It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
39
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2022 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: JamesChessman

No one's arguing the possibilty. On closer inspection, it's a rock. That should be accepted and it should be dropped. Continuing to accuse other things around it being structures just looks like a purposeful search for 'hidden' objects.

As I said, where the factual photographic evidence from the past that can give this serious consideration? Factual in that it's shown without a doubt that objects have been artificially created on the moon? As much as that can be done visually.



posted on Jan, 14 2022 @ 11:30 PM
link   
It seems every thread is doomed to eventually run out of natural interest, and it concludes with the skeptics and debunkers.

Oh well, lol.



You guys are kind of misrepresenting things though.

The main topic was the background imagery, really, more than the object itself.




And that background imagery has NOT been clarified. It was shown in one image, and it was AVOIDED in the other 2 images. That's all we've got so far.




And it's clear that China is deliberate in these images, so why did China choose to publish the original photo with the background imagery?

It's visible without even brightening it.

And it is more irregular than a simple light gradient that we'd expect to see. More irregular = indicative of irregular forms being there.



And it doesn't mean that all the building are black, they actually look white, and the darkness can be a lack of light.


Regardless, it's safe to say that China wanted the imagery to be seen, as they saw it themselves before publishing it.

Which SUGGESTS that China WANTED the world to see that background imagery. Why would they choose that, unless they were CHOOSING to reveal it to the world?





posted on Jan, 16 2022 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: JamesChessman
It seems every thread is doomed to eventually run out of natural interest, and it concludes with the skeptics and debunkers.

Oh well, lol.



You guys are kind of misrepresenting things though.

The main topic was the background imagery, really, more than the object itself.


And it's been dealt with.


And that background imagery has NOT been clarified. It was shown in one image, and it was AVOIDED in the other 2 images. That's all we've got so far.


Yes it has: jpeg compression. It wasn't avoided, it just wasn't the subject of the photos.


And it's clear that China is deliberate in these images, so why did China choose to publish the original photo with the background imagery?


Because the only thing in the background is the dark lunar sky.


It's visible without even brightening it.

And it is more irregular than a simple light gradient that we'd expect to see. More irregular = indicative of irregular forms being there.


Citation required.


And it doesn't mean that all the building are black, they actually look white, and the darkness can be a lack of light.


There are no buildings.


Regardless, it's safe to say that China wanted the imagery to be seen, as they saw it themselves before publishing it.

Which SUGGESTS that China WANTED the world to see that background imagery. Why would they choose that, unless they were CHOOSING to reveal it to the world?






Pretty sure it's not something they care about, because they revealed the interesting bit: the rock itself.



posted on Jan, 17 2022 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo




And it's been dealt with.

^Nope.





jpeg compression.

^Again, the absurd accusation that there's jpeg compression in an image that's much larger than your computer screen, and otherwise shows no reason to assume any compression at all.





Because the only thing in the background is the dark lunar sky.

^Hilarious. Denialism of images right in front of your face. It obviously looks like more than a dark lunar sky.







Citation required.


Citation is NOT required to refer to the background showing more irregularity than a simple light gradient.






There are no buildings.

^You don't know if there are or not. So it's automatically false to argue things that you know you don't know.

This is the same logic as arguing with someone whether or not they went to McDonald's one day, five years ago, you don't know if they did or not, so it's absolutely idiotic to argue things that you know you don't know.

I didn't claim to know, myself, I'm only acknowledging that the imagery LOOKS LIKE BUILDINGS, which is true.






Pretty sure it's not something they care about, because they revealed the interesting bit: the rock itself.



^How funny that there's no answer as to why China deliberately published the photo with such strange background imagery.

But OK, the thread is dead, it's devolved into avoiding any explanation for the original topic, and people pretending that they don't understand what a natural light gradient is.


edit on 17-1-2022 by JamesChessman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2022 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: JamesChessman
^How funny that there's no answer as to why China deliberately published the photo with such strange background imagery.


The thing is, China released the entire data from their missions in raw format. Thousands of files, it's all there along with instructions on how to convert the data to uncompressed full sized images, or at least was at the time when I was looking at it.

moon.bao.ac.cn...

I don't know where you got the idea that the photo was released by a space agency. What actually happened is some journalist converted a random photo from that gigantic data set, picked a small fragment of that photo, digitally zoomed in on the object he was interested in, then put the photo on twitter that compressed it even further, and didn't provide the name of the source data of the photo for people to verify.

Seeing how the panoramas look like raw, he zoomed by a lot. Doesn't matter how big he made the picture in the end, the data was not there and whichever program he was using to zoom in just filled the lack of information with estimates, and twitter compression reduced quality more on top of that. And news sites used that twitter version of photo too.

If you really want to prove your point, either ask the journalist to provide the name of the original source file, or convert all 5000+ of them yourself until you find the right one and show it in full size, because no one will put that amount of work to prove your point for you.

And don't call a space photo from twitter original. It's an insult to intelligence for anyone reading this topic.




top topics
 
39
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join