"Mars Flower" is CORAL; Photos Censored

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vonclod

You mean the movie Dune? Those other ones don't count.

Yes. Yes, I did. I have the t-shirt. Actually, I'm wearing it right now.

I wouldn't be bummed if there were 2 more parts. The story goes deep. Deep.

I read the original novel as an important classic. And I loved it. But I wasn't sure if I was going to go further with the series than the OG novel. Like for example, I don't think Star Wars is really that interesting after the original trilogy despite all the years of new content now... These are series that can go on forever with new content...

a reply to: JamesChessman

Star Wars is a fable. Light entertainment for adolescents. Nothing more.

The story of Dune is more than that.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

Star Wars is a fable. Light entertainment for adolescents. Nothing more.

The story of Dune is more than that.

Ok. My point was that I liked the original content and I didn't keep up with the decades of new books and movies for each series.

Anyways, yes I acknowledged that I loved the original novel Dune. What "more" do you consider it, please explain?

a reply to: JamesChessman

What "more" do you consider it, please explain?

A highly complex story involving politics, religion and economics. An allegory of the times in which it was written.

Clearly. Not simply a matter of good v evil. Not a "quest."

What do you think melange might represent? Actually?

^I think there's misunderstanding between our posts, like you sound like you're arguing that it's deeper than Star Wars, but I didn't equate them as equal to each other.

What's similar is how their respective series started with something special, but then has continued on with decades of endless new content, since then, and I mostly haven't bothered with it.

I asked how you consider Dune because indeed it's a great book, and yes I agree it's a complex story with politics, religion, economics, etc.

I didn't really look up the book's real-life allegory of the time it was written, that you mentioned, but regardless it obviously describes real life and how the world works between people, countries, politics etc.

Clearly. Not simply a matter of good v evil. Not a "quest."

^Yes, I agree, it's clearly more than Star Wars, it's not just good vs. evil or a quest. Not that I implied any of that, lol, nor did I imply Star Wars was really deep or complex either...

However, with all your negativity against Star Wars... um well it's a bit weird, given that both series are directly RELATED after all, with Dune being one of the obvious main pillars of inspiration behind SW... but fine, I get it, to hate on SW as the shallow, fun movie trilogy, which is just largely based on the much-better book that you love...

What do you think melange might represent? Actually?

I'd engage this conversation except the whole premise is wrong, because I wasn't arguing what you seemed to think, so um well...

a reply to: JamesChessman

What negativity? I enjoyed Star Wars for what it is.

And it ain't Dune.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JamesChessman

What negativity? I enjoyed Star Wars for what it is.

And it ain't Dune.

Alright. What negativity, Idk it seems we just had a non-argument about how a fantastic book is deeper than a goofy movie trilogy, and which we both agree on... lol.

Well so the new Dune movie is good, then maybe I'll consider seeing it sometime, I haven't watched any Dune movies.

I did play a bit of the old computer game / videogame, the one that basically recreates the movie, it's dope and I used it to practice / learn Spanish.

originally posted by: ArMaP
That's one thing I don't like about these new cameras, I still think the old method of uncompressed images (although the files could be compressed before being sent to Earth) was better, as the original images would not suffer from any compression artefacts.

I suppose they think the higher resolution gives them enough of an improvement that can compensate the compression. We should not forget that the connection between Mars and Earth is very slow compared to what we are used to.

I think you're putting too much importance in having the 'raw' format images. The scientists working with the device have all kind of options to get the images and JPEG isn't that bad these days; and they know exactly which compression they are using:

As noted, most data will arrive as JPEG color images. However, suppose an image is received and the rover science and engineering teams are not satisfied with the way it was compressed. Perhaps the compression quality was poor or perhaps something is observed in the image that compels a need to receive an image of higher quality. Data stored in uncompressed form in the DEA can be sent to Earth multiple times, using different compression schemes, until the team is satisfied with the result.

Acquire and Store the Majority of Images Uncompressed

So I really don't see the excessive need for having 'raw' images.

originally posted by: JamesChessman

By the way, above is the linked NASA "raw" images. Which all seem to be in JPEG format, at first glance.

This is what I'd like clarity about... if someone has more clarity on the topic.

Also seem my post above to ArMap; most images downloaded from that camera are simply JPEG images and therefore indeed the best quality available.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

You can see the best images here.

It's not the easiest site to navigate and you need some specific software to see the best images (they are not on a common format), but these are really the best images. They also have JPEG versions of the images.

Also, it's only updated from time to time (maybe three months, judging by the dates), so you will not find the most recent photos there now.

That is a great site; however do keep in mind that even though these are the 'rawest' images you will get they still might be compressed in some way, because they are send that way from mars.
E.g. in the label of image you can clearly see what compression has been used:

INST_CMPRS_MODE = 3
INST_CMPRS_NAME = "JPEG DISCRETE COSINE TRANSFORM (DCT); HUFFMAN/QUALITY"
INST_CMPRS_QUALITY = 65
MSL:INVERSE_LUT_FILE_NAME = MMM_LUT0
PIXEL_AVERAGING_HEIGHT = 8
PIXEL_AVERAGING_WIDTH = 8

I must say it is amazing how much information they put in that label file about all the different properties of the full setup.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Again, I rather think it IS meaningful, as we're talking about TEN THOUSAND IMAGES that Monkey etc. claimed have been published, while Google can find THREE IMAGES.

Google is not an authority on what is or is not on the Internet, Google is just a search engine (and not that good) that has indexed a huge amount of pages on Internet sites.
Does it mean it has indexed all of them? No.

If it hasn't indexed all the pages of all the sites in the Internet it cannot really be used as an indication of existence or not of something.

That's a 10,000 image discrepancy, which seems way beyond nitpicking over a search engine's details, it's TEN THOUSAND IMAGES. I think it would be known by Google and known by the internet in general, if 10,000 images are published, OR NOT...

I had a similar discussion with the owner of another forum (and former ATS member) about the photos taken by the Deep Space Program Science Experiment, also known as Clementine.
The organisations responsible for that mission stated they had a large number of photos taken, some with a resolution of close to 1 metre per pixel, the highest at the time (it was the first mission to use digital cameras), while the other forum owner said he couldn't find them all, so it was not true or they were hiding the photos.
The situation was the same, all the photos were (and are) published on the Planetary Data System site, but either because Google ignores that site or because the site itself asks not to be visited by bots, the fact is that those images do not appear on a Google (or whatever) search.
Do they exist? Yes, I've downloaded them all.

Remember, lack of search results doesn't mean something does not exist, only that it wasn't found by that specific search engine.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Also addendum, to be crystal-clear, I STILL have not seen evidence MYSELF that the Chinese site really is functional.

I DO believe your personal report of registering and downloading the above two images. But even this does not establish that the site is really functional.

If the site isn't really functional, how could I have done all I have reported?

I'm basically saying that the site might just have a few random generic images like that, but without images really being related to anything, such as the specific rover mission that had been looking at the Mystery Hut area...

So, what do you expect, a site that only shows what you are interested in?

Here's one of the links that you just mentioned: moon.bao.ac.cn...

Like last year, the webpage loads to an empty page. It doesn't get stuck while trying to load something more, rather, the page fully loads, but there's no content.

This image was captured on 2022-04-25 at 12:30 (Portuguese time).
(click for full size)

As you can see, the page does have content. If you cannot see it then it's a problem you have, do not blame others (and do not accuse them of having a broken site with false content) when the problem is on your side.

Does the content on the page only appear sporadically? This is what it seems like... which would already seem to establish that the site is essentially not functional or reliable...

It's more likely a problem on your side, I never had a problem accessing that site.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
I think you're putting too much importance in having the 'raw' format images. The scientists working with the device have all kind of options to get the images and JPEG isn't that bad these days; and they know exactly which compression they are using:

I know. I probably put too much importance in having "raw" formats because image quality has been part of my work for several years, so I always look for the best possible.
But, as I said, in situations like this there's a trade off between image quality and the amount of data that needs to be transmitted, so having JPEG compressed images allows them to have more photos that can be transmitted in the short time they have available and the relatively low speed of the communications from Mars to Earth.

So I really don't see the excessive need for having 'raw' images.

I didn't mean they should, only that I would like it.

a reply to: ArMaP

Google is not an authority on what is or is not on the Internet, Google is just a search engine (and not that good) that has indexed a huge amount of pages on Internet sites.
Does it mean it has indexed all of them? No.

If it hasn't indexed all the pages of all the sites in the Internet it cannot really be used as an indication of existence or not of something.

Sir I know. But it IS considered the BEST search engine, and it's at least a good starting point in finding content online, if not the BEST way to search the web.

In that thread, I showed the screenshot multiple times of image-searching the terms of the moon Mystery Hut. Google Images could find THREE IMAGES.

Do I trust Google or do I trust obnoxious forums trolls who are swearing there are THOUSANDS of images that Google can't find or see... and that they refuse to even show one of the images... while linking a glitched-out Chinese website of empty webpages and very dubious listing of "data sets" with phony thumbnails...




...At any rate, yes I think Google would know if there are 10,000 or 25,000 images published or not. Search "moon Mystery Hut" and Google can only find 3 images. At that time, anyway, when the thread was still active.

I know that Google doesn't index every single thing. But 10,000 images or 25,000 images would be expected to have some kind of digital footprint.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
That is a great site; however do keep in mind that even though these are the 'rawest' images you will get they still might be compressed in some way, because they are send that way from mars.

Yes, if the original was already compressed we can only get compressed data. If it compressed with loss of data (like JPEG compression does), then we can never really know what was lost.
I think they can also use lossless compression.

I must say it is amazing how much information they put in that label file about all the different properties of the full setup.

The cameras from the orbiters have much more information, some even show the temperature of the image sensor when the image was captured, as all that can change the way the sensor works.
From a technical point of view is very interesting.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Sir I know. But it IS considered the BEST search engine, and it's at least a good starting point in finding content online, if not the BEST way to search the web.

"The best" (with or without capital letters) is not the same as "perfect".
It is considered the best because it indexes more pages than other search engines, so it can, theoretically, give more results.

In that thread, I showed the screenshot multiple times of image-searching the terms of the moon Mystery Hut. Google Images could find THREE IMAGES.

That shows a problem with your search.
If you are looking for images published by the science team responsible for the images it's obvious they are not going to publish them under the name of "Moon Mystery Hut", so a search with those terms is not going not find any of the original images, only images on pages that have those terms.

Do I trust Google or do I trust obnoxious forums trolls who are swearing there are THOUSANDS of images that Google can't find or see... and that they refuse to even show one of the images... while linking a glitched-out Chinese website of empty webpages and very dubious listing of "data sets" with phony thumbnails...

Again, the site works, if you cannot see it it's a problem you have, it's not a "glitched-out Chinese website".

...At any rate, yes I think Google would know if there are 10,000 or 25,000 images published or not. Search "moon Mystery Hut" and Google can only find 3 images. At that time, anyway, when the thread was still active.

Garbage in, garbage out.
You cannot find the original images with a search like that.

I know that Google doesn't index every single thing. But 10,000 images or 25,000 images would be expected to have some kind of digital footprint.

With the right search terms, yes.
The problem is that Google searches for images the same way it searches for other things: it searches the text, not the image itself (even the image search they use appears to be more about image description and image general characteristics than about the image itself), so it all depends on what words are on the page where those images can be found.

originally posted by: ArMaP
I think they can also use lossless compression.

They definitely can. The way (as far my understanding) it goes is that they get the thumbnails first and based on that decide what to download. Based on that image they can decide to download it with a different compression or none whatsoever.
But it seems like in general they are more then happy with the images they are getting.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Do I trust Google or do I trust obnoxious forums trolls who are swearing there are THOUSANDS of images that Google can't find or see... and that they refuse to even show one of the images... while linking a glitched-out Chinese website of empty webpages and very dubious listing of "data sets" with phony thumbnails...

With the help of the posts of @ArMaP (and others in the other thread) I was also able to rather simply download pictures from the Chinese moon missions. Just a few things:

- Indeed the registration process doesn't seem to work properly from their main site; I failed there too, but succeeded on the specific moon mission page; just like you did.

- You most likely won't be able to watch the images on your Apple/Mac machine (unless you run a Windows emulator or alike). It looks like their tool (Grass view.exe ) to view the images is only available for Windows.

- You won't be able to find any images of the "moon mystery hut" (which is a rock in the end) since they are not available on the Chinese website yet; If I understand correctly the rock was seen somewhere early December 2021. However the last images on the website are from around April 2021. So indeed they are lagging behind in uploading the images to their public website.

- The same seems to apply more or less to the thumbnails displayed on the website; The newer images all have a generic thumbnails; however the older ones do have proper thumbnails representing the image.


Although I said 'rather simply' in the beginning the website is just a bit sluggish and slow by times; You have to treat it with a bit of love, but it works very well and indeed there are thousand and thousands of pictures availabe for downloading.

a reply to: ArMaP

I had a similar discussion with the owner of another forum (and former ATS member) about the photos taken by the Deep Space Program Science Experiment, also known as Clementine.
The organisations responsible for that mission stated they had a large number of photos taken, some with a resolution of close to 1 metre per pixel, the highest at the time (it was the first mission to use digital cameras), while the other forum owner said he couldn't find them all, so it was not true or they were hiding the photos.
The situation was the same, all the photos were (and are) published on the Planetary Data System site, but either because Google ignores that site or because the site itself asks not to be visited by bots, the fact is that those images do not appear on a Google (or whatever) search.
Do they exist? Yes, I've downloaded them all.

Remember, lack of search results doesn't mean something does not exist, only that it wasn't found by that specific search engine.

Well OK... but now you're seemingly equating the site from NASA, which is clearly a functional site that contains folders of images... versus the Chinese site which really is not convincing that it's even a functional website, let alone containing images, let alone containing images of the Mystery Hut, etc.

This is the site from NASA that you're referencing, I believe:
pds-imaging.jpl.nasa.gov...

It has folders of images. Regardless that I don't have the software to use with it, it's clear that it's folders of images.


Here's YOUR last link that YOU gave to the Chinese site, and it doesn't work, lol.

moon.bao.ac.cn...

Nice background though. Maybe the webpage only has content during certain hours of the day?



Beyond that, when I have seen content on the Chinese site, the "data sets" never promise an "image" or "images" anywhere, while the thumbnails are phony: The thumbs include the same exact image repeated for multiple listings, hence they're not actually thumbs.

Broken webpages, fake thumbnails, broken registration that got fixed after I complained that it was broken, the whole site just seems a mess of phony garbage.





...And really, what I was looking for was images of the Mystery Hut object. THAT is what is relevant re: the Chinese site and the thread on the moon hut.

So it would still be irrelevant if you can unlock thousands of images on that site and there's still no more images of the Mystery Hut, then it will still all be irrelevant, the topic was that I was looking for images of the object.




...There's still been no evidence of any more than 3 images ever being published of the Mystery Hut object, and it's not just Google, it's the entire internet... plus it's physical media as well. Newspapers, magazines, TV news programs. It's the ENTIRE WORLD.

No one has published more than the 3 images, and this is what we're really discussing in that thread.




At some point, there needs to be evidence that something actually does exist, or the total lack of evidence suggests that it doesn't.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Here's YOUR last link that YOU gave to the Chinese site, and it doesn't work, lol.

moon.bao.ac.cn...

Nice background though. Maybe the webpage only has content during certain hours of the day?

That site works for me, takes a few seconds to connect to the database and load the list of thumbnails but it does show up. Maybe clear your browsers cache or try another browser?

Beyond that, when I have seen content on the Chinese site, the "data sets" never promise an "image" or "images" anywhere, while the thumbnails are phony: The thumbs include the same exact image repeated for multiple listings, hence they're not actually thumbs.

See my post above; It looks like the thumbnails are lagging behind the uploaded pictures; however each picture with the same thumbnail I've downloaded was definitely a different picture each time.

Broken webpages, fake thumbnails, broken registration that got fixed after I complained that it was broken, the whole site just seems a mess of phony garbage.

Again: I'm not going to say the site is perfect, but it does work for me.

...And really, what I was looking for was images of the Mystery Hut object. THAT is what is relevant re: the Chinese site and the thread on the moon hut.

You won't find the 'mystery hut' pictures on their website (yet). I don't know what/how/when/if etc they will get uploaded; that is up to the them; complain there.

...There's still been no evidence of any more than 3 images ever being published of the Mystery Hut object, and it's not just Google, it's the entire internet... plus it's physical media as well. Newspapers, magazines, TV news programs. It's the ENTIRE WORLD.

No one has published more than the 3 images, and this is what we're really discussing in that thread.

They have released more images of the hut and it turns out to be a rock:
www.space.com...