Can't help but notice that the "hut" is pretty much exactly 8x8 pixels in size, which is the size of a JPEG block. Makes me wonder if an unlucky bit flip in the image data could produce an image like that. Or just unlucky lossy compression.<p>I have no reason to believe the image original images is actually a JPEG, though the image in the article does look like a JPEG. Just an observation I couldn't help mentioning!