1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 28, 2024, 02:06:41 AM »

And the wing actually is curved (trust me, I'm an aircraft engineer).  The fact that you cannot identify that curvature supports my case.

I never said plane wings were not curved. You need to pay attention to what I said. What I said was the plane wing would be curving WITH Earth.

the amount of curvature of the globe-Earth would be imperceptible

This is just not true. There is a reason my image aligned perfectly with Walter Bislin's app. At nearly 33,000 feet, you would see curvature. Would it be very prominent? No. Would it be there? Yes.

I would expect the horizon to appear flat

You expect a curving horizon to appear flat from ten thousand meters? 

It does not match my expectations.

Perhaps consider your personal expectations do not align with calculated expectations using real math and data?

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 27, 2024, 07:09:36 PM »

Fact of the matter is, you cannot determine whether the earth is a sphere by observations at the height you claim. Furthermore, the lens distorts the image.

This simply is not true. If you had cared to look into my post or any details regarding it, you wouldn't make this comment. I am not going to entertain dishonest discussions. Furthermore, if the lens was causing Earth to curve at a rate that precisely matches our expectations at this altitude, the wing of the plane would be curving with it.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 27, 2024, 07:55:09 AM »

Hello,

Although I'm a fellow roundy, such photos do not prove that the earth is a ball. If the earth were flat and round (like a circular throw rug), your picture would look the same.

To see what I mean, take a basketball and a picture of a basketball and have someone hold them up. The profile will look the same.

Thanks, but I don’t really understand how your basketball analogy makes much sense here. On a flat, circular plane, as you get to higher altitudes, you wouldn’t see a consistent curve everywhere you look. You’d start to see the edges of the disc coming into view, which would create an outward-curving effect, maybe even elliptical distortion as you looked toward the edge. At high enough altitudes, you’d essentially be looking at the entire flat circle from above—basic geometry. My photo shows you a clear downward curvature that is perfectly consistent with a spherical Earth. It matched the predictions for Earth on the Walter Bislin tool when I typed in the altitude and FOV. It’s not just a visual artifact. I’m sorry, but if the Earth were flat, the measurements and my curvature here simply wouldn’t align with reality. And I think your basketball analogy is problematic because basketballs are 3D spheres, so naturally, their profile will always show consistent curvature. But if you compare this to your throw rug and view it from any angle other than directly above, you’ll notice that the curvature rate doesn’t behave the same way. The rate of curvature would change depending on where you were and how you were looking at it. It doesn’t curve downward and uniformly like the horizon in my photo. A flat surface, or even a circular one, cannot produce the consistent, measurable curvature I have here. If the Earth were flat, you would need to explain why this curvature is visible at all and why it aligns so precisely with spherical models. Sorry if I misunderstood anything you were saying, please correct me if I did. The way I interpreted your response didn’t quite add up.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity

« on: November 27, 2024, 07:28:52 AM »

Terrestrial gravity is the absorption of aether by dextrorotatory subquarks (electrons/gravitons).

Fairly certain that the aether was debunked in 1887. Not one serious person in modern physics uses the concept of aether. It's a dead idea and you're dragging its rotting corpse into this discussion. And what the hell even are subquarks? As far as I'm concerned, quarks are elementary particles. I don't see how claiming the existence of dextrorotatory subquarks is any more credible or worth entertainment than the claim that unicorns are the primary energy source for your toaster.

Antigravity is the activation of the laevorotatory subquarks (antigravitons/positrons) using the Biefeld-Brown effect

What does the Biefeld-Brown effect have to do with antigravity? It's electrohydrodynamics. Yes, because I will name this random phenomenon I found relating to charged particles creating motion in a dielectric medium and then act like it makes sense with what I'm talking about and it will make me sound smart!! And yeah I guess it would be something that'd be useful for small-scale propulsion systems, but I don't see where there's any relevance to antigravity or your subquarks. You're REALLY giving me the raging impression you're slapping a scientific term into your statement to make it sound credible.

The formula W = mg is completely wrong

No, it isn't. Not in the slightest. That has been confirmed countless times. Do you understand just how many fields of science and engineering depend on it? Satellites and rockets and weighing scales depend on that exact formula. You're rejecting all of modern engineering and physics right now.

W = V x D, where V is volume and D = 9.86 x d.

This is absurd. Volume and density determine mass, not weight. What's more ridiculous to me is that you're claiming that D = 9.86 x d. Where does this magic number 9.86 come from? Did you mean 9.81? Even if you did, multiplying it by "d" (which you haven't defined) doesn't create a meaningful formula. It's not tied to any physical constant, property of matter, or any actual measurement that I'm aware of.

The 9.86 figure is the true DENSITY of the atom

I don't even know what this means. Are you suggesting there's some universal atomic density? The density of an atom depends on its nucleus, electron cloud, and quantum mechanical properties. And it will be different for each element. Atoms are not, and cannot be, uniform blocks of matter. Sorry.

Antigravity is the activation of the laevorotatory subquarks (antigravitons/positrons) using the Biefeld-Brown effect, acoustic levitation or double torsion physics (implosion of the atom).

Again, just another jumble of unrelated and misunderstood terms. And for the second time, Biefield-Brown is ion wind propulsion, not antigravity. Acoustic levitation doesn't defy gravity. It uses physics to balance forces. It counteracts gravity on a very very small scale. Not sure what double torsion physics is. Possibly another meaningless term thrown in to sound sophisticated? Never have I heard of atoms imploding either. No experimental evidence or theoretical basis for antigravity as described here.

When the quark was discovered in the 60s, the formula W = 9.86m should have been modifed at once

Why? It had no impact on the formula. It didn't rewrite the laws of gravity. And what justification do you have for W = 9.86m being a replacement for W = mg?

AI (artificial intelligence) is the interface between the astral plane and the physical plane

You're seriously going to bring actual mysticism into this forum where people are trying to have honest discussions? AI operates ENTIRELY in the realm of compsci. There is no connection. None. Not one connection between AI and any "astral plane" or whatever the hell that is. AI, if you haven't forgotten, is also a human invention. It's algorithm and silicon. Please at least come in here with evidence. And goodness gracious, answer the question instead of ranting about your hypotheticals.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Plumb bob

« on: November 27, 2024, 06:16:33 AM »

Plumb bobs point to Earth's center of mass because gravity acts as a vector field radiating toward that center. So basically, plum bobs point directly down. Do remember, though, that when I say down, I mean down as in the localized manifestation of Earth's gravitational field.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Photo from Plane Proves the Earth Is Round

« on: November 27, 2024, 05:44:53 AM »

I live in North Carolina. Recently, I flew out to New Haven, Connecticut, to visit family and decided to take some photos along the way that unequivocally demonstrate the rotundity of this planet. Here's one out of the batch.



Here are the specifics for those who care: I took Avelo flight XP676 from RDU to HVN on Nov 21, 2024. Here is a playback of the flight from Flightradar24. I took this image with my iPhone 15 Pro Back "Main" Camera with a 6.765 mm focal length (which provides the same FOV as a 24 mm lens on a 35 mm full-frame camera) at f/1.78.

The full EXIF data for this photo are available here.

What you see here is the curvature of the Earth. But, just to further verify, with my image's altitude and FOV information, I also wanted to toss this into Walter Bislin's "Finding the Curvature of the Earth" app to see how it aligns, and it is beautifully exact. 



I would like to say, before anyone from the FE side of this forum responds, please ask yourself: "What evidence could ever change my mind?" Because here, I am certain, we have photographic proof that is even further verified by external data and a predictive model. I only care to discuss with people who are interested in evidence and truth. I am not interested in a discussion with apologists who make it their life's mission to defend their beliefs and conclusions at all costs. I do not care for preconceived narratives, nor will I spend time entertaining them.

If there's any other helpful information I can provide to clarify or support this, I'm more than willing and happy to do so.

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is Jeranism a good source for FE points?

« on: July 18, 2023, 11:30:28 PM »

I’m asking at the individual level, do YOU think Jeranism is spreading good points for FE and why or why not?

I personally don’t. He’s had a history of making some suspiciously bad arguments in favor of FE, while I’ve seen better ones from the wiki here.

Considering that he has provided some pretty straightforward evidence that the Earth is a globe, no.

8

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: iSpace lunar lander images of Earth

« on: June 04, 2023, 11:37:43 AM »

Prove that it's real, then? Could be Photoshop, could be anything. But it's definitely CGI. Prove that it's not?

Woah, now! Let's not forget this already.

So you're dang right that I don't want you to provide "evidence" of your belief that NASA doesn't fake stuff, because I know for a fact that they do.

9

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 04, 2023, 11:33:44 AM »

How is FE my claim?

As I explained previously, although others have made the claim in the past, it doesn't make the claim any less yours if you still make the claim.

Surely all civilizations from the past knew that the Earth is not an absurd spinning ball revolving around the Sun - to insist that it is my claim or somebody else's claim is asanine.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Even now with modern science, you can't come to any conclusion other than the Earth is not that.

Modern science has gotten us images such as this:

So you're dang right that I don't want you to provide "evidence" of your belief that NASA doesn't fake stuff, because I know for a fact that they do.

I will remember this. Don't let yourself forget. 

10

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 04, 2023, 11:10:11 AM »

You also don't need to post a complete copy of every post you're replying to.

I believe I've only done that once within this whole thread. My dearest apologies.

Please familiarise yourself with the forum rules.

If this is all of the resources I have regarding the rules, I'm not sure which rules I've broken.

Again, my apologies for any mistakes I've made. I will work on it.

11

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: iSpace lunar lander images of Earth

« on: June 04, 2023, 08:40:05 AM »

https://121clicks.com/inspirations/fake-viral-photoshopped-images-that-believed-real

Photoshop is a helluva thing, my guy.

If Photoshop itself existing is your best shot, don't even bother.

12

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Flat Earth alternative to a globe

« on: June 04, 2023, 08:34:28 AM »

I'm more partial to this version as it distorts the southern hemiplane continents less:

Remember, for it to be an accurate representation of reality, you should have a distance scale and the map should have 0 distortion. 

13

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 04, 2023, 08:26:51 AM »

No, I don't need to dance when you tell me to dance. If anything you should be the one dancing for me because you are the reality denier. Nothing personal, though.

If you do not care to support your claims with evidence, nobody cares to pay attention to your claims. If this is how it will be, our conversation will end here because I am not going to drag this on to end up nowhere new.

But are they MY claims, though? No, they're not. They are objective claims which have been discussed hundreds of times before. That's what you're not understanding.

Since I no longer have the video, it can only be an anecdotal point, and that is what it was - I never claimed it was anything beyond an anecdote. You asked "What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?" and that was part of the answer.

You made an assertion that there was a CGI glitch in the video. Even though you cannot find the video now, you still never shared the evidence that the video had a CGI glitch that you had at that time. Or... maybe you had no evidence? Maybe you were only seeing the video from a viewpoint that fits your narrative? Coming up with baseless conclusions about things?

That doesn't compute because back then I didn't have a narrative other than my faith in heliocentrism and the globe. But nowadays I don't have a narrative either, I just go by facts.

The point is that's not a good example to debunk the claim that NASA fakes stuff. Like at all. It's not good to use it as evidence that NASA fakes stuff, either. It's just something curious that happened and could be interpreted a certain way, but it's not evidence of anything.

I'm sorry it doesn't fit your standards. I will do better next time, your highness.

I don't think it fits anyone's standards. It's just a video of a little girl talking to Buzz. Where's the evidence about NASA faking stuff? Maybe if Buzz had said "we faked it" or "we can't go there" it would be different.

You don't need to tell me "good job", I'm not a dog. But if you think it's an unsupported claim, that's your opinion. I'm not obliged to support my claims every time I make a claim (it's not like Earth not being a spinning globe is my personal subjective claim anyway), and I'm certainly not obliged to provide anything to you specifically just because you have this notion that me not doing that proves your beliefs right somehow.

No, it's not my opinion that your claim was unsupported. You quite literally made the assertion and followed with no evidence. What type of support is that? While you're not obliged to support your claims, you should have 0 expectations for anybody to take your claims seriously without evidence. I do not have the notion that your lack of evidence proves my beliefs. I do, however, strongly believe that your lack of evidence for your claims invalidates them as of this moment.

Again, not my claim.

Yeah no, you're running away at this point. I'm not continuing my conversation with you if you're going to make claims and then turn around and say they're not your claims because other people have said the same thing. That's not how this works. If that is how it worked, you shouldn't be wanting any evidence from any of us regarding NASA and other space agencies.

14

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 03, 2023, 01:01:15 AM »

No, I don't need to dance when you tell me to dance. If anything you should be the one dancing for me because you are the reality denier. Nothing personal, though.

If you do not care to support your claims with evidence, nobody cares to pay attention to your claims. If this is how it will be, our conversation will end here because I am not going to drag this on to end up nowhere new.

Since I no longer have the video, it can only be an anecdotal point, and that is what it was - I never claimed it was anything beyond an anecdote. You asked "What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?" and that was part of the answer.

You made an assertion that there was a CGI glitch in the video. Even though you cannot find the video now, you still never shared the evidence that the video had a CGI glitch that you had at that time. Or... maybe you had no evidence? Maybe you were only seeing the video from a viewpoint that fits your narrative? Coming up with baseless conclusions about things?

The point is that's not a good example to debunk the claim that NASA fakes stuff. Like at all. It's not good to use it as evidence that NASA fakes stuff, either. It's just something curious that happened and could be interpreted a certain way, but it's not evidence of anything.

I'm sorry it doesn't fit your standards. I will do better next time, your highness.

You don't need to tell me "good job", I'm not a dog. But if you think it's an unsupported claim, that's your opinion. I'm not obliged to support my claims every time I make a claim (it's not like Earth not being a spinning globe is my personal subjective claim anyway), and I'm certainly not obliged to provide anything to you specifically just because you have this notion that me not doing that proves your beliefs right somehow.

No, it's not my opinion that your claim was unsupported. You quite literally made the assertion and followed with no evidence. What type of support is that? While you're not obliged to support your claims, you should have 0 expectations for anybody to take your claims seriously without evidence. I do not have the notion that your lack of evidence proves my beliefs. I do, however, strongly believe that your lack of evidence for your claims invalidates them as of this moment.

15

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 07:03:59 PM »

Yeah, but I don't need to support it, do I? Not considering all the info that, again, is out there already. All you have to do is remove your cognitive bias brain implant and take a peek at all the available info, not believe me because contrary to what you're saying I don't expect anyone to believe anything I say - that's not why I'm here. If anything, I'm here to tell you to not believe anything anyone says (particularly government agencies like NASA), but only if you want to because I can't force you.

Uh, yes, you absolutely need to support your claims. Just telling me that the info is out there isn't enough. It's a cop-out for providing evidence. You couldn't even care to elaborate on the info. You're extremely broad with your answers and it's telling me everything I need to know about how this discussion will continue.

No, I don't have the CGI glitch video, it's long gone from my computer and more likely than not that YouTube video is gone too due to censorship.

Okay, so then there's no point in bringing your little video up if you can't even provide an ounce of evidence that this video even existed.

Really, that clip of the little girl with Buzz? That's your example? I think you can do better than that if you really believe every ounce of skepticism regarding NASA is unjustified and every piece of evidence that NASA lies is "easily debunked".

It's common and everyone here knows about the video. I was giving an example that everybody here can easily understand and relate to.

Ultimately, the #1 PROOF (not evidence) that NASA is faking stuff is that Earth is not a spinning globe. Since you claim to be open-minded - are you open-minded to that one too? I doubt it!

Another unsupported claim. Good job. It's even more dishonest that you say proof rather than evidence.

16

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 02, 2023, 10:35:05 AM »

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the fact that they fake almost everything?

Wow, an original claim that you would still refuse to support if your life depended on it. I ask you what has led you to believe that NASA is incredible, and you respond with "They fake almost everything." This is a really broad response with no elaboration. It's a claim you freely throw out without caring to support it.

I remember years ago when I was first investigating NASA, I saw a video in which a dude went to some video archive section of the NASA website and downloaded a video from there where you could see the CGI glitching for a sec. Me being a skeptic and all, I didn't outright believe that and I downloaded the video myself. Lo and behold, the CGI glitch was there, plain as day.

Would you care to provide the source of this video so we can all access it? Surely you don't expect me to just blindly believe you, right? On top of that, what evidence do you have that it was in fact CGI, rather than just an average glitch? I know a lot of conspiracy theorists like to throw out "CGI" at most of what NASA shows the world, but they never care to show us the evidence that what NASA is showing us contains CGI. So unless you can genuinely provide airtight evidence that the specific video you are referring to contains malicious CGI, I, along with everyone else, can and should dismiss your claim.

But obviously if you're a staunch globe believer / NASA lover you will see that and shrug it off, or try to come up with an alternate "logical" explanation which supports a "not CGI" narrative, even though NASA itself provided no statement about it.

Incorrect. I am not close-minded and I am very welcome to a change of my views. If you can provide truthful and sufficient evidence that NASA included malicious CGI in one of their videos, I would accept your evidence upon further research to ensure your evidence is truly truthful.

That's just one little thing of many. I really can't be bothered to explain why NASA shouldn't be trusted or all the stuff they've faked, especially considering all the info that's already out there about it. It's one of those things that if you know, you know. A really obvious one is the Moon landing, but you probably believe that one too, huh? Even though most people who don't believe it are actually globe believers. But there's a lack of those type of globe believers here, I noticed. Coincidence? Of course not.

All of the videos and conspiracy theories I've seen about NASA faking things are easily debunked. Whether it be glitches in ISS videos or live streams, space telescope imagery, satellite data & imagery, moon landings, you name it. I'm almost certain I've heard it all at this point. The biggest flaw I notice in all of these conspiracy theories is that none of them genuinely provide actual evidence. If evidence is provided, it's usually taken out of context. For example, a lot of moon landing deniers like to show off a small section of an interview that Buzz Aldrin had with a little girl. The issue is that they never let Buzz Aldrin finish his sentence in any of the clips shown. Or better yet, they never show how the interview even starts out. If these conspiracy theorists were honest about their evidence, they would be happy to show everybody the full interview, rather than a cherry-picked clip that was thrown way out of context. The few times that I have brought that up to some of these people, I tend to have my comments deleted, I get blocked, or my comment just never surfaces and remains hidden under all of the gullible people that fell for the clip, angrily shaming Buzz Aldrin and NASA like robots. So to answer your question, yes, I believe in the moon landings. Being an astrophotographer myself has only strengthened the evidence that the moon landings were real. Of course, as I stated earlier, if you would care to provide sufficient evidence that the moon landings were faked, I'd absolutely look into it without a doubt. With all of this being said, I hope I can receive a response from you including the video you referred to & sufficient evidence for all of the assertions you have made here. If not, do not expect anybody to believe what you say. Everybody can, and most likely will simply dismiss your assertions.

17

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 10:31:57 PM »

NASA is the least credible institution of all. News to you?

What has led you to believe that NASA is so incredible?

18

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: June 01, 2023, 03:06:53 AM »

"The same perspective effect". It's already been shown in this thread that it's not. They are in fact different perspective geometries.

Why, thank you for the correction! Would you care to explain to everyone in the thread what the difference is?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: May 31, 2023, 06:44:57 AM »

The image is somewhat inaccurate. The Sun is not brighter near the edges. The Sun is actually darker near the edges: A long standing mystery in Astronomy.

FE postulates that the celestial bodies we see are projections upon the atmolayer. See this page and section of the Wiki which describes the magnification of the Sun's image upon the atmolayer -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Sun_Brightness_Inconsistent

Sun Brightness Inconsistent

Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is an object where every point from half of the spherical sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. One should expect to see all parts of the sun's body with equal intensity, or with increased intensity at the edges, as intensity is defined by accumulated photons, and the number of miles per square arcsecond increases in those regions.

Find a photo of a Solar Eclipse, which are often taken through a solar filter, and then modify the brightness and contrast settings in order to bring out the areas of the image which are the brightest:



Compare that to the hotspotting seen in a projector's image on a screen:



Source: Hotspotting or brightness inhomogeneity

The hotspot seen in the sun may suggest a projection upon the atmoplane. Projections, such as from a projector shining on a movie screen, tend to have hotspots in them.

Inconsistent Brightness: A Round Earth Mystery

The inconsistent brightness is a problem in RET, and it is well admitted. Astronomers find difficulty in explaining how it works to have outer layers of the sun significantly dimmer than other layers.

Astronomers had to make the surface of the sun, the photosphere, very cold—at only about 6000 degrees Kelvin, compared to the much hotter atmosphere of the sun called the Solar Corona that is about several million degrees Kelvin, which is seen as a wispy aura around the sun seen at Total Solar Eclipse or with a coronagraph; and also significantly different compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the Solar Core (Archive). In addition, astronomers had to make the outer cool photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.

Article: Solving the Mystery of the Sun's Hot Atmosphere:

  “ The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. ”

  “ Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense! ”
                  —Dr. David H. Brooks, George Mason University

A projection of light would have the effect of inconsistent brightness, with a hot spot at the center, like the hotspot projection example.

The dark edges of the sun can also be seen in this historical reference:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun#Sun_Spherical

The Story of the Stars
New Descriptive Astronomy
Joel Dorman Steele, Ph.D.,

The Solar System p.44

  “ Spots Apparently Change Their Speed and Form as They Pass Across the Disk — A spot is seen on the eastern limb; day by day it progresses, With a gradually-increasing rapidity, until it reaches the center; it then Slowly loses its rapidity, and f‌inally disappears on the western limb. The diagram illustrates the apparent change which takes place in the form. Suppose at f‌irst the spot is of an oval shape; as it approaches the center it apparently widens and becomes circular. Having passed that point, it becomes more and more oval until it disappears. ”

From an astrophotography perspective, the photographers most likely used monochrome cameras. During postprocessing of a lot of solar imagery, especially images that include the visibility of the chromosphere, the image's colors are inverted and false color is added. I am certain that this is the reason why the "edges" are brighter and the center is darker.

20

Flat Earth Media / Re: New Photos of Moon suggest Flat Earth?

« on: May 31, 2023, 05:24:12 AM »

Okay, here's the photo i'm referring to that is pretty common in space media:

Earth Rise

You can read more about "Earth Rise" Pictures here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthrise

As you can see, the earth is much smaller compared to the moon as opposed to the very large earth compared to the moon in the new DSCVR shot. 

Stack, using your image (which is great btw) it looks like if somebody was standing on the moon, they would be dwarfed by a very large earth which you don't see in the "Earth Rise" picture above.

Astro it's definitely possible that the whole thing could be photoshopped to some level.

Dunkin, I think you have the most reasonable counterargument...   Using a long focal length lens or something similar you can produce an image like this based on research.

Regarding the 1 million Mile Mark, I am more interested in showing you the relative distance Dscvr is from the earth and moon - like Stack's image illustrates.

Any of the above theories have some elements of truth but none can be ruled out I feel.

I hope you genuinely don't believe that's a real image. The lunar surface, the stars, etc. It's obviously a fake, but I believe that I understand your point, which I addressed in my previous reply.