Yes. I thought someone would bring this up. I didn't feel like listing the various clues we have to judge distance. Indeed, one can judge distance to known (or assumedly known) objects. But not so easy to do with unknown objects - such as UFOs - when the object's size is not known.
Just to add to the inverted image thing. You can construct a lens that inverts an image and put it over your eyes. Initially everything will be upside down and you will have a hard time walking around. Within a week or so the image will become right side up again. If you wear the special lens for a month and then take them off, you will see everything upside down for another week or two. [edit] Sorry Michael, I didn't see your post above on this subject. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
↑by QQ Disagree . Yeah well there is parallax and precession . Which understands the movement of stars. Over vast periods of time .
With regards to the use of a "camera" as comparison, I was confused because I know of lens-less cameras that have by far superior depth of field to cameras with lens. Known since before 500BCE Characteristics of pinhole camera photography Pinhole photographs have nearly infinite depth of field, everything appears in focus. As there's no lens distortion, wide angle images remain absolutely rectilinear. Exposure times are usually long, resulting in motion blur around moving objects and the absence of objects that moved too fast. Other special features can be built into pinhole cameras such as the ability to take double images by using multiple pinholes, or the ability to take pictures in cylindrical or spherical perspective by curving the film plane. src wiki The video I posted earlier was about moving images, where as the pin hole lens-less camera is about "still" images So using a lens is not essential, in fact it can be detrimental to the naked or natural quality of the image. I believe the image inversion process remains though.
Are you suggesting that the light data of stars witnessed here on Earth, is real time and not historic?
Are you referring, in the main, to how we can "imagine" a 2 dimensional plane into 3 dimensions? and to do so takes experience?.....( allowable self deception)
No What I'm saying is the star moves in space , changes position in space , regardless of the light data .
Do you believe the light data to be historic or real time? Where is this visible light data experienced by the observer?
Are we all saying that visual depth of field ( distance) is purely a mental construct, a computation and a visual rendering/illusion constructed by our brains?
just to maintain the OP's quest I'll post the example image's again. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Claim: This is all we see (experience) of the source: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! How do we observe the light source if all the data we have available, is in our eyes?