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

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I'd stick with natural formations - esxpecially as the video makers always seem to avoid zooming in as far as possible, or checking other sources. There's nothing there that can 't be explained by lighting and landscape.

^As the only "video maker" in the thread, please be clear that I did EXACTLY that. I obviously did zoom as far as possible, and I checked all sources online, before I made the thread and vids.

The new rock photo was just published today, apparently, Jan. 7th.

I made this thread on Dec. 29th, so it's nine days ago, i.e. 9 days before the new rock photo was published, today.

And it's now about a month since the original news headlines, with the original published photo.

So of course, we've been waiting a month already for new photos, which we just got today.



...





I'll need to look more into the new pics, but like I've said all along:

It's self-evident that: The topic photo was published by China, deliberately, with the background imagery, on purpose. They knew it was there, and they wanted it to be seen.


^Really that's the only thing that's 100% clear.

But also, the imagery resemblance to buildings is pretty indisputable, too.

It's still compelling and mysterious regardless what may be published afterward:

Maybe the rover can go over there and get a better imaging of whatever feature that is... after all that's one of the reasons they are on moons and planets.

Blurry and out of focus is trite when it comes to space and phenomena associated with it.

Also I hope people don't miss the shot that I embedded on the last page. This is from the one large composite image of the area, which was posted.

I'm quite sure that this is an overhead shot of the Mystery Hut area, and probably the only one that's publicly available.





Rotated to match up with the topic photo:

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

And the rock definitely got bigger the closer you got to it.

No continuing sizing doubts…… it is surely a rock by the picture provided.

After the rover going the distance to investigate, perhaps someone out there in www land would have extrapolated the dimensions…..

👽🛸🍸

Yo there is background imagery in the new photo too.

I don't think this will be as wild as the imagery in the topic photo. Especially that this image is avoiding most of the sky background.

But yet, I'm happy that the background imagery is there, again.

I didn't even brighten it yet, I only looked closely at it. Y'all see it?

At the very least, the background shows more irregular shapes and colors:

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Y'all see it?

Yep……

For me, it’s case closed….mystery solved.

Perhaps Patrick Star lives under it 😉



👽🛸🍺

Just to start messing around with the colors, in hopes of seeing the background imagery:







It's very yellow, it's just oversaturated... the original color, that's already there.

Background definitely shows irregular shapes and colors.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: JamesChessman
Y'all see it?

Yep……

For me, it’s case closed….mystery solved.

Perhaps Patrick Star lives under it 😉

👽🛸🍺

Haha even better, this might all just be a case of... SPACE... MADNESS!!

a reply to: JamesChessman

I see jpeg compression. Are those artifacts identical to the ones in the original image, or are they completely different?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

you're talking to a wall.

original "analysis" in this thread simply highlighted compression artifacts from heavily compressed live video feed, from which a screenshot was taken.

it was repeated and proven ad nauseam. no effect. when someone is delusional, every single compression artifact becomes "imagery". "in hopes of seeing the background imagery" - that's not even an attempt at neutral analysis, it's assuming the thing that one wants to see, is there, then lying to everyone about it.

a reply to: JamesChessman

Its apparently estimated to be not that much bigger than a hut, certainly not on par with the size of a skyscraper, so there is that.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: JamesChessman

Are those artifacts identical to the ones in the original image, or are they completely different?

^The tilt of this new photo, seems deliberate to avoid the sky background, as much as possible.

So it's difficult to get a clear idea of what exactly, this new photo background is showing.

It seems that it might match up, but hard to say when the entire set-up was intended to avoid showing it...





On the other hand, I'm still glad that we received a new photo, with a new natural background, with mysterious imagery again.

I see jpeg compression.

^You know what, if that is the case, it's still not necessarily mutually exclusive with the background also showing indications of what's really there.






...




Now, is there really only one new photo released?

We might as well keep the thread updated with whatever new photo's might be released.

The second released photo doesn't make the object look very big (Car sized maybe)
How did they see that from so far away? Curious...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: JamesChessman

Its apparently estimated to be not that much bigger than a hut, certainly not on par with the size of a skyscraper, so there is that.

Thanks, I haven't decided yet what to think about everything in the images. But it's possible that larger buildings might simply be further off in the background.

There have been decades of belief in the existence of giant buildings on the moon.

Also, don't miss the overhead pic that I've embedded in the thread a few times. It would certainly seem to show the Mystery Hut with its connected wall, and other buildings around it. It seems to match up very well with the topic photo.




Rotated to match topic photo:

a reply to: JamesChessman

The trouble is, that crater is nowhere near the rock ni question. The crater you've picked out (which is nearly 200m wide) is in the top left of this image, the actual crater is in the centre:

See here

twitter.com...

and this thread:

www.unmannedspaceflight.com...

There is no wall and no buildings.

I think this new image is just very INCONCLUSIVE, what it is showing.

And there's a whole list of different things to consider.






First of all, the whole image is so thoroughly DIFFERENT from previous images.




The Mystery Hut is now seen as a small object in a larger landscape.

It looks much smaller than previous released pics.

But this is while the rover is supposed to be CLOSER, it now looks SMALLER.







...So at the very LEAST, the rover must be doing a DIFFERENT type of LARGER LANDSCAPE IMAGE, than in previous shots.

It's apparently the LARGEST LANDSCAPE IMAGE that we've seen so far.






This is to explain why the Mystery Hut is now so SMALL, despite being CLOSER, it has shrunk to the size of a pebble.

It has to be explained that the rover is now doing this new style of GIANT LANDSCAPE SHOTS...








Still, regardless the rover's new landscape image style:

Regardless, it's a weird, unexpected result that the rover got CLOSER to it... and: It's shrunk down smaller than before.

That's just so weird in a psychological way, lol.

Everyone would have been naturally expecting a LARGER shot of the object, but we got a smaller shot, from a closer camera, lol.






....









Alright, another strange aspect of the new photo is the LOW RESOLUTION.

Despite being the absolute LARGEST LANDSCAPE image so far:


It's lower resolution / size, than the topic photo (which was a smaller area shown, in higher resolution).






So the new landscape shot is 1080 x 409, which might sound promising at a glance at that info.

But it's actually such a huge landscape shot, that it's actually a VERY LOW RESOLUTION for such a HUGE landscape image.

It means that everything shown WITHIN this new image... is automatically very low resolution: The Mystery Hut object, and the rover lander, are BOTH shown in this landscape, but both are terribly low res, so there's practically no detail to make out, on anything.








...






The new image has background imagery but it's mostly been deliberately excluded, from the tilt of the camera, apparently, so that we can't get a clear idea of what's being shown in the background.

There are interesting parts but everything is inconclusive, with most of the background being excluded like this.



Background variations in light and color, seem to indicate that there are objects in the background, more than just nothing at all.

I think that's all we can really say for sure.



I can do some zoom-in's on interesting spots but it's all very inconclusive with this new image.






...




The deep yellow / gold color in the new image is also interesting.

If the image is overly darkened, the lunar soil looks deep gold.

What it means is that there's a lot of natural yellow color in the soil here.





So there's one question of why there's so much more yellow color in this new image?

Is it a matter of sunlight showing more in newer images? That would make sense, actually, if that's what's going on.





Regardless, there seems a surprising amount of yellow / gold color in the new image.






...







Also it's hard to identify if the new image Mystery Hut is showing the same object as before, it's just hard to match up.



I think we are supposed to interpret it that previous images were only showing a small portion of the whole object, which we now see.

So I think it's the lower left section, which is supposed to be what we were previously seeing as the cube Mystery Hut.







ALSO while the Mystery Hut itself now has become considered a boulder, LOOK AT ITS SHADOW, IT'S STILL RECTANGULAR:



So now the shadow seems indicative of a RECTANGULAR CUBE shape, now more than the visible object itself!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: JamesChessman

The trouble is, that crater is nowhere near the rock ni question. The crater you've picked out (which is nearly 200m wide) is in the top left of this image, the actual crater is in the centre:

See here

twitter.com...

and this thread:

www.unmannedspaceflight.com...

There is no wall and no buildings.

Well, so what exactly is your embedded image, actually showing?



The red dot is marking what? The lander? There's practically no detail / resolution, to even tell what the red dot is marking.



Is the Mystery Hut showing in this image, and where exactly is it? Why isn't it marked?




I also don't see why you would describe separate "craters" when referring to the center of the image, and the top-left of the image.

But first, let's try to figure out what the red dot is marking -- the lander? -- and where the Mystery Hut is supposed to be, in your image?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: JamesChessman

The trouble is, that crater is nowhere near the rock ni question. The crater you've picked out (which is nearly 200m wide) is in the top left of this image, the actual crater is in the centre:

See here

twitter.com...

and this thread:

www.unmannedspaceflight.com...

There is no wall and no buildings.

Looking more into your link:

Your image is from last month, and its thread contributors are not sure exactly what the image is showing, either.

Also, does anyone know for sure if the rover is actually CLOSER to the Mystery House, now, with the new image?



I'm asking because I expected the rover to get CLOSER, so I thought that new images would show the Mystery Hut as BIGGER.


However, the new image shows the Mystery Hut as MUCH SMALLER.





So I'm wondering if we had the wrong general idea? (About the rover getting CLOSER to it?)



Or maybe, the rover might LATER get closer, but right now, it might be FARTHER AWAY from it? (If it's traveling a long curved path, which includes driving farther, and then later, driving closer?)



I'm mainly asking because of the perceived discrepancy of the Mystery Hut looking SO SMALL in the new image, after we expected it to get CLOSER, so the Hut would be expected bigger?




The new image SMALL size Mystery Hut would make sense if the rover is simply farther away from it, right now? To explain its shrunken size?




Does anyone know this for sure?

a reply to: JamesChessman

I don’t know for sure………but in seeing this object as a natural rock feature of the landscape…. If I were the Chinese, I would no longer use operational time and money continuing on and instead try to find something more interesting. I don’t know what all other instruments are on the rover….but if they have other scientific studies they could do…then, I would think the Chinese would move on to something else.

👽🛸🔬⛏