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

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

There aren't "PDS Websites", there are websites hosting images in PDS format - an internationally agreed standard for posting images taken by satellites and space probes. Had you been prepared to listen to the information you were given, you would have acquired some understanding about them and how to open them. You weren't. The PDS format was relevant, because it relatesd to a discussion about what other images China had made available.

Yes they ARE "PDS websites" and if the phrase didn't work, then you wouldn't know what I was referring to. ;D

You are not a source of information, to be listened to, you're poison. Including this right here. Haven't we established by now that there is no Mac-compatible software to use with these sites.

So if macOS can't work with PDS format, then what would someone learn to do with the PDS format, in macOS. See you don't even make sense lol.

Do you know of some software that can work in macOS with the PDS format? I assume you don't because you would say it, instead of just saying vague stuff you're saying. But so obviously if there's not software to use in macOS then it's not relevant to discuss PDS format or either of the related websites, including your input right here.

relatesd to a discussion about what other images China had made available.

No, lol. There's no such thing as a relevant discussion about "what other images China had made available." The only images relevant are from the same rover mission as the Mystery Hut images. And we've already established that images from THAT rover mission have NOT been made available anywhere.

After many pages of debate….I make an attempt here to show what seems as an impossibility based on the title of this thread.

Below, a conceptualized gif using the OP’s own manipulation picture and my superimposing impossibility.

Imo I just don’t see this ever happening….that is to say we are being blocked by the Chinese or whomever else, from seeing actual blocks of structures, buildings, on the surface of the moon.



The OP wants to believe there are structures such as buildings of some design, and that’s his prerogative…..a view not shared by all including myself.

It’s ok for the OP to believe what he believes.

Forums and threads are like T.V. Channels …. if you don’t like what you read or see… change the channel.

The OP requires like minded members, who will agree that the OP pictures are hiding some sort of truth. So far as it has been written and shown in these pages, the OP lacks like minded members, including myself, to support his assertions. And that to is ok, we all have our opinions. That’s ATS.

👽🛸🥃

originally posted by: JamesChessman
-- Despite the endless posts of other people's false statements, and despite ArMaP's wrong assumptions the other day, the fact is that I've been correct that there are ONLY THREE IMAGES PUBLISHED SO FAR, of the Mystery Hut.

Assumptions were not real, assuming my web searching was somehow too limited, nope. There have actually been only 3 images published... duh.

They were not assumptions, they were possibilities based on the way Google (and other search engines) work.
What I wrote was:

It's possible for Google not to have indexed those pages either because they do not want to or because the site itself has an indication for search engines to ignore it.

So while I appreciate the actual positive input, your previous post was wrong assumptions about someone else's searching, and wrong assumptions about published images. Which you could have just checked, before jumping in with wrong assumptions about everything, but OK we've thankfully cleared this up now. Nobody's perfect, and all that, and what matters is the bigger picture of clearing everything up.

So jumping to assumptions, as I said above.
And as my time is limited and I have more things to do I was presenting one possible explanation for Google only finding 3 photos, also as a reaction to the way you appeared to consider Google as some kind of perfect search engine.

-- Similarly, we've established that NO NEW IMAGES HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED anywhere, from the same rover mission with the Mystery Hut object... even despite Monkey offering a link to a Twitter feed. His link was garbage, its image is so low-res that I honestly never imagined that he was referring to THAT chunk of pixels as being "new mages," it does NOT count as "new images" in my eyes.

We haven't. The fact we cannot find them doesn't mean they weren't published.
The only way of knowing how may were published is to ask directly the Chinese space agency or that site.

If people think that's debatable, well that's your choice how you consider such low-res crayon drawings, as "images" or not.

You interpretation of what images are or not is terribly flawed.

I don't, and I think it's most objectively true that little tiny meme-style pics really are not acceptable to be considered as "published images."

Published is published, regardless of the size.

-- Along those lines, when Monkey gave the link, he SAID TO LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND, which is solid black.

If I'm not mistaken, he said "It's in the background here in their twitter feed", and that rock really is on the background (the things at the back of the scene) on the top image.

If he had said to look AT THE IMAGE, then THAT would have been the focus, but he presented the link and said to look at its "background" which would normally be interpreted as... the background at his link, i.e. solid black.

Background in this context can have at least meanings: whatever is behind a scene or whatever is at the far end of the scene. In this case, when I looked at the photo I saw that the background was the sky and, naturally, looked at the background of the scene, and saw the rock there.

Do I think Monkey etc. are willfully dishonest, and willfully spreading wrong information & creating confusion, on purpose? Yes, I do think so. (And it's obviously NOT a context for anyone to learn anything, from such poisonous people.)

Based on the posting history I have seen from OneBigMonkeyToo and in what he wrote on the thread, that's not my interpretation.

The guy who embedded a screenshot in the thread, he even wrongly called them "thumbnails," which they're not. And he was basically promoting the site, even he misunderstood the "placeholder thumbnails."

You appear to have problems with the definitions of a few words.
A thumbnail is smaller version of a bigger image, so even those placeholder thumbnails are real thumbnails.
It's true the placeholder thumbnails are not a smaller version of the original images, but they are thumbnails.

Along the lines of constructive criticism of the site, well, really, THREE different registration processes... with the first one broken, and then two separate working registrations... It's a mess to even write it in a sentence.

Could you point to the third I didn't find?
Thanks in advance.

And I don't want to belabor things, already mentioned, but whatever browser problem I had, still reflects badly on the site too, come on lol.

Not really, as when making a site it's impossible to know what people are going to use, even when we try it in all common browsers, as the user may have a different combination of browser and screen size or zoom level, etc. that changes things. It's not possible to try all the possible combinations and see if it works.
That's one of the reasons I don't like to make websites.

So I haven't been wrong about the awful impressions that I got from the site, admittedly as a noob, regardless, my bad impressions came from objectively broken aspects of the website.

Subjectively broken, as they are not broken.

And in the bigger picture, we've established that the website was irrelevant to the topic, and presented wrongly for the topic, in all the ways mentioned: It does not have more images of the rover mission in question, its software is incompatible with Mac, etc.

No, the website is not irrelevant because the original images are (if everything goes as it should) going to be published there, even if people with Mac computers are not able to use the software to see it.

I think what it all boils down to is... let's clear up misinformation in threads earlier, if possible, so we're not stuck in the toxic sludge like this, wallowing in the filth of several people's dishonesty, false statements, lies, trolling, obnoxiousness, etc.

I would put it in a slightly different way:
Let's clear up the misconceptions and misunderstandings earlier, if possible, so we are all "talking the same language". Also, let's not overreact when people have a different opinion, an opinion is just that.

There are limits / thresholds and if enough people are dumping toxic sludge into a thread, then it's going to end up just a waste-pit of poison, no matter my best intentions...

But if there's really an intent of having a good thread then you can bring it back on track, you just have to focus on the positives and try to learn from what you think are negatives.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
The TOPIC was images of the Mystery Hut. Thousands of images of THAT have not been published. All claims & implications of THAT are false.

As you have probably noticed by now, the topic of a thread does not rigidly limit what people post, as things that are even indirectly related are related. In the same way you sometimes consider that the fact that the software doesn't work on Mac computers is related to the topic, images in PDS format is also on topic.

Next time, if you think a post is derailing the thread, make a complaint and let the moderators judge and act according to the posting rules and the Terms and Conditions of Use.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
After many pages of debate….I make an attempt here to show what seems as an impossibility based on the title of this thread.

Below, a conceptualized gif using the OP’s own manipulation picture and my superimposing impossibility.

Imo I just don’t see this ever happening….that is to say we are being blocked by the Chinese or whomever else, from seeing actual blocks of structures, buildings, on the surface of the moon.

The OP wants to believe there are structures such as buildings of some design, and that’s his prerogative…..a view not shared by all including myself.

It’s ok for the OP to believe what he believes.

Forums and threads are like T.V. Channels …. if you don’t like what you read or see… change the channel.

The OP requires like minded members, who will agree that the OP pictures are hiding some sort of truth. So far as it has been written and shown in these pages, the OP lacks like minded members, including myself, to support his assertions. And that to is ok, we all have our opinions. That’s ATS.

👽🛸🥃

As interesting as your post is, your image is literally a hand-made mock-up artwork.

And I'm just really glad that I showed the color-brightening processes that I did... because my vid shows that the imagery is really there in the ORIGINAL image from the Chinese space agency.

The last thing I would want anyone to misunderstand: The original image as having been mocked-up like you just did, lol.




See this completely validates that I made the video showing my color manipulation, to reveal the background imagery, my video validates the authenticity of the background imagery, in the original:

This is the ORIGINAL image, and it's ONLY been brightened:



The actual original published image, which contains the SAME BACKGROUND IMAGERY:

originally posted by: JamesChessman
This is the ORIGINAL image, and it's ONLY been brightened:

No it has not; you have played with a lot of sliders, not just the brightness:
Simple question:
Why do you use the saturation slider on a greyscale image?

It is jpeg compression artifacts...

a reply to: ArMaP

originally posted by: JamesChessman
-- Despite the endless posts of other people's false statements, and despite ArMaP's wrong assumptions the other day, the fact is that I've been correct that there are ONLY THREE IMAGES PUBLISHED SO FAR, of the Mystery Hut.

Assumptions were not real, assuming my web searching was somehow too limited, nope. There have actually been only 3 images published... duh.

They were not assumptions, they were possibilities based on the way Google (and other search engines) work.
What I wrote was:

It's possible for Google not to have indexed those pages either because they do not want to or because the site itself has an indication for search engines to ignore it.

So while I appreciate the actual positive input, your previous post was wrong assumptions about someone else's searching, and wrong assumptions about published images. Which you could have just checked, before jumping in with wrong assumptions about everything, but OK we've thankfully cleared this up now. Nobody's perfect, and all that, and what matters is the bigger picture of clearing everything up.

So jumping to assumptions, as I said above.
And as my time is limited and I have more things to do I was presenting one possible explanation for Google only finding 3 photos, also as a reaction to the way you appeared to consider Google as some kind of perfect search engine.

Alright, well look, let's move on.

Your earlier input certainly seemed to be assuming that there was a problem with someone else' searching, and assuming that there were more results existing, that weren't found yet.

Those assumptions were wrong, whether you want to call them "assumptions" or "implications" or "presenting possibilities" or whatever.

The fact is that you joined the thread initially with those wrong assumptions / implications / possibilities so you did bring some of your own new confusion. But thankfully I think we're beyond this now.

There have not been more than three images of the Mystery Hut object published, we seem to have established this by now.




And if you're saying that I was "jumping to conclusions," please, I hate when people just re-use the same word or phrase, as an argument against the initial statement.

I didn't "jump to conclusions" about anything at all, and your earlier posts would normally be best described, accurately, as presenting the "assumptions" that I just explained. But let's let it go, we'll call it that you were "presenting possibilities," let's move on.

There's always some meaning lost in written conversations and especially when there's different language speakers having a conversation in one lang. like this... You don't need to argue against the word "assumptions" and maybe you think there's some worse connotation than there really is, please relax lol.





...There's also no reason to argue about Google, I just mentioned that I was using the best search engine, it doesn't need to be argued about lol.

We've already established that my research was thorough, and I just didn't list off every single thing that I researched, every single time I referred to it...

We haven't. The fact we cannot find them doesn't mean they weren't published.
The only way of knowing how may were published is to ask directly the Chinese space agency or that site.

Well but isn't it already established that the Chinese site doesn't have imagery from the same rover mission as the Mystery Hut object.

Hasn't this been verified already in the thread, didn't MissVocalcord acknowledge that?



But besides that, ok maybe the Chinese space agency might randomly publish new content, and then we might not know about it without directly asking them, OK.

Maybe that's ultimately the real value of the thread, that it puts this spotlight on... waiting for new images from the rover mission with the Mystery Hut, so this thread can announce it, if-and-when there really are new images published.




But otherwise, well, we've established that... nobody seems to have any evidence of any more images published yet.

This topic has been in the public media since late last year, 2021, and I do think it's clear that the images have been extremely limited so far.

It's basically a non-argument because I'm talking about the public sphere, and it's possible to count that there's only been 3 images in the media since last year. All the news reports, science articles, etc.

This isn't so cryptic, man, lol. We're only talking about the public internet & public media...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Well but isn't it already established that the Chinese site doesn't have imagery from the same rover mission as the Mystery Hut object.

Hasn't this been verified already in the thread, didn't MissVocalcord acknowledge that?

No, this is an incorrect assumption; The only thing I said is that currently the images from around the time the Mystery hut was seen aren't available yet on the website. It has images available from that exact same mission from the exact same rover from January 2019 up to April 2021.

a reply to: ArMaP

You interpretation of what images are or not is terribly flawed.

I gotta admit this almost got under my skin here.

If we want to be grammatical and stupid about it, then everything in the world is an "image."



But besides arguing nonsense like that, we're discussing this DISGUSTING IMAGE right here. Yes it's an "image," and it's garbage. However you want to argue the semantics of it, it's disgusting.



Why don't you tell me some better semantics to describe how absolutely disgusting the image is, please.

The low-resolution makes it look like it was drawn with crayons.

It's certainly a worthless image in terms of actually SEEING ANYTHING, right? I mean you're arguing the semantics of an "image" being an "image" that is too low-res to SEE anything? LOL


The "image" lacks the basic purpose of a published image normally, i.e. the purpose of SEEING THE CONTENTS OF THE IMAGE.







Also really what is there to argue about it, anyway. It's an absurd mess of pixels that doesn't even show its own contents clearly. Yes it's an image, everything's an image, my foot is an image, but so what. Should I start saying that the low-res trash meme image, is the "new published image," well there we go then.

It's "new published imagery" that unfortunately is too low-res to see, but yes it's "new published imagery." I only wish it was the type of "imagery" that can actually be seen, lol.

Do you have a better way to describe this? I doubt it. Sometimes some people are just belligerent and then here we are bantering about whether an image is an image if it's too low-res to see anything...

a reply to: ArMaP

If I'm not mistaken, he said "It's in the background here in their twitter feed", and that rock really is on the background (the things at the back of the scene) on the top image.

Look this is confusion of semantics.

I double checked the other day, and plus, even your own quote, is referring to the "background here in their twitter feed," I promise that DOES mean the black-background of that webpage.

It means that black background of the Twitter feed.

That's the normal reading of it.




If we are to consider that he was referring to the IMAGE at his link, then obviously it would have been accurate to say to look at the image.




Looking at the background really means the background... more than it means the-image-over-the-background.

Here are two posts about the Mystery moon hut, which was renamed to "Jade Rabbit", with some pictures also shown in the twitter post:
Jade Rabbit 1
Jade Rabbit 2
All in Chinese but easily translated with google.
It is funny to see how they start giving every single rock and crater a name there....

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
Here are two posts about the Mystery moon hut, which was renamed to "Jade Rabbit", with some pictures also shown in the twitter post:
Jade Rabbit 1
Jade Rabbit 2
All in Chinese but easily translated with google.
It is funny to see how they start giving every single rock and crater a name there....

Thank you, this seems to be the first new imagery that I've seen from the Mystery Hut rover mission. Not counting the super low-res Twitter thing... Thankfully your links do have higher resolution images.

I also appreciate how the text is written, describing exploring the moon with a sense of humor and fun.

I'll have to look at this more later, I've only glanced at it briefly so far.



So what is this though, an online journal from the Chinese space agency, correct?






...Also while the images are better than the previous Twitter thing, we have to be honest that even these new higher-res images are still overall pretty low-res.



The first image, which I made the thread about, which has the background imagery, IIRC it's the highest-res image, and the resolution has decreased in published images since then.

So I love the new images but for example, the resolution isn't sharp enough to even clearly make out what are rocks and what are shadows.

If I could see these same images in hi-res, now THAT would be something exciting.






...Also for a little bit of context:

My favorite model... she has been vanished since 2005 but I think she just chose to leave the public. I think she is alive and well.

Anyway last year 2021, I suddenly found THOUSANDS of newly-released hi-res images of her, and even though new to the web, apparently, these hi-res images are actually from around 2005.


So we can see the most beautiful model in the world in hi-resolution shots from 2005, we can see the glitter in her make-up and lipstick for example.


So then here are new images from the moon in 2022, I can't see what's rocks and what's shadows, that's all, I really want hi-res versions of China's rover images.


Because China's actual lunar mission itself is amazing, and I want to see it as clearly as possible.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So what is this though, an online journal from the Chinese space agency, correct?

Space.com describes it as :

a Chinese language science outreach channel affiliated with the China National Space Administration (CNSA).

So I guess it is a bit of a promotional site for the Chinese space program.

...Also while the images are better than the previous Twitter thing, we have to be honest that even these new higher-res images are still overall pretty low-res.

Again; these images are mainly for public showing use, not research. There are thousands of images available up till April 2021. Somewhere in 2020 when the first batch of files was released people have made some translations to more easily viewable formats:
www.space.com...
dougellison.smugmug.com...
drive.google.com...

If I could see these same images in hi-res, now THAT would be something exciting.

By now you should have realised you won't be able to do that yourself, unless you get a Windows/PC machine

Btw; you say the NASAView tool doesn't work on your Mac; but what doesn't work? Does it give an error, not starting up at all, etc etc (not that it would help you with the Chinese images...)

The first image, which I made the thread about, which has the background imagery, IIRC it's the highest-res image, and the resolution has decreased in published images since then.

Which after going back at it again is that you were looking at the "wrong" picture...

Space.com credits the "our space" site as the original source for the picture.
Space.com hosts this jpg image (Width x Height = 2198 x 1143 )
cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net...

However the original source has this png image ( Width x Height = 552 x 288 )
mmbiz.qpic.cn... azy=1&wx_co=1

It looks like space.com has enlarged the image (probably with some interpolation/blurring going on) and then saved it to jpeg with the necessary compression; That is what you're looking at when you see your "buildings"; jpeg compression artifacts.

Just try to do the same brightening/contrast to the real original png image and you'll see it is much more a noisy/gradient transition as something else.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Your earlier input certainly seemed to be assuming that there was a problem with someone else' searching, and assuming that there were more results existing, that weren't found yet.

I already answered to this, I'm not going to repeat it.

And if you're saying that I was "jumping to conclusions," please, I hate when people just re-use the same word or phrase, as an argument against the initial statement.

When I wrote "So jumping to conclusions" it should have been "No jumping to conclusions", sorry for the confusion.
(I should stop posting when I'm too sleepy)

Maybe that's ultimately the real value of the thread, that it puts this spotlight on... waiting for new images from the rover mission with the Mystery Hut, so this thread can announce it, if-and-when there really are new images published.

Sometimes a thread starts out as something and ends up being something slighting different, and some of those times that's a good thing.

PS: sorry for taking so long to answer, I had too much work this week.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
If we want to be grammatical and stupid about it, then everything in the world is an "image."

Neither grammatical nor stupid.
If we are talking about images then the definition of what an image is or is not is important.
Regardless of what you think about the quality of an image, it doesn't stop being an image just because of that.

Why don't you tell me some better semantics to describe how absolutely disgusting the image is, please.

The low-resolution makes it look like it was drawn with crayons.

Wrong.

It's certainly a worthless image in terms of actually SEEING ANYTHING, right?

Wrong, we can see the rocks and the smaller craters.

I mean you're arguing the semantics of an "image" being an "image" that is too low-res to SEE anything? LOL

No, I was pointing that regardless of what you think about it, an image is an image.

The "image" lacks the basic purpose of a published image normally, i.e. the purpose of SEEING THE CONTENTS OF THE IMAGE.

Did you know what was the intent of person that published the image?

Yes it's an image, everything's an image, my foot is an image, but so what.

No, your foot is a part of your body, not an image.
An image of your foot is an image.

It's "new published imagery" that unfortunately is too low-res to see, but yes it's "new published imagery." I only wish it was the type of "imagery" that can actually be seen, lol.

Too low-res to see what? We can see many things on that image.

Sometimes some people are just belligerent and then here we are bantering about whether an image is an image if it's too low-res to see anything...

I'm not being belligerent, you should stop seeing attacks where there are none, when you do it and start acting as if other people are attacking you you start being more aggressive yourself and the other people tend to react in the same way.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
I double checked the other day, and plus, even your own quote, is referring to the "background here in their twitter feed," I promise that DOES mean the black-background of that webpage.

It means that black background of the Twitter feed.

That's the normal reading of it.

When talking with other people it helps trying to understand what they probably wanted to say instead of trying to act as if they are idiots.

Why would anyone talk about the background of the page?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Thank you, this seems to be the first new imagery that I've seen from the Mystery Hut rover mission. Not counting the super low-res Twitter thing... Thankfully your links do have higher resolution images.

The images on those two pages (except for the close up of the "Jade Rabbit") have a lower resolution than the ones posted on Twitter, just copy them to an image editor and see for yourself.

If I could see these same images in hi-res, now THAT would be something exciting.

Be patient, I'm sure they will be published sooner or later.

So we can see the most beautiful model in the world in hi-resolution shots from 2005, we can see the glitter in her make-up and lipstick for example.


So then here are new images from the moon in 2022, I can't see what's rocks and what's shadows, that's all, I really want hi-res versions of China's rover images.

That's the problem with taking photos of things that are far away, there's never enough resolution to see all the details.

Because China's actual lunar mission itself is amazing, and I want to see it as clearly as possible.

So do I.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
It is funny to see how they start giving every single rock and crater a name there....

It's easier than just call them things like CK2-b or something like that.

Also, "jade rabbit" is the name of the rover, given because in China (and other countries) people say they can see a rabbit (or a hare) on the Moon, like some other people say they see a man.

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So what is this though, an online journal from the Chinese space agency, correct?

Space.com describes it as :

a Chinese language science outreach channel affiliated with the China National Space Administration (CNSA).

So I guess it is a bit of a promotional site for the Chinese space program.

...Also while the images are better than the previous Twitter thing, we have to be honest that even these new higher-res images are still overall pretty low-res.

Again; these images are mainly for public showing use, not research. There are thousands of images available up till April 2021. Somewhere in 2020 when the first batch of files was released people have made some translations to more easily viewable formats:
www.space.com...
dougellison.smugmug.com...
drive.google.com...

If I could see these same images in hi-res, now THAT would be something exciting.

By now you should have realised you won't be able to do that yourself, unless you get a Windows/PC machine

Btw; you say the NASAView tool doesn't work on your Mac; but what doesn't work? Does it give an error, not starting up at all, etc etc (not that it would help you with the Chinese images...)

The first image, which I made the thread about, which has the background imagery, IIRC it's the highest-res image, and the resolution has decreased in published images since then.

Which after going back at it again is that you were looking at the "wrong" picture...

Space.com credits the "our space" site as the original source for the picture.
Space.com hosts this jpg image (Width x Height = 2198 x 1143 )
cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net...

However the original source has this png image ( Width x Height = 552 x 288 )
mmbiz.qpic.cn... azy=1&wx_co=1

It looks like space.com has enlarged the image (probably with some interpolation/blurring going on) and then saved it to jpeg with the necessary compression; That is what you're looking at when you see your "buildings"; jpeg compression artifacts.

Just try to do the same brightening/contrast to the real original png image and you'll see it is much more a noisy/gradient transition as something else.

^Thank you for your input.


I have to be honest that I haven't checked out everything you mentioned yet... and that I can't pour time into this, right now. But I will come back and look into everything you posted, later.

Right now, honestly real-life is demanding my time and energy, re: working and saving money etc., and whether it's obvious or not, there's already TONS OF HOURS, poured into these threads and videos that I made... and right now, it's real-life demanding my hours.

I will come back to check everything you mentioned.



*** If you think you found the REAL original image of the moon Mystery Hut, then that's very interesting, and I'll definitely look into that, inclu. its resolution etc.

It's rather beside the point of debunking the background imagery, I expect, but it's still important if we could pinpoint the original, and figure things out from there.

So later I'll look at your linked original, and I'll look at its properties, and I'll see if it does seem the original, etc. Basically we'll just go from there.

The topic itself is the most important thing so I don't have a vested interest in certain interpretations, the goal is THE TRUTH so we'll look into this later.





Re: Windows: I do have a couple broken Windows computers that I will get fixed eventually, and along those lines I should be working and saving $$ as much as possible.

So eventually I'll have Windows going again and I can try that PDS software, although there are probably other solutions too, there's running a virtual machine with Windows and stuff like that, but I'm not very familiar, and like I said, real-life is what's demanding my time right now.



Re: The most beautiful model ever: Correction, she was actively modeling in 2006, which seems her last year doing that. Then vanished presumably because she wanted to get out the public spotlight and I think it was a great strategy for her.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Re: Windows: I do have a couple broken Windows computers that I will get fixed eventually, and along those lines I should be working and saving $$ as much as possible.

So eventually I'll have Windows going again and I can try that PDS software, although there are probably other solutions too, there's running a virtual machine with Windows and stuff like that, but I'm not very familiar, and like I said, real-life is what's demanding my time right now.

If you have a Mac with a X86 style processor (and enough memory) you can do it.
As I don't have a Mac I cannot help you directly with that, but I'm sure it isn't that difficult, based on the Virtual Machine software I use.