I wasn't sure which section of the board to post this in and also, I didn't really know what search terms to use to see if this particular picture has already been discussed.

Anyway, with that said, I came across these instructions on a forum:
The image size in pixels doesn't matter, all 3 options work. I'm attaching a picture of the original that comes up on that site along side one which I adjusted the contrast using Photoshop's "Auto Levels" function.

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
"Dense^5th ?" - HUb' - Bad Master

"I've made a note that this is the date on which I first fully understood one of HUb''s posts and saw how it related directly to the thread. I could be wrong, though!" - DaveC - Bad Grad

Data dropout compounded by JPEG and other processing artifacts. Note how the "feature" lines up perfectly with the pixel grid and sits between two of the borders of the stripes.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Yup, JayUtah is right (as usual). I wrote a page about this: Are There Artifacts on Mars?

__________________
Phil Plait
The Bad Astronomer
http://www.badastronomy.com
badastro@badastronomy.com

This has been discussed here previously, but the search function doesn't seem to be working for me right now so I can't pull it up.

These "anomaly" claims have been circulating for some time, originating from misguided pages like this. The Clementine Lunar Image Browser FAQ contains information about the involved image processing and some of the resulting artifacts.

This is easy to independently check out. The rectangular area is very large - about the same size as Los Angeles (including all of its suburbs). It's also located on the visible side of the Moon, taking up much of central Mare Fecunditatis. The double crater with the two prominent ejecta steaks is called Messier.

If you Google "Mare Fecunditatis Messier photograph" you will find dozens of amateur and professional photographs of the area in question. Despite more than adequate resolution (use Messier for scale), there is no rectangular feature. As for me, when I first read about this, I got out my telescope, threw in a high-powered eyepiece and looked: Adequate magnification, no rectangular feature.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

Ahha. Here's one of the threads I was looking for earlier.

Unfortunately (?) the referenced thread on the Edgar Mitchell BB no longer exists.

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery

i tell you what, i'd be more convinced if such instructions chose something other than one pixel = one kilometer. like, maybe, one pixel is one meter? i mean, wow, in a single kilometer there can be enormous variations that will simply get filled in as all one color. jpeg artifacts be darned, the resolution is soooo low there's no way to draw conclusions accurately.

it's like decimating without filtering to limit bandwidth. the result exhibits massive aliasing.

taks

__________________
goodbye richard pryor :(...