Looking for a documentary Lunar Elfin Wonders

Isn't it strange that all those people supposedly airbrushing details into craters seem to get them exactly the same - even China:

Now, either there's a global conspiracy between all the world's lunar explorers to produce exactly the same craters in every image no matter what angle you come from, or..oh I dunno, it's pretty wild, they're actually photographing the same thing. Even this 1971 photo matches

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyTooAww diddums..

How sweet, crybaby, when you got no arguments resent to ad-hominems. I guess you "debunked" me

You're right, they're not lying, wink wink, i don't know what got into me,
clearly the left one is real and right one is total fake, 100%.

Also sweet how you never addressed the

How do you explain the difference, the high contrast, brown Moon in the videos... And the official look, this one being Apollo 17 shot of Tsiolkovsky from Wikipedia, i could've picked any other one as i shown before, or other space agency, they ALL show it like this. I assume you're gonna say it's the "lightning effect"

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: tachyonator9

Vlad's is not original, it's just a copy of the NASA image, which is correctly oriented as anyone can check by looking at any map of the moon you care to look at. His claims that they weren't publicly available is a lie.

The frame Ophiuchus1 linked is NOT correctly oriented, it is flipped, this is so ridiculous it's just beyond.

And Vlad did not claim they were not publicly available, well, if he said it it would be true, but he never said how he got hold of this ultra rare non-airbrushed/washedout frame.

a reply to: tachyonator9

Never said it was fake, I said it was a crappy copy. It clearly is.

a reply to: tachyonator9

You said he was given them by 'an unknown insider', which is implying some under the counter exchange at a secret rendezvous, when in fact it was just NASA, or a retailer selking NASA images. You yourself claimed they weren't publicly available. You were wrong. You're saying the clise up photo from 'Vlad' isn't flipped. You're wrong.

You posted images of fake newspaper front pages to create a false narrative.

You posted videos saying the location wasn't known when it is.

You incorrectly attribute image sources, but apparently I'm a lazy researcher.

You criticise space agencies other than NASA for their image standards despite their images being better than the ones you post.

You posted poor quality images and claim they are better.

You claim alteration of images but offer no proof.

You studiously ignore all tbe inconvenient truths and misrepresent genuine information.

You call me a shill and liar, then bitch about ad hominems in a post that contained none.

Tsiolkovskiy crater is not a lake. Not a single photo shows that. There are no cities on tbe moon.

I gave it a little thought and i realized they are right, i imagined it all, there are no lakes, no cities, there is only light-gray desert of sand, hardened lava and some stones, nothing remotely living, no color at all, no atmosphere god forbid breathable, no ufos, no cities, no nothing. You can sleep at peace, you do not have to think, to comprehend to analyse the implications or meaning or anything at-all.

originally posted by: tachyonator9

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: tachyonator9

Never said it was fake, I said it was a crappy copy. It clearly is.

Sure sure, let's compare the "good copy" and "crappy copy" again.

Anyone with eyes can see that the version you present on the right is a terrible low resolution copy of the one on the left.

You said he was given them by 'an unknown insider', which is implying some under the counter exchange at a secret rendezvous, when in fact it was just NASA, or a retailer selking NASA images. You yourself claimed they weren't publicly available. You were wrong. You're saying the close up photo from 'Vlad' isn't flipped. You're wrong.

I wrote as anyone can check that i don't know the source and i suspect it was given to him by an insider (as it surely was).

I did check. This is what you said:

"They were given to Vladimir Terzinski by unknown insider in the early 90s."

"God knows who is the source, they may be never released Apollo shots or it may be from SSP."

There's no 'suspect' there. It's a specific claim that you're now backing away from. He may have obtained those photos in the 90s, they have been freely available since the 60s. You might just have to face up to the fact that he made that s**t up.

Now...The "available" frame as08-14-2447 is ridiculously fake, TOTALLY airbrushed, washed out of color and detail and contrary to what you claim it is even flipped too as if all the above was not enough. Vlad's photo is in correct orientation. Do you understand you are embarrassing yourself by insisting that official version of as08-14-2447 is not flipped.

Vlad's slide copy is flipped, you could, if you wanted to, look at any image you wanted of Tsiolkovskiy crater, any online map, and prove that for yourself. You won't do that, so here is a selection for you:

Top left is "Vlad'"'s version. On the right is a Lunar orbiter image from one of my own books - I left the number on so you can see it's correctly oriented. Bottom left is the image from my own copy of the photography report, bottom right is China's view from Chang'e-2. Look at the area I've circled on Vlad's slide transparency. The larger 'island' is on the right, the smaller on the left. Every image and online map you will find shows that the larger one is on the left. You can even recreate the view in Google Moon:

You posted images of fake newspaper front pages to create a false narrative.

The Register frontpage with AS08-12-2196 which is a screenshot from video about Adamski is totally irrelevant. I don't have a way to check if that frontpage is real or not, altho that would be relatively easy by looking into their archives. Even if it's fake that is totally irrelevant.

That's right, you don't. Convenient eh? Try looking into their archives - the years concerned are conveniently absent. The fact that it's fake is very relevant, because it was presented as genuine with the aim of furthering a false narrative.

You posted videos saying the location wasn't known when it is.

Totally unclear what you are referring to, i assume it is the Moon real color video and i said the truth cause i don't know the exact location, all i know is it's the far side.

It's the video you specified as having an unknown location, the Apollo 11 ascent video filmed in a mirror and therefore reversed. You didn't say "I don;t know where this is", you said "The location isn't known". If you'd been looking at a better quality copy of the video you could easily have found where it was.

You incorrectly attribute image sources, but apparently I'm a lazy researcher.

You are repeating yourself and lamely so. I take it back, you are not lazy, you are just a liar and a deceiver.

You have yet to prove either of those things. You, however, obviously don't know this subject as well as you think you do. You assumed an image was Lunar Orbiter 1, but were too lazy to check.

You criticise space agencies other than NASA for their image standards despite their images being better than the ones you post.

Again this idiotic grasping on the idea just because official frames look as they do (washedout/airbrushed..) and they come in "higher res" they are automatically by your twisted logic "better" it matters not in your inverted mind that even if resolution was 1 trillion megapixels and if there was 1 trillion of such frames, they would not be worth dogsh*t cause they are all FAKE, that is, nearly all information has been removed

Still waiting for any proof of that. It's pretty obvious that if you were dragged up there and shown it yourself you'd claim NASA was painting fake craters on your eyeballs. There are many much more detailed images of Tsiolkoskiy to choose from, and no matter the source, no matter the angle or the age, they all show exactly the same things. You prefer to choose media with no details at all just so you can pretend there are houses and citites there.

You posted poor quality images and claim they are better.

Already addressed your idea of "better"

No, you just insisted they were better - they very obviously aren't.

You claim alteration of images but offer no proof.

Proof is obvious to anyone intelligent who does even a most basic research of materials they published over the decades. You have still not addressed the how do you explain the difference between brown, high contrast Moon in the two videos i linked and 100% grey washed out to the point of non existence dead dull Moon we see in most official stills...

Because you have chosen degraded poor quality versions in preference to better quality ones (like the numerous examples you've been given from a range of sources) that show the detail you claim is lacking.

You studiously ignore all tbe inconvenient truths and misrepresent genuine information.

I really wonder how much they pay you for this cause you're bad at it.

The satisfaction of proving people like you wrong is all I need.

You call me a shill and liar, then bitch about ad hominems in a post that contained none.

Oh please, you started bitching and crying just cause i wrote "insert lies" when quoting your LIES
I call you a shill and a liar cause you ARE a shill and a liar. Well, liar you are 100% for shill i can't be sure.

I'm pointing out that you don't understand the term 'ad hominem', and you get all pissy about it when you think someone's insulted you despite throwing them around yourself. Maybe add 'hypocrite' to your profile details.

Tsiolkovskiy crater is not a lake. Not a single photo shows that. There are no cities on tbe moon.

Also, Krusty the Clown was the first president of the USA

And trolling is really all you have.

Oh the lies, oh the hypocrisy, not worth replying to. Again, you started bitching just cause i 'edited' you in quote and then you started accusing me of tantrum (you used another synonym starting with d)...

But hey, i guess you debunked me, all can sleep well now.

a reply to: tachyonator9

I did. Thoroughly.

The use of ad hominem insults to discredit a point of view with which you disagree is one you accused me of because I said "diddums" in a reply to you. Poor baby, did that offend you? That's mocking sarcasm, it's not discrediting your point of view. I've let the evidence do that.

That word was used because you reposted a reply you made just because I didn't respond t it in what you decided was an acceptable timespan. That is not an ad hominem, it's me pointing out that you're being childish in expecting the entire world to revolve around you.

Your first reply to me in this thread was to call me lazy a liar and a NASA shill in an attempt to refute the points I made, rather than actually address the points. That's you using ad hominem insults and being a hypocrite. You editing my post na a quoted reply to call me a liar is also using ad hominem insults.

You seem to prefer insulting people to responding to points, like the detailed images of Tsiolkovskiy crater I provided from a wide range of sources, the 3D models I created using freely available data, the proof that images you provided were freely available and not 'previously unavailable, that your favourite source couldn't even get his images the right way round, that newspaper front pages were fake, that your poor quality sources were actually poor quality, and that what you claimed you said wasn't what you actually said.

If I'm wrong I have no problem admitting it, but so far you've made no effort to do show I'm wrong other than just insist I am, and prefer to throw abuse around to actually proving anything I'm posting isn't correct. Still, if you're happy to live with just accepting whatever crap you're supplied without bothering to check whether it has any veracity to maintain your fantasy, that's your privilege.

Poor baby, did that offend you?

See, not only adhominems but even (sad) troll attempts. I rest my case.

Sure you "debunked" me wink wink

Needless to say you never addressed the extreme difference of Moon look in two videos i linked and few full color Apollo non or mostly nonairbrushed frames and 100% gray,100% washedout, 100% contrastless, 100% detailless, 100% fake great majority of Moon surfaces photos from all major agencies, not just NASA. Are you claiming the two videos and these rare early Apollo frames showing VERY RICH color, contrast, detail etc are fake, artificially colorized hoaxaes or our poor Moon became pale due to stress in last few decades (poor thing).

As another example let's compare this full color Earthrise by KAGUYA from 2008 and AS11-44-6642

Description of the frame "JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, HOUSTON, TEXAS - With a half-Earth in the background, the Lunar Module ascent stage with Moon-walking astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin Jr. approaches for a rendezvous with the Apollo Command Module manned by Michael Collins. The Apollo 11 liftoff from the Moon came early, ending a 22-hour stay on the Moon by Armstrong and Aldrin."

archive.org...

www.youtube.com...

Actually let me back up a little, let's first address how come this frame which is a very popular one and is shown in rich color at archive.org... and all over but eol.jsc.nasa.gov... poor thing lost all it's color and contrast, oh it must be the archive.org that took this "original" and added fake color and contrast, right!

EDIT: you may also notice that at archive.org it says "by NASA" and it appears as if altho i am not sure of this that NASA itself uploaded this to archive.org.



Needless to say all the bright dots in this and other frames are cities



Let's not forget about KAGUYA FULL COLOR shot also of the near side from 2008, well well..



And yet even at nasa.gov there can still be found even tho EXTREMELY rare a full color frame like this

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: tachyonator9
Needless to say you never addressed the extreme difference of Moon look in two videos i linked and few full color Apollo non or mostly nonairbrushed frames and 100% gray,100% washedout, 100% contrastless, 100% detailless, 100% fake great majority of Moon surfaces photos from all major agencies, not just NASA. Are you claiming the two videos and these rare early Apollo frames showing VERY RICH color, contrast, detail etc are fake, artificially colorized hoaxaes or our poor Moon became pale due to stress in last few decades (poor thing).

I did address them. I addressed them very clearly: the versions you present are very poor quality degraded copies of the originals. They lack the detail of the originals. The detail in the originals is clear to see. if the images are of the lunar near side, anyone with a telescope can confirm them.

As another example let's compare this full color Earthrise by KAGUYA from 2008 and AS11-44-6642

Description of the frame "JOHNSON SPACE CENTER, HOUSTON, TEXAS - With a half-Earth in the background, the Lunar Module ascent stage with Moon-walking astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin Jr. approaches for a rendezvous with the Apollo Command Module manned by Michael Collins. The Apollo 11 liftoff from the Moon came early, ending a 22-hour stay on the Moon by Armstrong and Aldrin."

archive.org...

You don't need to tell me about that photo, I own an original 'red number' copy:

onebigmonkey.com...

It's also reproduced in here:

onebigmonkey.com...

and here:

onebigmonkey.com...

As you can see, I have a wide variety of contemporary versions of the photo - including a slide transparency as part of a set sold by a British newspaperr. Coincidentally, it was taken at the same time as the end of 16mm magazine D was recorded, which if your poor quality rendering of the film had continued would have showed that.

They all look slightly different and what you are doing is ignoring the effect that different methods of reproducing the photgraph (from publishing in magazines and newspapers and scans for the web) has. Even the actual original copy I linked to here is a scan of the original, and changes based on the model of scanner and my graphics chip will also have an effect. What isn't altered is the information in the photographs. The colour of the lunar surface might vary, but the craters and details do not.

www.youtube.com...

Hmm - is the same JAXA Kaguya probe whose image quality you derided not so long ago?

Actually let me back up a little, let's first address how come this frame which is a very popular one and is shown in rich color at archive.org... and all over but eol.jsc.nasa.gov... poor thing lost all it's color and contrast, oh it must be the archive.org that took this "original" and added fake color and contrast, right!

Let's not forget about KAGUYA FULL COLOR shot also of the near side from 2008, well well..

Addressed above. Different cameras, different methods of reproduction, all have an impact on the image you see. The image on the left has been processed to remove all the extra brightness in the photograph. I can show you as many versions published at the time that look like the one on the right as the one on the left. These two photos

are exactly the same image - the copy on the left is exactly the same one downloaded from the KSC link you gave as is shown on the right, I just adjusted the brightness, contrast and colour. Which do you prefer?

Also, anything on the near side can be verified with your own eyes. While you're doing that, ask yourself what colour it is.

As for the Kaguya image, it's not from the near side. By definition, if the Earth is rising in a lunar photograph it is from a position over the lunar far side. That particular image is from a point near the south pole:

global.jaxa.jp...

And yet even at nasa.gov there can still be found even tho EXTREMELY rare a full color frame like this

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

It's not in the least bit rare. It's been reproduced all over the place - just not as often as the more famous ones. I have a copy of it in a 1999 book on a CD with all the mission images, but if you chose one of those you'd be disappointed because it's very low quality. It's one of a sequence of Earthrise images, here's another one from that sequence available from NASA:

and a selection from that sequence in a 1988 book I have:

Herre's another one of that sequence in a set of slides

www.worthpoint.com...

So your point is? It contains very detailed views of the moon. No cities, no clouds, no lakes. The objects you calim are cities are just bright impact craters. If they look different it's because of the way they've been treated. The information in them is the same, unless you pick a very bad version of it that has had it all removed.

As far as the selection of the Apollo image you posted containing cities, it doesn't.

This is that image showing two areas of that image compared with the view from Kaguya's image data, converted to 3D so you can see the same viewing angle:

and some of the brighter craters viewed from above:

Here's the overhead view from China's Chang'e-2:

with a close up the two of the larger bright craters visible in the Apollo photograph:

and the view in 3D:

It's also worth pointing out that the Apollo image you don't like shows exactly the same details -here's that same area from it, original on the left, brightness level adjusted on the right:

The moral of the story is, whatever view of the moon you look at, there are several opther sources you can check to see if what you think is there is actually there. Cities just aren't.

…….” So what’s the color of the moon?

The simple, dull answer is that the moon is essentially covered in various shades of grey: from the very light highlands to the dark basaltic flood plains. But if you’d take a photo of the moon and up its saturation (or if you look very, very closely), you’d see some remarkable variation: green tints in areas rich in olivine, orange tints in areas poor in iron, even some blueish tints in areas rich in titanium.

Sometimes, simple questions like ‘what color is the moon’ actually require a lot of science (and in this case, geology) to get through. The moon is a fascinating place that continues to intrigue and draw our attention. When you look at it, beautifully reflecting the sun’s rays, remember that it’s actually grey, black, green, and orange. But mostly grey and black.”…..

Source: The real color of the moon — and why it’s probably not what you think. It's part boring, part interesting, and mostly geology

A fair amount of graphic examples….

👽🤓🍹

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToothe versions you present are very poor quality degraded copies of the originals. They lack the detail of the originals. The detail in the originals is clear to see.

It seems you really believe if you generate content, no matter how false and ricidulous, if you just generate sufficient AMOUNT of junk it will somehow prevail and lie will become truth.

So the extreme difference between how Moon really looks as shown in the videos and 100% gray washedout airbrushed look in near all frames you expectedly "explain" by "low quality copy" and for frames "different processing methods" and different cameras, as if that would even remotely account for the EXTREME difference we seen been them...

,,,getting WORSE with time as shown in 2008 KAGUYA footage (clearly a badly assambled CGI, they dont even try to look convincing anymore) where we see a full color full contrast (fake) Earth in the background (it should be exactly the other way around, Earth should be washed out) and Moon completely devoid of ANY color, ANY contrast, ANYthing but dead CGI shameless fakeness.

originally posted by: tachyonator9

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToothe versions you present are very poor quality degraded copies of the originals. They lack the detail of the originals. The detail in the originals is clear to see.

It seems you really believe if you generate content, no matter how false and ricidulous, if you just generate sufficient AMOUNT of junk it will somehow prevail and lie will become truth.

Insisting something is fake because you don't like it doesn't make it fake - nobody has to accept your word for it, you need to back it up. The point of 'generating content' is to provide you with multiple sources of evidence of the same thing, backing up my point, rather than you just cherry picking a single source that confirms your bias. If you don't like that content, provide your own, or explain to us why that content isn't valid. Here's a whole web page telling you how to do that, off you go:

onebigmonkey.com...

So the extreme difference between how Moon really looks as shown in the videos and 100% gray washedout airbrushed look in near all frames you expectedly "explain" by "low quality copy"

and for frames "different processing methods" and different cameras, as if that would even remotely account for the EXTREME difference we seen been them...

The differences in processing do make a difference - I've even showed you that with the same photograph looking completely different. I've produced exactly the same photograph published in the pre-digital age looking completely different depending on how the publisher wanted it to look but where the actual detail in the image is the same. There is no difference in the content of those images, just the aesthetic of them. In terms of digital images, putting it very simply as well as the light you want in images you get a lot of light you don't. All I did in the photoshop example was adjust the levels to remove the unwanted light to stop it masking the detail underneath. Just because it looks 'grey and washed out' doesn't mean that all the detail you want to see isn't there.

,,,getting WORSE with time as shown in 2008 KAGUYA footage (clearly a badly assambled CGI, they dont even try to look convincing anymore) where we see a full color full contrast (fake) Earth in the background (it should be exactly the other way around, Earth should be washed out) and Moon completely devoid of ANY color, ANY contrast, ANYthing but dead CGI shameless fakeness.

Why would Earth, which is several times brighter than the moon and with a range of colours, look washed out? The moon is not devoid of colour, it's the lighting of it that is making that colour difficult to see - I could show you any number of holiday snaps taken in bright sunshine with the same problem. The colour of the moon in Apollo images is discussed here:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here's that Kaguya image with reduced levels:

Exactly the same detail down to how the image is treated.

Look through a telescope. Tell me what colour the moon is.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Insisting something is fake because you don't like it doesn't make it fake

I fully agree, my claims don't make it fake, the fact that it IS fake makes it fake irrespective of my or anyone's claims.

The differences in processing do make a difference. [..]Just because it looks 'grey and washed out' doesn't mean that all the detail you want to see isn't there.

Sure it does and i agree certain level of detail 'hides' underneath that washed out greyness, but not all. And funny how most of them are "processed" in such a way to slowly establish the mental image of 100% grey washed out Moon in the minds of humanity, while their own videos and rare frames refute them mercilessly. Make up your mind what is the REAL color of the Moon, the washed out superlight gray or rich, nice contrast BROWN we see in the videos...

www.youtube.com...

Now i took two photos of my old encyclopedia from 1970 i think, i did not one bit alter the color of the photos camera is old and bad but color you see is as it is in the print. Needless to say, here is a rich brown Moon. "Processing" you say, funny.

Why would Earth, which is several times brighter than the moon and with a range of colours, look washed out?

Of course it SHOULD and it does in some Apollo frames, cause it's in direct sunlight 380,000km away, also take into account the atmospheric effects, Moon surface being closer to the camera should not be washed out as it is not in some frames. Kubric correctly depicted this in Space Oddisey,

Here's that Kaguya image with reduced levels:

Even with reduced levels there is still no color in it, it's fake.

Look through a telescope. Tell me what colour the moon is.

I'm glad you mentioned the scope, you should've already seen this cause it's in the playlist i been linking for days but here it is separately, taken by JL Walson (UK) with an 9 inch scope on verge of refraction VERY clearly showing a city on the near side and artificial structures of a gigantic size.

Forum does not allow time stamp link so go to 3:42

youtu.be...

originally posted by: tachyonator9

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Insisting something is fake because you don't like it doesn't make it fake

I fully agree, my claims don't make it fake, the fact that it IS fake makes it fake irrespective of my or anyone's claims.

Except they aren't. You've failed to provide any kind of evidence that there is any material difference between images I've presented and images you've presented other than one set has a colour you like, another doesn't.

The differences in processing do make a difference. [..]Just because it looks 'grey and washed out' doesn't mean that all the detail you want to see isn't there.

Sure it does and i agree certain level of detail 'hides' underneath that washed out greyness, but not all. And funny how most of them are "processed" in such a way to slowly establish the mental image of 100% grey washed out Moon in the minds of humanity, while their own videos and rare frames refute them mercilessly. Make up your mind what is the REAL color of the Moon, the washed out superlight gray or rich, nice contrast BROWN we see in the videos...

www.youtube.com...

You can link to that playlist as often as you like, but all you're doing is presenting the same material that's just a different colour, and often so blady degraded it's barely possible to tell what's in it.

Now i took two photos of my old encyclopedia from 1970 i think, i did not one bit alter the color of the photos camera is old and bad but color you see is as it is in the print. Needless to say, here is a rich brown Moon. "Processing" you say, funny.

The one on the right is a cropped Apollo 12 surface image, and it's the wrong way round:

www.flickr.com...

you can check which way round it is by looking at the preceding photograph:

www.flickr.com...

Also in that photograph are several things whose colours are well known, like the LM and the US flag.

The one on the left is also the wrong way round and is also cropped, it's either AS12-47-6875 or 6876:

www.flickr.com...
www.flickr.com...

you check that it is actually flipped by looking at the craters in it, the main one in the distance being Copernicus, the large one in the foreground Reinhold. On the actual moon, using that viewing angle, the smaller crater between Reinhold and Copernicus is to the right of a line between the two, not the left as yours is.

So, while you may not have altered anything about those images, the encyclopaedia publishers did - they reversed and cropped the photographs. The colours are different. You can check the colour of the area around Copernicus and Reinhold with a telescope. As stated before, lighting has a lot to do with it as well.

Why would Earth, which is several times brighter than the moon and with a range of colours, look washed out?

Of course it SHOULD and it does in some Apollo frames, cause it's in direct sunlight 380,000km away, also take into account the atmospheric effects, Moon surface being closer to the camera should not be washed out as it is not in some frames. Kubric correctly depicted this in Space Oddisey,

No, he didn't, he didn't even get the orientation of Earth right in two successive scenes showing that view and there's no detail of Earth at all:

The moon is 'washed out' because it is also in bright sunlight and as a result is very bright it's also very close to the camera.

Here's that Kaguya image with reduced levels:

Even with reduced levels there is still no color in it, it's fake.

Again, prove it. The details in that image can be verified by a range of sources. Where are yours showing there are things missing? Dismissing something because you don't like the source doesn't invalidate the source.

Look through a telescope. Tell me what colour the moon is.

I'm glad you mentioned the scope, you should've already seen this cause it's in the playlist i been linking for days

There's a lot of crap in that playlist, I've got better things to do, like look through my telescopes.

but here it is separately, taken by JL Walson (UK) with an 9 inch scope on verge of refraction

It actually says 12", but high quality gear is no use if it you can't use it.

VERY clearly showing a city on the near side and artificial structures of a gigantic size.

Forum does not allow time stamp link so go to 3:42

youtu.be...

Blurry, out of focus shaky video of unknown locations. Yeah I'm convinced. If those cities and strucutres existed, any astronomer with any kind of telescope would see them. All those features show are the effects of landscape and lighting, again.

edited to add:

The location of your imaginary city is Rheita crater and the area to the east of it. The so-called city is just rough raised terrain lit by the sun at the terminator.