[Randominput]

You know what, it does look fake. Does not mean it is. Parallel lines seem to converge at a distance. Doesn't mean they do (and if you really, genuinely think parallel lines touch, you lose my ability to take you seriously. Saying the Earth is flat is one thing, saying parallel lines touch is something else).

Fact is there are some images of some places on Earth that you could probably see for yourself that look fake. Saying those are fake would be like saying your couch is fake.

Might it be fake? Yes. Is it 100% certainly fake? No. The only certainty is that we are certain of nothing (but saying a millennium of research is fake with no repeatable experiment saying otherwise is silly. Have a base for your arguements at least).

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

You know what, it does look fake.

Thank you for keeping it real. The whole bit about parallel lines and what not is apples and oranges.

At first glance, and then after much examination, this absolutely appears to be a 3d graphic lunar surface super imposed in front of a composite earth.

Maybe they will say the lunar surface is just mapped out from data and not an actual photograph, that might make sense. But to try to pass this off as a genuine photograph is just plain amateur. I've seen so much better cgi in movies, that looks even believable, and even then I always spot it.

Here's the Japanese equivalent for comparison, and even these look way more realistic.

[TotesNotReptilian]

At first glance, and then after much examination, this absolutely appears to be a 3d graphic lunar surface super imposed in front of a composite earth.

I'm sorry, but "it looks fake" just is not going to cut it. If you want to declare it to be fake, then you need to give SPECIFIC reasons why you think it is fake. This should be an easy task if it really is so obviously fake. So far you have given exactly two specific complaints about it:

1. The surface looks smooth.

Yes. Of course it looks smooth. It's a layer of fine dust that isn't subject to weathering. The photo was also taken from quite far away. Why would it not look smooth? And yes, dirt can look smooth on earth too.

2. The surface looks shiny.

How so? I don't see a single specular reflection in the entire photograph. Are you sure "shiny" is the word you are looking for?

[Setec Astronomy]

If someone told you this picture was a real selfie they took outside, would you believe it? Why or why not?

[TotesNotReptilian]

If someone told you this picture was a real selfie they took outside, would you believe it? Why or why not?

Haha, excellent retort. I was actually thinking of doing this anyway, just to give TheTruthIsOnHere some ideas about how to approach the problem. For convenience, I hereby name foreground dude "Ringworm" and background dude "Peter Pan". Here goes...

1. Unexpected polygonal shadows in Ringworm's shirt indicates a low vertex count model.
2. Clearly this should be a dynamically lit environment, with a wide range of light levels. However, all shadows are equally lit. This indicates the use of a global ambient shader.
3. Ground texture becomes blurry in the back at sharp angles with the camera. Poor texture filtering.
4. Ground level wasn't very well defined: plant models begin underground, with branches/leaves coming straight out of the ground.
5. Peter Pan's shadow has escaped.
6. Aliasing everywhere.

I am certainly not an expert at this. However, I at least made very specific complaints about the "photo". Now, if you think one of my arguments is wrong, you can try to specifically refute it. For example, you could counter point 5 by saying: "Peter Pan's shadow didn't escape, he is just jumping!". This prevents arguments from devolving into this.

[CableDawg]

That's an awful lot of explaining. Just admit it looks fake. Doesn't even look like the surface from the fans Apollo footage, you think they would be consistent.

It's a terrible cgi, NASA needs a bigger budget, have you seen interstellar?

Does the patch of Earth which you claim as home look the same today as it did 40 or 50 years ago?

Further, please explain how one picture taken 40 or 50 years ago is supposed to look the same as another picture taken at a completely different location 40 or 50 years later.

I think we would all like to know your logical roller coaster ride on this one.

[CableDawg]

To add to the list, there is the sun's spiraling path above the earth. The sun's motion, if I'm not mistaken, is caused by the Flat Earth Force, the force that causes objects to move in a way consistent with Flat Earth Theory.

And let's not forget the Great NASA Conspiracy, by orders of magnitude the largest and most successful conspiracy in the history of the world.
[/quote]

They're probably responsible for Kennedy and 9/11 as well.  We'll have to wait a few more years for these to be fully integrated though.

[CableDawg]

Roundabout, has overwhelming condescension always been your dominating personality trait or is this just an aberration of your character?

It looks phoney to me because the surface looks smooth and shiny, in contradiction to any real dusty, dirt covered surface I've ever seen photographed, and in contradiction to what is shown in the thousands of other photos and videos of the surface allegedly captured by Apollo astronauts.

So, in one instance you're comparing an alien surface, which you've got zero experience with, to one you know and in another instance you're comparing one photo which you proclaim to be fake against another which you claim to be fake.

Concerning the first, do you regularly make real/fake judgments based upon zero experience?

Concerning the second, do you regularly compare two or more things you consider to be fake to make a judgment of realism on them?

Either train of logic seems more like a train wreck to me.

[Setec Astronomy]

If someone told you this picture was a real selfie they took outside, would you believe it? Why or why not?

Haha, excellent retort. I was actually thinking of doing this anyway, just to give TheTruthIsOnHere some ideas about how to approach the problem. For convenience, I hereby name foreground dude "Ringworm" and background dude "Peter Pan". Here goes...

1. Unexpected polygonal shadows in Ringworm's shirt indicates a low vertex count model.
2. Clearly this should be a dynamically lit environment, with a wide range of light levels. However, all shadows are equally lit. This indicates the use of a global ambient shader.
3. Ground texture becomes blurry in the back at sharp angles with the camera. Poor texture filtering.
4. Ground level wasn't very well defined: plant models begin underground, with branches/leaves coming straight out of the ground.
5. Peter Pan's shadow has escaped.
6. Aliasing everywhere.

1. The picture is taken from an old cell phone digital camera which obviously uses poor quality digital rendering software.
2. See above. Digital cameras must digitally render images so this is expected with homie's decrepit Obamaphone and it's low-quality image rendering. Also, sunlight has the same intensity as expected.
3. This is a fault of the camera software. Not ever picture can come out looking perfect you know.
4. You don't live in this area and have no idea what the ground looks like. It is possible for leaves and branches to be placed in the ground - homie might have stuck them in there like a poor man's lawn flamingo to give the scene a certain je ne sais quoi
5. No, clearly he had hopped in the air the moment the picture was taken, as a goof.
6. Homie has a cheap sub-megapixel cell camera. Obamaphones aren't your iPhone 6S you know.

[Captain Magpie]

1. The picture is taken from an old cell phone digital camera which obviously uses poor quality digital rendering software.
2. See above. Digital cameras must digitally render images so this is expected with homie's decrepit Obamaphone and it's low-quality image rendering. Also, sunlight has the same intensity as expected.
3. This is a fault of the camera software. Not ever picture can come out looking perfect you know.
4. You don't live in this area and have no idea what the ground looks like. It is possible for leaves and branches to be placed in the ground - homie might have stuck them in there like a poor man's lawn flamingo to give the scene a certain je ne sais quoi
5. No, clearly he had hopped in the air the moment the picture was taken, as a goof.
6. Homie has a cheap sub-megapixel cell camera. Obamaphones aren't your iPhone 6S you know.

I see what you are trying to do but the two do not equate.

[TotesNotReptilian]

If someone told you this picture was a real selfie they took outside, would you believe it? Why or why not?

Haha, excellent retort. I was actually thinking of doing this anyway, just to give TheTruthIsOnHere some ideas about how to approach the problem. For convenience, I hereby name foreground dude "Ringworm" and background dude "Peter Pan". Here goes...

1. Unexpected polygonal shadows in Ringworm's shirt indicates a low vertex count model.
2. Clearly this should be a dynamically lit environment, with a wide range of light levels. However, all shadows are equally lit. This indicates the use of a global ambient shader.
3. Ground texture becomes blurry in the back at sharp angles with the camera. Poor texture filtering.
4. Ground level wasn't very well defined: plant models begin underground, with branches/leaves coming straight out of the ground.
5. Peter Pan's shadow has escaped.
6. Aliasing everywhere.

1. The picture is taken from an old cell phone digital camera which obviously uses poor quality digital rendering software.
2. See above. Digital cameras must digitally render images so this is expected with homie's decrepit Obamaphone and it's low-quality image rendering. Also, sunlight has the same intensity as expected.
3. This is a fault of the camera software. Not ever picture can come out looking perfect you know.
4. You don't live in this area and have no idea what the ground looks like. It is possible for leaves and branches to be placed in the ground - homie might have stuck them in there like a poor man's lawn flamingo to give the scene a certain je ne sais quoi
5. No, clearly he had hopped in the air the moment the picture was taken, as a goof.
6. Homie has a cheap sub-megapixel cell camera. Obamaphones aren't your iPhone 6S you know.

I assume you are trying to prove some kind of point. Perhaps it would be helpful to just come out and say it directly?

Fine, I'll play along...

1. The vertex resolution of the polygons is much less than the resolution of the photo. Therefore, it has nothing to do with the camera's poor quality.
2. I was referring to shadow intensity, not sunlight intensity. For example, the shadow deep in the corner of the trailer is the same intensity as Peter Pan's shadow. Also, what exactly do you think digital cameras do when they "render" images? Are you sure you know what that word means?
3. Photos can be blurry in back due to focus. But in this image, only the textures that are at a sharp angle to the camera appear blurry. This happens in 3D rendering, but not photography.
4. He sure does have great taste in art.
5. His posture would indicate otherwise, but it's plausible. What a goof.
6. The aliasing of the shadow on Ringworm's right sleeve is much lower resolution than the photo resolution. This happens in 3D rendering, but not photography.

See how much fun this is? We could be doing this for the original picture, but you STILL haven't provided actual reasons why you think it is faked.

also... *cough* more irony *cough*

[Setec Astronomy]

See how much fun this is? We could be doing this for the original picture, but you STILL haven't provided actual reasons why you think it is faked.

I was not talking about the original picture, I was addressing the nonsensical idea that something which appears to be an obvious fake should not be regarded as fake.

Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?

[BlueMoon]

See how much fun this is? We could be doing this for the original picture, but you STILL haven't provided actual reasons why you think it is faked.

I was not talking about the original picture, I was addressing the nonsensical idea that something which appears to be an obvious fake should not be regarded as fake.

Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?

The point is that "just looking at it" isn't enough to prove a point.  Every aspect of the image of the moon can be explained cohesively without resorting to CGI, and it is up to you to explain why this might not be the case. 

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Explaining something cohesively is the thing you don't have to do when something is obvious. Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses. The photo doesn't look real. No matter how many reasons you can come up with for why it doesn't, but still might be. If you choose to accept it that's your choice, but it just goes to show the type of low quality shit you'll accept as long as it's from your favorite space bureaucracy.

[Captain Magpie]

Explaining something cohesively is the thing you don't have to do when something is obvious. Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses. The photo doesn't look real. No matter how many reasons you can come up with for why it doesn't, but still might be. If you choose to accept it that's your choice, but it just goes to show the type of low quality shit you'll accept as long as it's from your favorite space bureaucracy.

Well to everyone but you this is not a obvious fake. We know the changed the contrast to make the picture clearer and that they added the color the earth to make it look pretty but it isn't like they didn't also offer up the unedited version of the picture for you too look at too. In the original the things you are having issues with are not there.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?

No I didn't. As humans, we are quite proficient at facial recognition. We do it every day. It is relatively difficult to create a CGI face that can fool a person up close. However, we do NOT have daily experience with recognizing a lunar landscape. This is why we need to remain objective, and not rely on intuition.

Despite my intuitive recognition of the fake image, I was still able give a list of specific reasons why I believed it to be fake. I was able to objectively defend most of those reasons. If the lunar landscape really is so obviously fake, then you should likewise be able to back up that claim with specific evidence.

Explaining something cohesively is the thing you don't have to do when something is obvious. Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses. The photo doesn't look real. No matter how many reasons you can come up with for why it doesn't, but still might be. If you choose to accept it that's your choice, but it just goes to show the type of low quality shit you'll accept as long as it's from your favorite space bureaucracy.

Refusing to explain something cohesively despite it being so "obvious" is the thing you do when you don't actually have any specific evidence to support your gut feeling. I'm sorry, no matter how many times you tell us it doesn't look real, I am still going to require some specific evidence before I take you seriously. So far, the silence has been deafening.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/data/support/downloads/Earth_and_Limb_M1199291564L_bw_1stretch.tif

Now that I'm being forced to explain why this image is fake, eventhough it should be obvious to anyone with no vested interest, I took a closer look. The shadows make absolutely no sense. Look at the ones in the lower part of the image and you can tell they are cast in a different direction than the ones in the middle, and the sizes of the shadows are bizarre. Thats probably what my eye rejected instinctively, but the saran wrap glossy texture is what I noticed the most.

Also explain the terminator line thing to me. Which angle is the sun light hitting this surface from? The shadows indicate like a 15~25 degree angle but that terminator line of black mountains certainly wouldn't make sense.

I'm so ashamed of myself right now for having had to explain that to you, by the way.

[CableDawg]

Explaining something cohesively is the thing you don't have to do when something is obvious. Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses. The photo doesn't look real. No matter how many reasons you can come up with for why it doesn't, but still might be. If you choose to accept it that's your choice, but it just goes to show the type of low quality shit you'll accept as long as it's from your favorite space bureaucracy.

Your brain is obviously at war with your own senses yet you're going to stand on the premise of your senses anyway?

What are your senses without your brain?  Please explain how you're taking your brain out of the picture (no pun intended) and relying solely on your senses.

[TotesNotReptilian]

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/data/support/downloads/Earth_and_Limb_M1199291564L_bw_1stretch.tif

Now that I'm being forced to explain why this image is fake, eventhough it should be obvious to anyone with no vested interest, I took a closer look. The shadows make absolutely no sense. Look at the ones in the lower part of the image and you can tell they are cast in a different direction than the ones in the middle, and the sizes of the shadows are bizarre. Thats probably what my eye rejected instinctively, but the saran wrap glossy texture is what I noticed the most.

This is much more useful, thanks. Matching up shadows is rather difficult on a 2D image of rolling hills, but we can try I guess. All the shadows seem to be roughly pointing in the same direction to me, although I haven't exactly gone over it with a fine-toothed comb. Perhaps post an image with the problem shadows circled? Feel free to scale down the image if you do. We don't need the 100 MB source image posted repeatedly.

The most interesting thing to me is the grey smudge around earth. I assume it is a compression artifact, but I could be wrong.

Also explain the terminator line thing to me. Which angle is the sun light hitting this surface from? The shadows indicate like a 15~25 degree angle but that terminator line of black mountains certainly wouldn't make sense.

The camera is at a higher altitude than the sun, angle-wise. The mountains in the back have line of sight to the camera, but not the sun. That's why they are black. I don't know the exact angle. I'm sure it was posted somewhere by NASA though.

I'm so ashamed of myself right now for having had to explain that to you, by the way.

Your gracious condescension is appreciated.

[Setec Astronomy]

Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?

No I didn't. As humans, we are quite proficient at facial recognition. We do it every day. It is relatively difficult to create a CGI face that can fool a person up close.

Perhaps he wore a latex face mask because he didn't want his real picture on the Internet? Hell, there's a guy over in my LLR Hoax thread who won't even reveal anything about a supposed UK astronomer he chats with on StackExchange who can cooberate his nonsensical claims. Lotta crazy people out there and identities must be hidden, right? 

See, it's really easy to just make shit up about why something fake "could" be real.