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

originally posted by: JamesChessman
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.).

That's what I tried to show with my video.
In it I tried to reproduce what I think I see in the photo with the different heights, so if I'm right in my interpretation of the shape of the ground, we are not seeing the whole shadow.

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.

Look at the photos of the cube, the only one with a three-sided shadow is the one with the Sun shining perpendicular to one face, creating a three-sided shadow. A cube cannot make a shadow like we see on the boulder photo unless we are not seeing the whole shadow, and if we are not seeing the whole shadow than it can have any shape.

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.

Only an ignorant amateur would draw a shadow like that for a rectangular building.
I learned technical drawing and descriptive geometry (which is mostly based in projections of 3D objects in two perpendicular planes), a rectangular building cannot create a shadow like that, in the same way a cube cannot create a shadow like that (both are parallelepipeds).

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.

And you would be wrong.

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.

Exactly. If we had two photos (the panoramic camera is a stereo camera) we could get an much better idea of the layout of the whole scene.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
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.

That's not a photo, that's a panorama created with several photos. The photos in which the camera was pointing almost in the direction of the Sun got some glare, so when they were joined to the other photos to create the panorama the result is an image with several glares that get smaller from right to left.

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

Completely black or white areas do not have any detail, that's why we should avoid increased contrast.
I hope those images had their contrast increased for publishing and the originals show something more.

a reply to: ArMaP

If I cube CAN'T make the shadow as it appears... well if so, then I hadn't realized that.

But I would need to put some time into that, to get a grip on seeing that / understanding that.

...I had thought it looked like a POSSIBLE shadow from a cube / building shape, if the light source was in such a way. But I hadn't tried to test it.




But also:
I did say that it reminds me of graphic novel art style, which includes exaggerated artwork / stylistic artwork.


So I was acknowledging that it might be reminding me of (unrealistic) comicbook artwork, more than real-life.







Anyway:
I'll look back at what u posted, and I'll probably end up grabbing my own small box of some kind, to experiment with my desk lamp lol.

I believe you're probably correct, but so I need to get a grip on seeing / understanding it.

a reply to: ArMaP

That's not a photo, that's a panorama created with several photos. The photos in which the camera was pointing almost in the direction of the Sun got some glare, so when they were joined to the other photos to create the panorama the result is an image with several glares that get smaller from right to left.

Ok yes, thanks. That does make sense for those glare spots.

Completely black or white areas do not have any detail, that's why we should avoid increased contrast.
I hope those images had their contrast increased for publishing and the originals show something more.

^Agreed, I complained about it a while ago, that the 2 Hole images are practically impossible to see anything clearly. There's just the obvious hole and scattered rocks, but we can't make out the individual scattered stones, for example.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
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.

Although off topic, I think I should intervene in this discussion.

The fact is that home computers appeared in the 70s and during the 80s became big business in the US. The success of the home computers during the 70s was the reason why several manufacturers created their own versions during the 80s, including IBM with its Personal Computer line. As they were in a hurry to enter the personal computer market, they used common components instead of custom-made components, and that, along with the fact that the operating system was also not IBM made allowed the appearing of the PC clones.

Besides that, while PC clones used Intel CPUs, other computers started using Motorola CPUs, that were better in some respects. Also, the 80s saw the widespread use of 16 bits CPUs, and with them more available memory and higher resolution screens that would allow the use of Graphical User Interfaces, with one of the first to use a GUI being the Macintosh.

All that happened in the US, and although many were marketed as a business tool, many were used for games, you just have to look at the lists of games available for all of those different computers.

The British home computers were a result of the original offerings coming from the US, but as they were (usually) cheaper they had a large market among the people that could not afford an US-built computer (the prices usually were the same, only converted from dollars to pounds, so a 2000 dollars computer resulted in a 2000 pound computer for the UK)

The Commodore VIC-20 came out in 1980, and here's the list of games available.
VIC-20 games list
It was the first computer to sell more than one million units.

A little after IBM launched the PC the first games started to appear, and that included Microsoft's Flight Simulator, released in 1982. When the market started to get flooded with PC clones the prices dropped and people started to buy PC clones for their own homes, as many were already used to them at work.

The growth of the consoles offerings in the late 80s was also a result of the PC clones getting the largest part of the games market, so the console makers had to make special hardware to grab a larger piece of the consumers ready to spend money on hardware and games, and a way of recovering from the video game crash of 1983.

If you look at the number of game producers during the 80s and the platforms they were developing for you can see that PC gaming was big business during that decade.

- Broderbund Software, Inc., known mostly because of Lode Runner (1983, for Apple II, Atari 8-bit family, VIC-20, Commodore 64, and IBM PC). In 1983 they had 13 million dollars in sales;
- MicroProse, 10 million dollars in sales in 1986;
- Sierra On-Line, Inc. (as I knew them), know for King's Quest (1984) and Space Quest, (1986), 12.5 million dollars in sales in 1983;
- Accolade, 5 million dollars in sales in 1986;
- Electronic Arts, mostly a game distributor, started in 1982;
- Lucasfilm Games, created in 1982 and best known for the Monkey Island and Indiana Jones series, Maniac Mansion (and its sequel, that is considered one of the best games of all times (I agree with that classification, it's one of my all time favourites)), Day of the Tentacle;
- Activision, founded in 1979, with sales estimated at 157 million dollars in 1983.

I think the biggest source of confusion here is an age difference, as those old enough to have witnessed it through the 80s like me (although only through magazines), know how things really happened.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Anyway:
I'll look back at what u posted, and I'll probably end up grabbing my own small box of some kind, to experiment with my desk lamp lol.

I believe you're probably correct, but so I need to get a grip on seeing / understanding it.

That's why I'm a big fan of making my own tests, that's the best way of seeing how things really are.

Too bad we cannot do that in most cases, but for simple things like these, we sure can.

a reply to: ArMaP
^Awesome information, I appreciate the stats, and you're obviously more familiar with such details than I am.

But also: To clarify:

I think the biggest source of confusion here is an age difference, as those old enough to have witnessed it through the 80s like me (although only through magazines), know how things really happened.

^Your assumptions are wrong, about my age, apparently, and it's also pretty bizarre to assume that you are the only person here who "knows how things really happened," in the 80's in the US... going by magazines you read in the UK. And apparently you think you "witnessed" the 80's in America, better than people who actually lived here.

If it needs to be clarified:

I DID live through the 80's here in the US, I was born in 1982, and I don't think there's really much sensible debate, when someone mentions his childhood, whether he can "know how things really happened," i.e. whether I can accurately describe the tech landscape that I grew up in.

I know that SOME adults report not being able to remember their childhood, like before the age of 12 or 14 or whatever, but that's not my own experience at all.

I actually DO remember my childhood, very clearly... and if people assume that others CAN'T remember their own childhood, I can only wonder if that comes from those individuals losing THEIR own memory, of THEIR own childhood, and assuming the same on others.

Myself, I've always kept clear memory of my life, and I don't think there's anything special about retaining one's own memory of his own life. It rather seems a minimum level of human functioning.


So I seem to be the only person in the thread, who actually lived through the 1980's in the US, and I've been describing the common life experience of being a kid in the 80's and 90's.

It's just bizarre to have people from other countries seemingly trying to disagree with me about my own childhood experience, and whether or not my childhood experience reflects what was happening.

Anyways, the answer is yes. My childhood memories are accurate, and yes, it WAS representative of normal-life in the 80's and 90's.

I wasn't overly isolated either, if that's what people are imagining, nope. 1980's I saw other kids' houses, they were consistent.

I don't know what people are imagining but the fact is that practically nobody had a computer in the 80's especially, and obviously things started to catch on in the later 90's.


The 80's home environment was based on a TV set, soon accompanied by a VCR and a Nintendo Entertainment System. That's the normal American 80's experience, and I have no idea what you guys are imagining otherwise.

(As I was born in '82, I missed out on the Atari scene, and I think kids my age just grew up in a void of videogames, before the NES blew up.)








I also think the conversation must be getting lost in the haze somewhere.

It's not exactly a matter of throwing around tech company stats and sales figures, because THAT'S not really directly related to describing normal-life for most-people in the 80's and 90's.

You guys are basically quoting tech dates and sales figures, and then using that to wrongly assume what normal life must have been for normal people, it's not really how it works.

The American innovators and tech celebrities are basically an insulated topic, in-and-of itself, and quite separate from describing normal life in those decades.



I think you're taking wrong conclusions from the information you quoted:

All that happened in the US, and although many were marketed as a business tool, many were used for games, you just have to look at the lists of games available for all of those different computers.

^No, not really. The existence of said computer games is NOT an indicator that such computers and games were actually a presence in most Americans' lives. They weren't.

Through the 80's and 90's, most Americans only saw computers in libraries, i.e. public libraries, and school libraries. Computers were a presence for us, in THAT way, in the 80's & 90's.

But that's not a gaming scene, and I honestly NEVER saw or heard of a computer gaming scene in the US in the 80's & most-of-the-90's.

The 80's involved kids maybe playing with a computer for 30 minutes during a trip to the public library. (Basically that was my first contact with computers in the 80's, it was just glancing at a few simple educational programs, for a few minutes.)

80's school computer experience was likewise very limited, we would always have a tiny bit of practice typing an occasional small paper. As the main focus.

And when we did glance at games, it was so minimal that it was practically nonexistent. For example it was popular for a while to play Oregon Trail for a few minutes. This is not an active gaming scene.

Meanwhile, the same exact kids were going home and playing Super Mario Bros. for HOURS every day. These kids themselves wouldn't know anything about computer gaming if you had asked them, they'd mention that they play Oregon Trail for about 5 minutes at a time, if they finished their typing assignment a few minutes early.

Then during the 90's, early highschool, I took an elective course: CAD (computer-assisted drawing) because I personally enjoy drawing. But CAD was all about drawing houses, so at the time, I didn't appreciate it, how I probably should have.

I believe my CAD course was 1995-1996.

From THAT time period, we were still before the late-90's explosion of common usage internet and personal computers.

So in that class, '95-'96, teenagers would use their free time... not to surf the web, nor were they playing your quoted lists of computer games.

I clearly remember exactly THREE popular things: Doom, more than anything. And Minesweeper. And MS Paint.

That's an accurate snapshot of the normal teenager's extremely-limited exposure, to the computer gaming scene in 1995-1996.

Maybe what people don't realize is that actual free time with computers was STILL severely limited, all the way thru most-of-the-90's.

(So in my CAD class, teenagers were lucky if they could sneak in 5-10 minutes of Doom / Minesweeper / MS Paint.)

Then figure that it was probably their total exposure to computers, with the class maybe 2 or 3 times a week.

It's still practically no computer gaming scene.

Then just like the 80's kids going home to their Nintendo's: 90's kids went home to our Sega Genesis / SNES, etc.

So maybe it's part of the confusion, that 80's and 90's kids were absolutely pouring untold HOURS into console videogames... yet not spending hours at computers, or computer games.

a reply to: ArMaP

Likewise, I think your stats are more indicating that American companies were supporting your own country's computer scene, and computer gaming scene, in the UK and Europe etc.

It doesn't mean that there was an equivalent scene also happening here, because it wasn't:

The British home computers were a result of the original offerings coming from the US, but as they were (usually) cheaper they had a large market among the people that could not afford an US-built computer (the prices usually were the same, only converted from dollars to pounds, so a 2000 dollars computer resulted in a 2000 pound computer for the UK)

The Commodore VIC-20 came out in 1980, and here's the list of games available.
VIC-20 games list
It was the first computer to sell more than one million units.

A little after IBM launched the PC the first games started to appear, and that included Microsoft's Flight Simulator, released in 1982. When the market started to get flooded with PC clones the prices dropped and people started to buy PC clones for their own homes, as many were already used to them at work.

The growth of the consoles offerings in the late 80s was also a result of the PC clones getting the largest part of the games market, so the console makers had to make special hardware to grab a larger piece of the consumers ready to spend money on hardware and games, and a way of recovering from the video game crash of 1983.

If you look at the number of game producers during the 80s and the platforms they were developing for you can see that PC gaming was big business during that decade.

- Broderbund Software, Inc., known mostly because of Lode Runner (1983, for Apple II, Atari 8-bit family, VIC-20, Commodore 64, and IBM PC). In 1983 they had 13 million dollars in sales;
- MicroProse, 10 million dollars in sales in 1986;
- Sierra On-Line, Inc. (as I knew them), know for King's Quest (1984) and Space Quest, (1986), 12.5 million dollars in sales in 1983;
- Accolade, 5 million dollars in sales in 1986;
- Electronic Arts, mostly a game distributor, started in 1982;
- Lucasfilm Games, created in 1982 and best known for the Monkey Island and Indiana Jones series, Maniac Mansion (and its sequel, that is considered one of the best games of all times (I agree with that classification, it's one of my all time favourites)), Day of the Tentacle;
- Activision, founded in 1979, with sales estimated at 157 million dollars in 1983.

...Not to mention that some of those companies were also making console games, obvious examples being Accolade, Electronic Arts, Lucasfilm Games, and Activision.

So for such companies, the 80's and 90's, actually had the US receiving dedicated console games from them, including CONSOLE PORTS of computer games.

And this is just all the more proof of the lack of a computer scene. We were getting computer games ported to our consoles, because we had consoles instead of computers.

Myself, I have several early 90's releases from Electronic Arts for Sega Genesis, i.e. computer games ported to Sega, for Americans without a computer. Budokan, Zany Golf. The brilliant STARFLIGHT. The small, awesome isometric dungeon explorer, The Immortal.



Lucasfilm Games, I have Monkey Island for Sega CD, plus Star Wars Chess, etc.

Those are all computer-console ports that I've collected... whereas Activision is famous to me for Atari Pitfall, and I'm not really familiar with their computer games. But I do own original Pitfall, as included within the 90's new-Pitfall title, which I own for Genesis, and its BEST version on Sega CD, plus its questionable version on Sega 32x.



And...Accolade is just memorable to me, for seeing their name on a lot of Sega Genesis titles, in general. So it's like Activision, that I'm only familiar with their console games, and not their computer stuff. But glancing now, Accolade did port Star Control from computers onto Genesis. However, mostly I just know Accolade for multi-plat console titles, most that I wasn't very attached to.

However, I do like Bubsy, as a Sonic rip-off, and Zero Tolerance is actually really solid.




^So I think the take-away is that your quoted examples are actually rendered as showing the lack of a common American computer scene. As evidenced by all the computer-to-console ports, for us Americans with consoles and no computer.

And in terms of the quoted companies' success, they were multinationals, presumably with most sales of common computer products in foreign countries, and presumably most domestic success with their CONSOLE games.



(To be crystal clear, we're discussing normal life for most Americans in those decades. It's a separate topic that I'm sure American businesses must have been using computers in those same decades, that's insulated / separate from normal daily life for most people.

It's likewise separate that there were surely always extremely small oases of tech advancement, like Silicon Valley and wherever else, which were always ahead of everyone, but also always extremely limited and self-contained areas like that.)

...Also if there might be an implication or assumption that I'm young because I'm interested in mysterious topics, that's almost insulting, and shows how close-minded people are / how limited their life experiences are.

For the record, my lifelong interest in mysterious topics goes back to the fact that I saw a ghost / entity in my bedroom when I was probably 5 years old. This is not a PROVABLE experience for anyone else. Such experiences are for the individual only.

The experience mostly-proved to me, the existence of ghosts / mysterious entities.

Funny enough I didn't consider it 100% convincing though, I considered myself about 90% convinced, for most of my life.

Because that's about as convincing as possible. The context was my bedroom so there was always the potential of everything being dismissed as a dream, although it was a vivid, wide-awake, shocking experience. And I never confused dreams with reality, I can even remember some childhood dreams as DREAMS. Heck I can even remember some of my childhood day-dreams, as day-dreams.

So the childhood experience was about 90% convincing to me, the existence of ghosts / mysterious entities that live among us.

I've effectively continued the same exact beliefs my entire life, that ghosts "live" among us. In fact, I don't think there was ever a time that I DIDN'T believe in ghosts. I had childhood books about ghosts, and my early-80's media landscape of cartoons and toys always included ghosts. And my family always believed too.

So it's the same beliefs for my entire life, from the earliest possible age.




The ONLY thing that changed in my beliefs is that eventually, I was convinced from 90% up to 100%.

But that event happened in my late 30's, in 2018.

So it did convince me 100% finally, in 2018. My recently deceased cat (RIP) visited me as a ghost, several times after he died. I saw and heard him, plus my living animals ALSO responded to his sight and sound, on 2 separate occasions, and it was 2 different living animals that responded.

So there's my timeline of being convinced of the reality of ghosts living among us. I didn't form my beliefs rashly as it took till my late 30's to find myself 100% convinced, as per the events of that time.





As for believing in aliens, it's actually nothing compared to believing in ghosts living among us all the time. It's a much less crazy idea lol to believe in other physical entities that are much the same as ourselves.

Anyway to say the least, if an individual has never seen a UFO that's convincingly alien, then that person just hasn't spent enough time looking at the stars. It's beautiful and relaxing, and you'll eventually see a few.

I've seen at least THREE UFO's that were very convincingly alien, on 3 separate occasions.




So that's my stats of belief and interest in mysterious topics.

If people assume it's only for younger aged people, that's incriminating on the people thinking such things, as being very close-minded, and very limited-experience.




The truth is that there's nothing age-related... and it's not mutually exclusive to being intelligent or even a genius, and also holding belief/interest, in ghosts and mysterious topics.

And if anyone feels they "grew out of it," being interested in ghosts and mysteries, then that's a pity. I think we should stay interested our entire lives.

Something else I just thought of re: 90's tech: my mom went to college as an adult, while I was in middleschool / jr. highschool. I'm not sure what exact years her college attendance was, but she might have graduated in 1996 or 1997...

While her college had computer labs of course, she didn't own a computer, and instead, to type her papers, she bought a "word processor" which was actually pretty interesting for being such a limited, in-between product. It looked like a computer at a glance... but it was genuinely meant only for writing & editing, & saving files onto floppy disks.

Pretty neat machine though, because it was OK for her writing needs, and it actually seemed like a computer running a normal Word program, with all the normal functionality of such a program.

But that was basically the only thing it could do. And its screen only had one color, yellow I think, against black background.

So it seemed like a computer running Word, with yellow letters on black background, and there was basically no other functionality of the thing.

Except there actually were a few games / programs built in, like 4 or 5, including Missile Command as the one I remember, because I liked it.

Funny enough, the built-in games showed that the machine was capable of more than writing, although it was still really only meant for writing.

So it was an oddball machine, it was barely a step above a typewriter, and it looked / functioned like a personal computer limited to writing functions.



I wonder if she has that thing laying around in storage somewhere, I'd be interested to check it out again, if I could.


I remember asking her why she bought such a weird product, when she could just buy an actual computer, or just not buy anything and use the computers at college.

At the time, she considered it impossible to buy an actual computer, for cost and for not quite being needed, whereas the word processor was relatively cheap, and fit her college-writing needs. Funny enough it was also premised on using the college computers because she'd still need to bring her floppies to computer lab and print her papers.

I wish I could pinpoint the year better but it was sometime in the mid 90's, and quite an in-between tech landscape.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^Your assumptions are wrong, about my age, apparently, and it's also pretty bizarre to assume that you are the only person here who "knows how things really happened," in the 80's in the US... going by magazines you read in the UK.

My assumptions about your age are not wrong, your age is what I was expecting it to be.

And no, I didn't read the magazines in the UK as I never lived there, I'm Portuguese.

And apparently you think you "witnessed" the 80's in America, better than people who actually lived here.

What I meant to say is that people that were old enough to understand the market and technology at the time were in a better position to know how things were.

I DID live through the 80's here in the US, I was born in 1982, and I don't think there's really much sensible debate, when someone mentions his childhood, whether he can "know how things really happened," i.e. whether I can accurately describe the tech landscape that I grew up in.

That's another thing, we are not talking about the tech landscape you grew up in, we are talking about the global tech landscape in the US during that time.

So I seem to be the only person in the thread, who actually lived through the 1980's in the US, and I've been describing the common life experience of being a kid in the 80's and 90's.

I don't know if M5xaz lived in the US during the 80s or not, I'm sure I did not.

It's just bizarre to have people from other countries seemingly trying to disagree with me about my own childhood experience, and whether or not my childhood experience reflects what was happening.

I'm not disagreeing with your childhood experience (how could I?), I'm only trying to show (from my point of view, obviously) that the sentence "the United States was relatively behind-the-curve with computers in those decades" was not true.

I wasn't overly isolated either, if that's what people are imagining, nope. 1980's I saw other kids' houses, they were consistent.

I don't know what people are imagining but the fact is that practically nobody had a computer in the 80's especially, and obviously things started to catch on in the later 90's.

Did you know people all over the country at the time?

You guys are basically quoting tech dates and sales figures, and then using that to wrongly assume what normal life must have been for normal people, it's not really how it works.

The games sales mean that people bought them, what do you think they bought them for?

So maybe it's part of the confusion, that 80's and 90's kids were absolutely pouring untold HOURS into console videogames... yet not spending hours at computers, or computer games.

So, who was buying the games?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Likewise, I think your stats are more indicating that American companies were supporting your own country's computer scene, and computer gaming scene, in the UK and Europe etc.

Computers were too expensive for most European families, the US market was the big one.

And my country is Portugal.

And in terms of the quoted companies' success, they were multinationals, presumably with most sales of common computer products in foreign countries, and presumably most domestic success with their CONSOLE games.

The biggest market was the US.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
...Also if there might be an implication or assumption that I'm young because I'm interested in mysterious topics, that's almost insulting, and shows how close-minded people are / how limited their life experiences are.

One advice: do not try to assume what other people think, as you are very likely to fail, and this is another example.

I assumed your age based on the things you said, not because you are interested in mysterious topics.

And as for other people, why do you think they post on threads about mysterious topics? Why do you think I'm been posting on ATS (mostly on the Aliens & UFOs forum, although my first post was on a thread about Atlantis) since 2004?

For the record, my lifelong interest in mysterious topics goes back to the fact that I saw a ghost / entity in my bedroom when I was probably 5 years old. This is not a PROVABLE experience for anyone else. Such experiences are for the individual only.

I don't know what I saw when I was maybe 12 or 13 years old, I only know that it was a kind of a 3 metres tall and wide shadow that moved along an outside wall in a house that had been empty for several years.

As for believing in aliens, it's actually nothing compared to believing in ghosts living among us all the time. It's a much less crazy idea lol to believe in other physical entities that are much the same as ourselves.

I believe in the possibility of the existence of alien life, I just never saw clear evidence of any of them visiting Earth.

Anyway to say the least, if an individual has never seen a UFO that's convincingly alien, then that person just hasn't spent enough time looking at the stars. It's beautiful and relaxing, and you'll eventually see a few.

I still spend some time looking at the sky whenever I can, day or night, but I never saw any thing that was convincingly not from Earth. Maybe some people are harder to convince than others.

I've seen at least THREE UFO's that were very convincingly alien, on 3 separate occasions.

I never saw one, but my grandmother and an ex work colleague saw a cigar shaped UFO during the UFO flap of the 70s in Portugal.

If people assume it's only for younger aged people, that's incriminating on the people thinking such things, as being very close-minded, and very limited-experience.

And what about the people that assume things about what other people assume and think they are close-minded because of that?
Assuming that you know what other people are thinking is a sure way of failing.

The truth is that there's nothing age-related... and it's not mutually exclusive to being intelligent or even a genius, and also holding belief/interest, in ghosts and mysterious topics.

And if anyone feels they "grew out of it," being interested in ghosts and mysteries, then that's a pity. I think we should stay interested our entire lives.

You are the only one talking about that, nobody mentioned any thing like that.

As I said before, my assumption about your age was based on the things you said before about yourself and partly in the way in write, not on your beliefs or your tastes, that would be silly.

a reply to: JamesChessman

I never saw one of those word-processing machines in my life, in fact, the only place I have seen them is in American movies, maybe it was more of an US thing, I don't know.

And yes, there were some computers that used an yellow (or amber, I think they called it) monochromatic screen. They were better than the green ones, those were worst for the eyes, at least for me.

PS: read your messages.

One thing, this sentence:

I think the biggest source of confusion here is an age difference, as those old enough to have witnessed it through the 80s like me (although only through magazines), know how things really happened.

would be more correctly written as:

I think the biggest source of confusion here is an age difference, as those old enough to have witnessed it through the 80s like me (although only through magazines) had a different understanding of things as the happened.

a reply to: ArMaP

My assumptions about your age are not wrong, your age is what I was expecting it to be.

What, lol. I had thought you were implying that I wasn't born yet in the 80's, so that I couldn't report on what happened in that decade.

Then what did you mean when you said something about age limiting ability to report the experience of the 80's?

This is your quote:

I think the biggest source of confusion here is an age difference, as those old enough to have witnessed it through the 80s like me (although only through magazines), know how things really happened.

If you know that my entire early childhood was the 80's, then how in the world would I be unable to describe that decade?

Are you one of those people who assume that other people can't remember their childhood?

a reply to: ArMaP

And no, I didn't read the magazines in the UK as I never lived there, I'm Portuguese.

Ok I obviously swapped the countries, my mistake -- The UK is prominent in the topic itself, and pg. 25 there's at least one person referencing being in the UK, and the other guy trolling about the topic, I had been wondering if he was supposed to be from the UK.

So my mistake w/ mentioning the UK when I mentioned you, but the rest of my statement still stands, then:

...Pretty bizarre to assume that you are the only person here who "knows how things really happened," in the 80's in the US... going by magazines you read in...Portugal.

Also to clarify things about the UK:

I'm mostly-unfamiliar, but my impression is that... the UK was a center of computer software development, thru the 80's & 90's.

This seems part of a general computer scene, that was lively in the UK & Europe etc., and which was mostly-absent in the US, thru the same time.




...I know less about Portugal but I would guess that it's probably one of the tangential areas which experienced something of that general computer scene in those decades, which was mostly absent in the US, during that same time...

a reply to: ArMaP

What I meant to say is that people that were old enough to understand the market and technology at the time were in a better position to know how things were.

Well this is along the lines of my earlier response. It's just bizarre to assume that people can't accurately report their childhood and the general tech landscape that they grew up in.

It's not something mysterious to know what machines were around oneself during one's childhood, as well as friends' houses, and libraries.

As I was born in '82, I have pretty clear memory of life in the 80's.

In 1990-1991, I was in 3rd grade, which was memorable for having crushes on girls, and playing NES games.

You guys think I can't remember such things or what lol. I pity people who CAN'T remember their childhood.

a reply to: ArMaP

That's another thing, we are not talking about the tech landscape you grew up in, we are talking about the global tech landscape in the US during that time.

^Well it was my conversation before it was yours, and specifically it came from that guy who was trolling me, and he was really saying nothing at all.

So originally, there really was no conversation.

There was a guy trolling me, about the normal American tech landscape in the 80's and 90's.




So you actually jumped into a non-existent conversation.

And now you wrongly tried to clarify the original conversation.



The TRUTH is that the original conversation never existed; there was a guy trolling about it, and truly saying nothing at all.