Well done astrostu - I was VERY impressed you spotted a difference using the first 2 criteria. W00t! I'm actually relieved because (others don't know this) I made my case to you in a LONG-a-$ private message to you and when I got done, I was all, "I really hope I get it right, otherwise I'm going to look like an idiot having gone through all this justification and getting it wrong!"
You get to keep your degree, your PhD and an Expert Mercury Spotter's badge!
So I'm both happy and relieved. Though I maintain, this was NOT an easy comparison. I still think that even if Jules had posted crescents of Mercury (without Caloris) and the lunar far side, the votes would still be somewhat split.
I'd be curious to hear your reasoning astrostu. As far as I am concerned, none of the criteria are actually useful in distinguishing between the planets in these two images.
- both images have a lot of plains-like areas
- there are no undegraded ejecta deposits in the Moon image, so there is nothing to compare to
- both images display tectonic features about equally
- and albedo contrast is not demonstrated in any of these images.
As I said originally, this was very