posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 12:16 PM
Consider the following simulation of detail loss:
Note further that image (a) with reasonable detail can even confuse the eye. Note the pork chop shape on the left edge of (c) and how it's not so
visible in (a). Also note the hairpin upside down U or V shape top center of (c). It's clearly evident from (a) that this is not manmade but instead
geological terrain that has been visually emphasized from radical enlargement.
With image (c) alone, it would be difficult to determine if there were intentionally designed structures. Image (c) leaves the casual viewer with the
impression of seeing only a bunch of fuzzy dots.
In contrast to image (c) above, this higher contrast image of another object on the moon
has more detail and is not suffering so badly from a low resolution, fuzzy dot appearance as in (c) above.
Still, it's 'fuzzy' and to all those wasting their time reading this thread looking for Kodak Moment / Time Magazine Photo of the Year images, I
offer the following viewpoint:
The image above (my ATS avatar) is a shape, or collection of shapes that we are visually unfamiliar with and, considering the magnification of the
telephoto lens (diminishing depth perception) and loss of color, makes it even more difficult to distinguish natural from 'unnatural' shape
So, if you find yourself checking these kinds of threads and always feel inclined to offer kind advice that attempts to keep the uneducated masses in
'logic' check, how about seriously taking the time to carefully review not only the images presented, but have a look yourself at the archived
imagery. Please refrain from commenting from the armchair - get involved or just sit back and watch.