One thing John, and you'll be very aware of this. That in interpreting any picture taken, you have to be careful in saying what you think is there. The human brain is a wizard for seeing patterns in things where there is in fact nothing there. The problem with interpreting features within a crater such as Copernicus is that you have a very complex and jumbled terrain to look at, along with many instances of shadow and light in various orientations. To really be definitive about whatever you looking at, it's best to get multiple passes of an area under different conditions of illumination. It's especially important where the resolution of the pictures taken isn't so great, as it is in many lunar photos. Even though they were in orbit there, the cameras in those days weren't the best so far as image resolution goes. So that's why you're getting photos whose appearence is blurry. Having had quite a bit of experience in using aerial photgraphs and satellite imagery (being a geologist), the most important thing I can say is "don't trust what you see". You really need multiple levels of confirmation to really be sure about the objects you're looking at. It's all too easy to get something simple as the height of a tree in a photo wrong, just because you have no idea of the scale length of it's shadow or the correct illumination angle and flightpath taken by the picture taking craft.
