Someone viewed two photos, though, one for photo #4 and one for #5.
False alarm! 'Twas only
I. I haven't been around the
flattist ghetto much lately, because I concluded that debating its
stubbornly ignorant residents was an indefensibly poor use of my time [
*].
Altho' making a digressive visit to the ghetto, the
obnoxiously imperative
topic that was posted by Butler, with its most recent replies by Obstat, caught my eye. "
Go look at the moon right now!"? Really,
why? I haven't looked at the Moon since its progression into the
Paschal Full Moon back in March. But Butler was useless to explain the
subject of his own
topic; he apparently expects readers to "just click" on links posted without any introduction. Like
[Hades] I will! As I read on, I was pleased to see that Obstat had kindly posted the subject images, which all seemed to feature a badly butchered photo of a
gibbous Moon (not
full, as shown by its leftmost dark crescent).
Was the unexplained occlusion on the upper right the reason for Butler's attention? As I've come to expect, he didn't enlighten readers, what with him being among the more
illiterate flattists, thus unable to write more than
17 words total in his initial 4 postings in this
topic he
originated.
I guess that someone photographed a Moon, whose occlusion is pretty obviously explained as tree branches, in
very-low-contrast lighting (e.g., shooting thro' ground fog at night). Then used a photo-editor to plop that mutilated Moon into an image that provided an empty blue sky. Fog could account for the blurriness of that Moon.
The obvious side-illumination of the mutilated gibbous Moon might be at odds with what seems to be a relatively forward angle of illumination for the front of the chimney. What seems to be classic
long-focal-length foreshortening clobbers my confidence in guesstimating those angles.
And while we're looking at chimneys, does its style indicate anything about its geographic location? It's not a style I'd expect to see, e.g., in California "ticky-tacky little boxes", nor in Florida tract-houses.
But they must not have understood what they're looking for because there's been no answers.
I know perfectly well what
I am looking for. Years ago, as an annual task, I began to generate & store a wonderfully useful table from an authoritative source, but it's now on a computer that I've powered off because of some computer-archæology I'm doing here. Besides, the table is in the style of line-printer output from a mainframe, so the more illiterate flattists might be completely unable to figure it out. I did find something that has pictures, so they might be able to understand
that. But they, plus those who can figure out printed numbers, as we've seen in the past, would then likely
reject its
authoritative source as "
demonic,
pagan, and
masonic" or somesuch.
Mindful of my proper place as a formerly more active
spherist, I'm stifling my own answers, out of respect for the excessively generous deadlines offered to the
flattists by announcements in this
topic from Obstat.
-------
Note
*: And for making that conclusion of "A Complete Waste of Time!" unavoidable, I can thank a compilation-style
topic that was
originated by Obstat himself!