the background).







And then speaking of squarish shadows, these Hole shots have some resemblance of a rectangular shadow in the hole, but impossible to really parse it out, beyond that.

If I recall correctly, I think I tried brightening these Hole shots but nothing more could be seen in the dark areas.

A baaaaaaad case of Pareidolia….



🥴😆

👽🛸🍹

SPAM

originally posted by: baggy7981

originally posted by: M5xaz
Widespread usage of computers in the US started in the 80s, as proven by multi billion dollar sales.
Millions of units shipped in 1984 for the US market alone, rising to 37 million unit annually by 1994

How many of those millions of units were to businesses? JamesChessman is talking about widespread consumer usage. Why tf would any normie in the US in 1984 want a PC? There's no software, no games, no facebook, no nuttin'. I gather the Atari 8-bits and then the C64 were popular over there for consumers.

Over here in the UK, the Spectrum/C64/CPC464 war raged throughout the 80s, then the Atari ST/Amiga took over, and the Amiga was pwning the PC/Mac until around 1992.

Even then, these were still considered nerdy toys, no widespread computer uptake until about 1997.

Thanks for understanding haha. It's at least an interesting tangent, re: computer history in recent decades.

I gather the Atari 8-bits and then the C64 were popular over there for consumers.

^I actually don't think the C64 had a presence in the US, either. I just glanced at Wiki and it looks like it was only really popular in the UK.

AFAIK in the States, the general population had almost-no common-use computers, thru the 80's and most of the 90's... although libraries always had at least a couple computers, even back in the 80's, so I do remember seeing that.

But so computers were mainly limited to libraries, thru the 80's & 90's, till everything started blowing up, in the late 90's.

So I think that was the general scene for those decades in the US.

We always saw a few computers in libraries, so we were exposed to the presence, and school always made a very small usage of computers.

But outside libraries, I think it's very fair to say that personal ownership of computers was EXTREMELY rare in the US, till the late 90's.




...In fact, it's something I wonder about sometimes, what those very-few wealthy PC owners actually used them for, in the 80's and earlier 90's.

I'm guessing they went mostly under-used, by most of those rare PC owners.

The US really had no computer-gaming scene, AFAIK, and it was before the web blew up... so what on Earth were those rare PC owners really doing, lol.

I imagine most probably did some spreadsheets and writing, and then didn't really know what else to use it for.

Imagine that predicament of spending a few thousand dollars on a futuristic computer in the 80's and then not really knowing what to do with it, after messing around w/ spreadsheets for your household budget, and writing a few letters or something lol.

My uncle was one such wealthy individual who bought a computer early on, in the 80's IIRC, and I imagine he mostly didn't have much to do with it.