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

a reply to: JamesChessman

No one's arguing the possibilty. On closer inspection, it's a rock. That should be accepted and it should be dropped. Continuing to accuse other things around it being structures just looks like a purposeful search for 'hidden' objects.

As I said, where the factual photographic evidence from the past that can give this serious consideration? Factual in that it's shown without a doubt that objects have been artificially created on the moon? As much as that can be done visually.

It seems every thread is doomed to eventually run out of natural interest, and it concludes with the skeptics and debunkers.

Oh well, lol.



You guys are kind of misrepresenting things though.

The main topic was the background imagery, really, more than the object itself.




And that background imagery has NOT been clarified. It was shown in one image, and it was AVOIDED in the other 2 images. That's all we've got so far.




And it's clear that China is deliberate in these images, so why did China choose to publish the original photo with the background imagery?

It's visible without even brightening it.

And it is more irregular than a simple light gradient that we'd expect to see. More irregular = indicative of irregular forms being there.



And it doesn't mean that all the building are black, they actually look white, and the darkness can be a lack of light.


Regardless, it's safe to say that China wanted the imagery to be seen, as they saw it themselves before publishing it.

Which SUGGESTS that China WANTED the world to see that background imagery. Why would they choose that, unless they were CHOOSING to reveal it to the world?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
It seems every thread is doomed to eventually run out of natural interest, and it concludes with the skeptics and debunkers.

Oh well, lol.



You guys are kind of misrepresenting things though.

The main topic was the background imagery, really, more than the object itself.

And it's been dealt with.

And that background imagery has NOT been clarified. It was shown in one image, and it was AVOIDED in the other 2 images. That's all we've got so far.

Yes it has: jpeg compression. It wasn't avoided, it just wasn't the subject of the photos.

And it's clear that China is deliberate in these images, so why did China choose to publish the original photo with the background imagery?

Because the only thing in the background is the dark lunar sky.

It's visible without even brightening it.

And it is more irregular than a simple light gradient that we'd expect to see. More irregular = indicative of irregular forms being there.

Citation required.

And it doesn't mean that all the building are black, they actually look white, and the darkness can be a lack of light.

There are no buildings.

Regardless, it's safe to say that China wanted the imagery to be seen, as they saw it themselves before publishing it.

Which SUGGESTS that China WANTED the world to see that background imagery. Why would they choose that, unless they were CHOOSING to reveal it to the world?

Pretty sure it's not something they care about, because they revealed the interesting bit: the rock itself.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

And it's been dealt with.

^Nope.

jpeg compression.

^Again, the absurd accusation that there's jpeg compression in an image that's much larger than your computer screen, and otherwise shows no reason to assume any compression at all.

Because the only thing in the background is the dark lunar sky.

^Hilarious. Denialism of images right in front of your face. It obviously looks like more than a dark lunar sky.

Citation required.

Citation is NOT required to refer to the background showing more irregularity than a simple light gradient.

There are no buildings.

^You don't know if there are or not. So it's automatically false to argue things that you know you don't know.

This is the same logic as arguing with someone whether or not they went to McDonald's one day, five years ago, you don't know if they did or not, so it's absolutely idiotic to argue things that you know you don't know.

I didn't claim to know, myself, I'm only acknowledging that the imagery LOOKS LIKE BUILDINGS, which is true.

Pretty sure it's not something they care about, because they revealed the interesting bit: the rock itself.

^How funny that there's no answer as to why China deliberately published the photo with such strange background imagery.

But OK, the thread is dead, it's devolved into avoiding any explanation for the original topic, and people pretending that they don't understand what a natural light gradient is.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^How funny that there's no answer as to why China deliberately published the photo with such strange background imagery.

The thing is, China released the entire data from their missions in raw format. Thousands of files, it's all there along with instructions on how to convert the data to uncompressed full sized images, or at least was at the time when I was looking at it.

moon.bao.ac.cn...

I don't know where you got the idea that the photo was released by a space agency. What actually happened is some journalist converted a random photo from that gigantic data set, picked a small fragment of that photo, digitally zoomed in on the object he was interested in, then put the photo on twitter that compressed it even further, and didn't provide the name of the source data of the photo for people to verify.

Seeing how the panoramas look like raw, he zoomed by a lot. Doesn't matter how big he made the picture in the end, the data was not there and whichever program he was using to zoom in just filled the lack of information with estimates, and twitter compression reduced quality more on top of that. And news sites used that twitter version of photo too.

If you really want to prove your point, either ask the journalist to provide the name of the original source file, or convert all 5000+ of them yourself until you find the right one and show it in full size, because no one will put that amount of work to prove your point for you.

And don't call a space photo from twitter original. It's an insult to intelligence for anyone reading this topic.

a reply to: iknowyou

You're absolutely right that China publish their data in RAW format (though that may change - it did with their original Chang'e-1 and Chang'e-2 data, which are now TIFF images). The mystery rock probably does appear as a small dot in earlier photographs, so all the OP needs to do is get a photograph pointing in the same direction and show us that the photograph shows exactly the same pattern of blocks in the sky.

However, they are slow to release the data - the current release in PDS (Planetary Data Systm) format, the one used by planetary researchers world wide, is some months behind.They aren't alone in this - India's Chandrayaan-2 data release has been woeful, but they have had a particularly bad pandemic to deal with.

What we have here is a "hey look how great we are" press release story that has done a great job of reminding the world about China's lunar programme. The data will be freely available, but the time lag will mean that those who desperately want to see things that aren't there will see that they aren't there, and claim they have been wiped.

And to answer the OP's point above, I do know that there are no buildings there, because multiple image sources show me that there aren't. Until I get shown multiple images sources showing me that there are, then as far as I'm concerned I'm right.

a reply to: iknowyou

Well first and foremost, please explain your LINK.

What exactly is this?

I can't read Chinese or any Asian languages, and even when auto-translated into English, there are still parts in Chinese that I can't read.

You certainly didn't link to images, or a collection of images.

Or, if you did, then please tell me how to access the images.

The website doesn't let the user click on anything! Except one part links to buying pictures or something.





So it seems a garbage link, or at least, a non-usable link.







You're referring to 5,000 raw photo's, really, how about show me exactly where to see these images myself?

The thing is, China released the entire data from their missions in raw format. Thousands of files, it's all there along with instructions on how to convert the data to uncompressed full sized images, or at least was at the time when I was looking at it.

moon.bao.ac.cn...

^If the images are released in raw format, thousands of files, then why would there be a need "to convert the data to uncompressed full sized images?"

Or maybe I just need you to link and explain more specifically what you're talking about, please?

I don't know where you got the idea that the photo was released by a space agency.

^I was under the impression that the Chinese space agency has released the photo's seen in news headlines the last couple months.

What actually happened is some journalist converted a random photo from that gigantic data set, picked a small fragment of that photo, digitally zoomed in on the object he was interested in, then put the photo on twitter that compressed it even further, and didn't provide the name of the source data of the photo for people to verify.

Seeing how the panoramas look like raw, he zoomed by a lot. Doesn't matter how big he made the picture in the end, the data was not there and whichever program he was using to zoom in just filled the lack of information with estimates, and twitter compression reduced quality more on top of that. And news sites used that twitter version of photo too.

^Now that's all just speculation though.


I've just been considering the published images as the best versions available so far, as far as I knew. There seemed no reason to think otherwise.

If you really want to prove your point, either ask the journalist to provide the name of the original source file, or convert all 5000+ of them yourself until you find the right one and show it in full size, because no one will put that amount of work to prove your point for you.

^Please show me exactly where & how to look at these 5,000 images.

And don't call a space photo from twitter original. It's an insult to intelligence for anyone reading this topic.

^Don't pretend that you thought that. It's an insult against yourself. I have only been referring to the Chinese space agency.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: iknowyou

You're absolutely right that China publish their data in RAW format (though that may change - it did with their original Chang'e-1 and Chang'e-2 data, which are now TIFF images). The mystery rock probably does appear as a small dot in earlier photographs, so all the OP needs to do is get a photograph pointing in the same direction and show us that the photograph shows exactly the same pattern of blocks in the sky.

However, they are slow to release the data - the current release in PDS (Planetary Data Systm) format, the one used by planetary researchers world wide, is some months behind.They aren't alone in this - India's Chandrayaan-2 data release has been woeful, but they have had a particularly bad pandemic to deal with.

What we have here is a "hey look how great we are" press release story that has done a great job of reminding the world about China's lunar programme. The data will be freely available, but the time lag will mean that those who desperately want to see things that aren't there will see that they aren't there, and claim they have been wiped.

And to answer the OP's point above, I do know that there are no buildings there, because multiple image sources show me that there aren't. Until I get shown multiple images sources showing me that there are, then as far as I'm concerned I'm right.

Suit yourself, for your own conclusions, but AFAIK there have only been 3 images published so far.

One with the background, which is the topic photo.



The 2nd pic has the background blacked out.




The 3rd was the most recent pic, which has the background avoided.





So really, there's only the one pic actually showing the area's background, and it seems to show irregular shapes, as per the thread topic.




So you're basically fabricating having seen multiple more images of the same area. If not, please link these images.



I think you and the other guy are pretending that there's a huge release of images, which there really, is not.

a reply to: JamesChessman
James, watch this video from Tom Scott.
It might help.
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: gillyp17
a reply to: JamesChessman
James, watch this video from Tom Scott.
It might help.
www.youtube.com...

I know. But OP photo shows IRREGULAR, UNNATURAL shapes that don't conform within a natural light gradient. This is the whole topic.

If the shapes were within the expected range of a natural light gradient, then there wouldn't be a topic.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Really?
The link I posted shows the exact same effects at 20 and 29 seconds into the video.
You don't even need to watch the whole thing.
If that doesn't answer your question, then I can't help you.
Just like most of your other posts really, you know, the ones where you don't accept the evidence presented to you.

a reply to: JamesChessman

From the OP …….” It would also appear as distinctly non-human architecture, which is why I posted this in the aliens forum, the shapes seem quite angular in random ways that would probably be decorative, instead of functional. And obviously we don't build our skyscrapers like this, with random shapes jutting out for no reason. Yet it's also similar enough to recognize as resembling our skyscrapers.”……

Humans have come along way in architecture. Below just a small sample…..



👽🛸🍺😉

a reply to: JamesChessman

Hear what Jarrah White has to say, then these 'moon mysteries' are no longer mysteries. Of course you see buildings and things, because the so-called 'moon photos' have been taken in studios, not on the actual Terra-orbiting body.

a reply to: Shoujikina

Jarrah White says a lot of things. Rarely are they true. Any evidence they're shot in a studio would be fine.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Your efforts are appreciated but too much is being made of images that do not satisfy my optical nerves. What you see is what you get: fuzzy, over-pixelated images and wishful thinking. We have to wait and hope that superior, clear closeups will make the scene!

originally posted by: idusmartias
a reply to: JamesChessman

Your efforts are appreciated but too much is being made of images that do not satisfy my optical nerves. What you see is what you get: fuzzy, over-pixelated images and wishful thinking. We have to wait and hope that superior, clear closeups will make the scene!

I completely agree that we need more images! However, it seems that China has tapped out, on releasing new images... after only publishing a total of THREE images! (That's counting both times that it was a big story in the news; it actually seems like there were more images published, but it's really only 3.)

So unfortunately, we're only left with the ONE image that actually shows the background.



(The posters above CLAIMED that there was a dump of 5,000 pics, but their link was not usable, and for all intents & purposes, they seemed to completely fabricate that claim, and then they both agreed with each other about it, lol. Talk about an INSIGHT into people's intentions, lol!)


...........


Now just for reference, like for anyone new who might be jumping into the thread at this late point, I'll just re-embed the image that we're discussing, the only ONE image that actually shows the background:

Brightened:






And then the close-up shot, which at first seemed so exciting, turns out to have its background blacked out with MS Paint paint-bucket, it would seem:

Brightened:





And finally, the new THIRD image, seems deliberately to AVOID the background, as much as possible, plus it's all low-resolution (compared to the original 2 images in much higher res).

Still, the edges of the background DO seem to contain forms.


Original:




Brightened and oversaturated, it's amazing that there's so much yellow color in the soil... as if maybe gold, or maybe just yellow sand:

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Shoujikina

Jarrah White says a lot of things. Rarely are they true.

Dude your literal LAST POST was not true........ as far as I can tell. You and the other guy pretending there was an image dump, which didn't happen.

If it DID happen, please link us a functional link, to see these images.

If there really was an image dump, then it would flip the entire topic upside-down.

And here you guys are just making a claim that it happened, with no evidence of it ever happening.

Your link was not functional. How about a functional link to the massive dump of 5,000 images that you and your friend were "looking at," please?

a reply to: JamesChessman

The odd thing about the pictures in your last post???

No starfield in the surrounding horizon space background….



Hmmmm🤔

👽🛸🍺

a reply to: JamesChessman

You need to actually read what I put. The link posted (not by me) works just fine, China's website is not easy to navigate but it releases new images regularly. I never said they had these photos on their site yet, quite the opposite. Your issue is that they aren't photographing and releasing what you want when you want it - your complaint needs to go to them, not me.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

And there shouldn't be.