MEOW #158 Can't See the Forest for the Trees

[ImOnToo]

Cat’s out. Fun one, Tom. Thanks!

[lbray53]

Cat is out of the bag and up in a tree.

[CPJohnson]

Got it! Thanks, @DrTom!

[Berto]

Cat finally out the bag. Kinda saw something in the 3d trees too! Although not sure exactly what lol…

[ajk]

Another fun one, and this time the difficulty rating seems on point.
Thanks.

[HeadinHome]

Highly recommend for all you cats spooked by some of the harder other metas this week. This cat is proudly napping on the catch as if she really did something hard. (It wasn’t, but don’t spoil her mood.)

[KayW]

Cat is out - fun one!

Kay, my cat asked me.."how did she get a picture of me in a tree? I don't do trees, I do couches!!!"

Don't buy that innocent act. There's a lot Cosette gets up to that she doesn't tell you about

[DrTom]

Cat finally out the bag. Kinda saw something in the 3d trees too! Although not sure exactly what lol…

Goodness, I wish I had been clever enough to hide a 3D image in the trees! I mean there is, as usual, somehting in the picture, but not a 3D image.

[DrTom]

Well now, this has been an exemplary puzzle. Not that the puzzle is so good, and it seems it is well liked, but from the standpoint of the number of people "playing":

1 SeamusOL
2 Hector
3 Dow Jones
4 SamKat9
5 benchen71
6 Cindy Weatherman
7 Bob cruise director
8 Mr Tex
9 KayW
10 boharr
11 Cindy Heisler
12 Whimsy (T)
13 LarsCaine
14 Meg (T)
15 miked
16 Darth
17 ChrisKochmanski
18 kurtalert
19 MatthewL
20 merlinnimue
21 Philip Chow
22 DIS
23 AlexPlays
24 heidi
25 Pair O Ducks
26 woozy
27 Debbie C
28 Mwoychik
29 DCBilly
30 Bird Lives
31 lbray53
32 jhseeman
33 Steve M
34 Tyrpmom
35 Sharkicicles
36 DrButtBeard
37 markhr
38 Laura M
39 Eric Porter
40 Snood (T)
41 ImOnToo
42 HedInHome
43 CPJohnson
44 Berto
45 ajk

Thank you to all the solvers who did not get lost in the forest!

[DrTom]

Thursday solvers:

46 Carolyn
47 Tim
48 rjy
49 Madhatter5
50 kymike
51 CAe39
52 Zombie
53 LB800
54 rvkal
55 Johnny Luau
56 LindaPRmaven
57 andeux
58 Darrell
59 frostyjhammer

I believe I am approaching a record! I'm not sure I ever had 60 solvers. I may have to do a Sally Fields!

[hoover]

Thursday solvers:

46 Carolyn
47 Tim
48 rjy
49 Madhatter5
50 kymike
51 CAe39
52 Zombie
53 LB800
54 rvkal
55 Johnny Luau
56 LindaPRmaven
57 andeux
58 Darrell
59 frostyjhammer

I believe I am approaching a record! I'm not sure I ever had 60 solvers. I may have to do a Sally Fields!

You do have 60; I solved on Crosshare between boharr and whimsy, and I don't look like a Cindy.

[Qmark]

Cat's out...thanks DrTom!

[Berto]

Got the meta. But trying to figure out the magic eye image of your banner gave me a headache.

I meant these trees @drtom !

[woozy]

Cat finally out the bag. Kinda saw something in the 3d trees too! Although not sure exactly what lol…

Goodness, I wish I had been clever enough to hide a 3D image in the trees! I mean there is, as usual, somehting in the picture, but not a 3D image.

Got the meta. But trying to figure out the magic eye image of your banner gave me a headache.

I meant these trees @drtom !

For what it's worth.

My image *IS* a 3-D magic eye image. The image you can see (although it is more difficult than the average magic eye 3D image) is four or five doves flying in various directions.

I was half joking but I did on first seeing the image thought it might a 3D image as I was remembering mine (which I had posted on a meta and/or the magic eye post some months back). I actually did try to see something in Dr. Toms but I soon realized there was nothing there.

[DrTom]

I did see something in woozy's magic image, and I did know those were the one's Berto was referencing. I was sincere though, I wish I had been clever enough to find a magic image version (I love woozy's even if I could not identify what I saw as doves, I did only after he said what it was). I was also sincere in that there is something in my picture that gives a BIG nudge. Those who have solved will know immediately what I mean. If you are still looking then you'll know on Tuesday (or when you find it).

[Cap'n Rick]

Fun one, @DrTom! Keep 'em coming!

[woozy]

...(I love woozy's even if I could not identify what I saw as doves, I did only after he said what it was). ...

It really is a tougher than average one to see. Somehow you need to first do the cross-eyed stuff and you see .... blobs... then you somehow have to focus on the blobs to get them to come into focus as doves. I'm not sure why it's so much harder. It's possible that it's because there's repeating horizontal pattern but no repeating vertical pattern. Or maybe it's because the background pattern is still an image (a forest of trees) and something one still see and focus on. I'm not really sure how image focus really works when what you are focusing on *is* a flat computer screen. There's physical crossing of the eyes (to shift the image so that each eyeball has a different image for the stereo effect) and then there's the muscle contraction of the lens for focal distance. If a magic eye relies on focal distance change, I'd have thought I'd be doomed as mine is long gone. .... Although maybe I still have some, in fact, I think there may be evidence I have more of it than most people my age.

(Actually, If never understood why the atrophying of eye muscles isn't a more universal concern than it is. Why hasn't there being research and development into eyewear with flexible rubber lenses, and why hasn't there been more research into muscle nerve reattachment surgery to flexible lens? Why isn't there more demand and outright frustration over it?)

[DrTom]

...(I love woozy's even if I could not identify what I saw as doves, I did only after he said what it was). ...

It really is a tougher than average one to see. Somehow you need to first do the cross-eyed stuff and you see .... blobs... then you somehow have to focus on the blobs to get them to come into focus as doves. I'm not sure why it's so much harder. It's possible that it's because there's repeating horizontal pattern but no repeating vertical pattern. Or maybe it's because the background pattern is still an image (a forest of trees) and something one still see and focus on. I'm not really sure how image focus really works when what you are focusing on *is* a flat computer screen. There's physical crossing of the eyes (to shift the image so that each eyeball has a different image for the stereo effect) and then there's the muscle contraction of the lens for focal distance. If a magic eye relies on focal distance change, I'd have thought I'd be doomed as mine is long gone. .... Although maybe I still have some, in fact, I think there may be evidence I have more of it than most people my age.

(Actually, If never understood why the atrophying of eye muscles isn't a more universal concern than it is. Why hasn't there being research and development into eyewear with flexible rubber lenses, and why hasn't there been more research into muscle nerve reattachment surgery to flexible lens? Why isn't there more demand and outright frustration over it?)

Well, actually there are intraocular lenses that are multifocal (i.e. see far, intermediate and near with the same lens) which work based on the ability of the ciliary body (a small muscle within the eye) to contract and alter their focal length. They are called accommodating intraocular lenses.

T

[woozy]

Well, actually there are intraocular lenses that are multifocal (i.e. see far, intermediate and near with the same lens) which work based on the ability of the ciliary body (a small muscle within the eye) to contract and alter their focal length. They are called accommodating intraocular lenses.

T

There are? What do I have to do to get my crappy lens ripped out of my eyeballs and replaced with those? Is there a line I have to stand in? Do I have to bid on Ebay?

[DrTom]

No, just talk to your ophthalmologist and see if he/she thinks you are a candidate. Intraocular lenses are not a "once and done" thing; if you have the money and desire they can be removed and upgraded. Fair warning though, insurance often pays for the lenses and/or operation if it is for cataracts, they are unlikely to if it is just a patient's desire to have better lenses. Additionally, the accommodating intraocular lenses do not always give the close up vision that people want. There are also multifocal intraocular that do not depend on the ciliary body, the lenses are designed to have multifocal properties. Think "multifocal contacts" except intraocular. Again, this is something that you should discuss with your specialist because I am just a reporter here, having no ophthalmologic experience other than years of bad eyesight.