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

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^So the 3rd article is generally interesting but I don't think it's contributing new images of the Mystery Hut object, or if it is, then I'm not really seeing it.

It talks about the investigation of the Mystery moon hut and shows a last glance of the rock when leaving:

After completing the detection in the morning of the moon day, Yutu looked back and stared at this magical area again. On the edge of the deep impact crater, "Stone Rabbit" and "Treasure Pot" were distributed on both sides, and the ruts all over the crater were recorded like tree rings. The trajectory of the Jade Rabbit that has been carefully probed for several months.

mmbiz.qpic.cn... lazy=1&wx_co=1

So you can see the Mystery moon hut there again with the tracks that the rover left when approaching it.

originally posted by: JamesChessman
So you think the PNG shows the boulder shape, and apparently you think that I didn't reveal it in brightening up the large JPG.

If the shape was already there you did not reveal it.

Well I'm surprised you don't think that I revealed more of the boulder shape in the JPG. The smaller face of the Mystery Hut object is visible already, obviously, in the PNG and the JPG, without brightening it. But then I brightened it and I thought I revealed more of the larger shape of the object.

The problem is that when you brighten a resized image, you are really putting in evidence the result of the resizing and ressampling algorithm used by the program that made the resizing.
Besides that, brightening the image emphasizes the kind of "glow" around the brighter areas, making brighter things look bigger and darker things look small.
Finally, if the brightening shows something it's because it was already there, like the rectangular shapes on the big JPG image. They were already there and visible without any brightening, and the same can be said about the shape of the boulder on the small PNG.

...And I didn't see your sarcastic disrespectful "badge" till I just replied above. Well isn't that great. I haven't made disrespectful images and here we have the forum moderator making disrespectful memes. You're tripping.

I'm posting as a member on this thread, not as a moderator.
The badge was posted more as a joke than to be disrespectful, as you keep insisting that you were the first to show the shape of the boulder as if you want some kind of recognition.
Also, I think that the idea that you were the first to show the shape of the boulder is disrespectful to all the people that are working on that mission. Do you think they are idiots and do not look at the things they post?

It's not equivalent of me posting a cartoon image because I think the conversation got stupid:

You're right, it's not, sorry if you got offended by that.

I was expecting an answer like "Badges? We ain't go no badges! We don't need no badges! ", but maybe you're more of a cartoons fan than a movies fan. I'm both, but I don't like Ren & Stimpy.

^Oh OK, I had no idea it was a movie reference. Well that's completely different, instead of just wondering why someone made a meme out of my profile pic.




Ren & Stimpy: I really only loved the first handful of episodes, like Firedogs, Space Madness, etc. The show became watered-down very soon. Probably because the creator made an episode that got him kicked off his own show, and he was dating underage women, etc. He was a genius, and also more insane than sane.




Speaking of insane... I'm still taking a general break from the thread, mostly, along w/ taking a break from watching news videos, etc. for the sake of putting my focus on health & wellness, making $$ etc.






I'm touching base here in the thread after several days that I didn't have internet for my computer, only internet on my phone, so I couldn't use my computer to respond in the thread.


Also I absolutely haven't kept up with all the posts but it's literally many hours to go backtrack through everything at this point, and like I've said earlier, I just need to focus on real-life more than this, right now.





One thing I'd like to mention though, is that I've seen a few videos about the Intellivision Amico and it's pretty established that it's been a SCAM for at least a couple years now of intentional dishonesty, & illegitimate fund-raising $39 MILLION DOLLARS in the last few years...

...I'm just sayin', lol. That's exactly a real-life scam, that's what it looks like, because that's what it is.

...Also in the realm of online videogame news, there's been some shade thrown at an individual who raised $$ for a personal health fund.

The guy has back problems and he raised $30,000 for himself. I don't see that there's a real problem with anything he did, but some people are accusing him / implying that he did something wrong.

Alright, so that's just some real-life context about scams, and accusations of scams.




I'm just saying, because I think it's fair to say that this thread has been quite full of toxicity, from the start, and it's pretty objectively true. The literal first responses in the thread were deleted immediately, who knows what they even said, and the username is just a combo of racist terms. That's the very first responses after the OP.

Then there's people like jedi-hamster posting repeatedly about their bodily functions, and also yelling out random insults, seeing if anything sticks, apparently. He's called me things like a scammer, a hoaxer, and that my vids and threads are hoaxes, etc.

And that's really just the tip of the iceburg of the responses in the thread. The toxicity and personal attack are amazing, and it would kind of fit if there was someone actually doing a scam, lol.

Like it fits when people are angry that the Intellivision Amico project, has been lying for a couple years, and taking in $39 million dollars for their giant scam.

So that all fits, and some of the toxic responses here in the thread, are kind of similar, all these angry people alleging scams and hoaxes and lies etc.

I'm just commenting on this in the general big picture of the thread, it's been a big part of the thread, quite obviously, and all the anger and animosity would fit for an actual scam.




It's bizarre though, I've always been very clear that there's no monetization of anything. Yet every thread gets accusations that my videos are hoaxes or lies or scams or whatever.

There has never been anything monetized, no money involved in anything, in any way, so there absolutely has never been any scam or hoax, in the sense of actual money being involved.


So it would be a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PICTURE if I made a fundraiser or something. But I didn't.

It doesn't even really make any sense, all the people accusing scams etc.





As for lies or hoaxes: My videos and threads are also not lies or hoaxes.

If absolutely nothing else, my threads and vids are honest interest, at the time I made it.







My last activity engaging in the thread topic, I was summarizing the best known images published of the object, so that clarity is really what the topic is about. And I think we did reach about as much clarity as possible, at least in that sense of summing up the content that is known to exist in the public sphere.





...If the large JPG is all full of JPG compression artifacts, well what can I say, I've already acknowledged that I was starting out trusting the images to be accurate, and that's obvious in the fact that I got so excited about it. I was not expecting the rather disappointing clarity that the large JPG was full of artifacts, apparently (if we accept that the small-PNG image was the actual small original, which was mangled w/ artifacts into the giant JPG).

Any news from the space.com staff that you emailed? As they could give the best clarity of the whole situation.




...Also a couple notes from skimming over the thread:

...If I messed up the copy/paste of the link for Image 2, "Purple Haze" and its Twitter source: Well If I did, then I did. Human error got me. I do normally double-check everything multiple times, but there's still always room for the chance of human error, if not weird tech issues.

I was thinking about this, how I would have messed up a copy/paste of the links, 6 months ago. If I recall correctly, I was double-checking my links, several times, to make sure they worked, ironically enough. But I think what I did was: Collected my links in a text document, and made it a nice list, and then there was something weird with the formatting going wrong, when I was copy/pasting it, into my video info.

So apparently it was that last step that got me, after redundantly checking everything, I fell victim to human error amidst some formatting weirdness in the damn copy/paste process.

Well so that's that, but it's not like it has some larger discredit of everything, and plus, it's not like I made a fundraiser so what exactly is there to discredit anyway lol.

Everyone can fall victim to human error, and we all know that tech issues can sometimes prevail in any situation too. Friday night I was delivering a pizza and my GPS was telling me straight wrong address info, and basically telling me to drive off-road, half a mile away from the customer. And that was 100% tech failure.

Compared to following wrong-GPS directions and driving off a cliff... I mean it's really nothing that I botched one of the links, when I got into some weird formatting issues, copy/pasting from a word doc to my channel online info.

So what can I say, everyone has human error sometimes, everyone runs into tech failure and tech weirdness sometimes.



...Also in response to the mention that an original image should be saved when editing it: Of course. The only reason I said I "probably" had the original is because I did have some tech issues with my computer shutting down randomly, and it possibly resulted in some edited images saved as edits, and losing the original. It goes without saying that the proper method is to always keep the original.




Anyhow I think it's all for now, I'll be hoping that ArMaP receives a response from space.com staff, re: their source images and JPG conversion massacre of the landscape shot.

Plus, it'd also be interesting to hear where exactly Image 2 "Purple Haze" came from, as we seem to have established that it was quite a unique edited version image from space.com.

One thing that I think is valuable is to recap the main images, in their best possible versions:


The giant JPG was the main image in the first headlines:


Now it's been asserted as a JPG artifact mess version of the tiny PNG, from the Chinese site, I'm not convinced of it:




The first headlines also had Image 2, "Purple Haze."

Strangely we've been realizing lately that this image sources to a Twitter feed... which links the same space.com article, which does NOT really have this image.
twitter.com...
www.space.com...


The space.com article only links the same Chinese webpage with the baby PNG landscape shot.
mp.weixin.qq.com...

^So as it turns out, Image 2 "Purple Haze" is a bit of a mystery, where it came from, it only legit links the Twitter feed, "Latest in Space."

(Which links space.com article without that image, and that links the Chinese webpage with the Baby PNG.)

...And finally, we have the new identification of the very best "Image 3" shots:

originally posted by: JamesChessman
a reply to: MissVocalcord

Thanks for the info.

Ok, if this is the best version of "Image 3" shots, then I haven't been using it yet:
mp.weixin.qq.com...

^I believe those are still the main images of the object; I know there are a couple more published images that include the object from a distance, and with such low resolution, that it's basically not possible to see any detail, unfortunately.

Ok now embedding images from this link: mp.weixin.qq.com...

I believe these "Final 3 Low Res PNG's" are the last, of absolutely ALL PUBLISHED IMAGES of the object:



^Labeled "Treasure Pot" and "Stone Rabbit."


Finally: "look back again:"



Ok everything embedded full-size, and to see it, just right-click an image and open in a new tab. You can see the actual full size as published by the Chinese website.

These "Final 3 Low-Res Images" are automatically very interesting but the low-res is painful. Especially the landscape shot.





Is this accurate? I think I summed up the best versions of all known published images of the object, is this correct?

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Any news from the space.com staff that you emailed? As they could give the best clarity of the whole situation.

No. I'm starting to think I will not get an answer.

I was thinking about this, how I would have messed up a copy/paste of the links, 6 months ago. If I recall correctly, I was double-checking my links, several times, to make sure they worked, ironically enough. But I think what I did was: Collected my links in a text document, and made it a nice list, and then there was something weird with the formatting going wrong, when I was copy/pasting it, into my video info.

I have seen that happen several times, so I was expecting something like that.

...Also in response to the mention that an original image should be saved when editing it: Of course. The only reason I said I "probably" had the original is because I did have some tech issues with my computer shutting down randomly, and it possibly resulted in some edited images saved as edits, and losing the original. It goes without saying that the proper method is to always keep the original.

There's another way of doing it: the Wayback Machine.

If you go there you can ask them to store a copy of a page, so that way you can get a copy that does not reside on your computer and keeps the original context.

Plus, it'd also be interesting to hear where exactly Image 2 "Purple Haze" came from, as we seem to have established that it was quite a unique edited version image from space.com.

I contacted them too, but I haven't got an answer either.
I didn't get an answer from the Chinese site either.

I used to be more lucky with this...

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Is this accurate? I think I summed up the best versions of all known published images of the object, is this correct?

I think it is.

Looking at all the image on the Chinese site makes me think they have a size limit for the images, as all the images have the same width (at least the ones I looked at).

a reply to: ArMaP

There's another way of doing it: the Wayback Machine.

If you go there you can ask them to store a copy of a page, so that way you can get a copy that does not reside on your computer and keeps the original context.

^Thanks, I didn't know that use of the Wayback Machine. However I don't imagine I'll be using that, myself, but it's good to know. I'm currently in my health-&-wellness-kick / trying-to-make-money phase... and that eventually will include deciding what to do with my glitched HDD. (It's health & wellness of the glitched hdd...lol.)

It's just really my tech focus in the near future. I appreciated your input but I don't think I had a definite path ahead, yet. I should probably go back to that tech thread.

I know that there's content on the glitched drive, even though my 1st attempt with Photorec didn't recover everything.

I don't think I've been told a definite next step, but I will be looking back again at everyone's input...

a reply to: ArMaP

I contacted them too, but I haven't got an answer either.
I didn't get an answer from the Chinese site either.

I used to be more lucky with this...

Hmm it's kind of interesting if they never respond; it makes sense in certain ways, because from their angle... there's really nothing to gain by discussing it... and there's only possible negative outcomes of blaming certain individuals for the image processing artifacts / shortcomings.

So in a pragmatic view, I can understand if nobody wants to respond and throw their employees under the bus.

Not that it would need to be a terrible negative thing to discuss. But I can understand them choosing to avoid the possibility of it...

a reply to: JamesChessman

I'm a little disappointed that nobody answers, in the past I have emailed and got answers from several scientists, including a top NASA official, museums, universities, etc.

Well I randomly came across a YouTube video, which links the same space.com article, and seems to be from space.com, but the YT channel is called "VideoFromSpace." (Their logo is space.com though, so I think it's all the same people.)

I hadn't seen this vid before, as I hadn't really focused much on videos, when I made the thread I had been focused on image-searching the best images. But this vid has been around all along, since early December 2021:

a reply to: JamesChessman

Isn't it the same video at the top of the Space.com page that you linked in your opening post?

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: JamesChessman

Isn't it the same video at the top of the Space.com page that you linked in your opening post?

^It does link the same space.com article that we've been discussing all along:
www.space.com...




But actually I never saw the video embedded in that article. The video player fails to load for me, in that article.

So I actually never saw the vid before, well thanks for clarifying, haha.

I haven't looked closely at the vid yet...

James, do you accept that the "secret cube buildings" are an image artefact and are not really there?

originally posted by: gillyp17
James, do you accept that the "secret cube buildings" are an image artefact and are not really there?

^The only people who could speak on that, definitively, would be the staff at space.com and / or the staff from the Chinese space agency & website.

ArMaP emailed both, I believe, so we were hoping that he'd hear back from them.

However, it's understandable if space.com staff doesn't want to respond and acknowledge that they had added a ton of JPG artifacts to the images that blew up across the internet.




...There's also the hope of eventually seeing some altogether better-quality hi-resolution images of the object, and of that mission, someday.

...And in the case of that actually happening, I'll be hoping that someone can make those images accessible, like embedding the full size images in the thread. I don't think it's in the cards for me to mess around with the PDS websites and their software that doesn't seem to work in modern macOS. (Not to mention that it wasn't relevant up this point anyway, since it's been said that there were not images from the Moon Hut mission yet.)

So I'll be hoping someone will embed the full-size images here in a viewable format. Or maybe make them viewable on a different image posting website or whatever.

That would really blow up the topic, imagine if we could suddenly see dozens of images of the Mystery Hut object in hi-resolution. That would be amazing.

^One thing I can say is that the video thumbnail (which I had never seen till recently) actually looks like it shows the "cube" shape of the object already.




I think this is all-the-more-validating that I brightened up the image to look at what's there (whether or not it ultimately all gets dismissed as artifacts or not).

I think the fact of the weird imagery being there in the 1st place, is more than enough reason to brighten it up and look at what's there.






...Also, I simply brightened the images, and oversaturated the colors, but I absolutely did NOT create any artifacts myself, which is a HUGE distinction. So it really can't catch much criticism!

What IS really criticizable... is creating / adding new artifacts, which I didn't do, and which seemingly... was done by the staff at space.com, apparently.






It kinda pissed me off a while back when my image-brightening was dissed but the fact is that I did NOT create artifacts, I simply brightened images while explicitly NOT creating artifacts, and I think that's a valuable thing to do, and that's that.

The situation would seem self-evident enough that if anyone deserves blame for ruining images, it would be whoever added in tons of JPG artifacts, it sure as hell wasn't me, lol.

a reply to: JamesChessman
So thats a "NO" then.
You stil think the shapes may be buildings.

originally posted by: gillyp17
a reply to: JamesChessman
So thats a "NO" then.
You stil think the shapes may be buildings.

Correct. I "still think the shapes may be buildings."




Along those lines, I thought at the very least, it had to be acknowledged that I brought out more of the shape of the object, even if it's really just a boulder...









But then that was disputed, and hey, the images are the real topic, more than arguing over the interpretations of it.

I'm happy that the thread has managed to agree on summarizing all the best-quality public images of the object, apparently.

^Along those lines, I mentioned relatively recently that while I get the general idea that JPG compression artifacts... are in regular rectangular shapes:

I understand that, but also, from the very start, there were details that seemed more specific and irregular.

This includes the greater shape of the cube / boulder, that I believed I revealed more of that shape, with my brightening:


Also seemingly detailed are the... seeming buildings with actual windows and damage holes:

^That is now basically blamed on the original small-PNG being low-res and blotchy, to create those seeming damage holes, but my point is that at least initially, it certainly LOOKS like specific details and not just JPG rectangles.

Likewise the larger area of the Moon Hut... has a striking resemblance to a set of buildings, with a wall connecting the Hut to a larger rectangular building, a light over it, and seemingly a pagoda in front. Again my point just being that the initial impression is sharper detail than just giant rectangle shapes. This resembles a wall, buildings, a light, a pagoda:



This part initially resembles a few skyscrapers, complete with a possible doorway (or just a much smaller building in front), and seemingly a rooftop look-out:


So I get the idea of JPG artifact rectangles, but the point of this post, is mentioning the spots that LOOK more detailed than that, at least initially.





...So such details seem like more than artifacts, they seem more detailed than that, at least initially. And I certainly do think it's worth considering the different possible explanations behind the weird imagery.





...Also as I've mentioned: When making the thread and vids, last December (2021): I really had never considered that maybe there'd be the weird discrepancies of image integrity, that we seem to have come across, with the Chinese space agency apparently only publishing low-res imagery... which was apparently then mangled with JPG artifacts from space.com staff, which then published the images that blew up online.

^That's apparently where we're at, in terms of mundane explanation for the whole thing.

So that's really just a bizarre sequence of events, even if that's exactly what happened, it's an absurd sequence of events, lol.



Beyond all that, I think at this point, we are waiting to hear back from the people who ArMaP emailed (to clarify things)... and also, we're hoping there's more imagery published from the Chinese space agency, eventually.

Think about it, if they are really going to eventually, someday, suddenly publish a TON of images, from the Moon Hut mission, in actual hi-resolution... that is going to be amazing. Imagine if we get a few dozen shots of the Mystery Hut.

Also... I mean the news headlines was last December, and we still have not seen real hi-resolution images, apparently, this is absurd itself, isn't it?

We're six months past news headlines and still literally no one has seen real hi-resolution images... I can't help considering it all very secretive.