Exactly, you are solely relying on your model of reality to predetermine whether any images you are shown are genuine or fake.
As are you, as is everyone. At the very least we use our model of reality to give us an idea in our head how likely an image is to be real.
Are you suggesting that if you see a picture of an elephant walking through the African plain your first instinct is to research whether it's a real image or fake.
I call bullshit on that.
That is bias.
No, it's just using common sense. If I see a picture of an elephant flying then I have very good reason to suspect it's fake, if I see a picture one walking in its natural habitat I'd have to have pretty good evidence to declare it fake.
And NASA is on record as having released fake images.
The link explains that the image is a composite of real photos from space. Any time you take a panorama your camera is creating a composite image.
That does not mean that the result is fake.
In this case what he did was a bit more elaborate, he also enhanced some of the images he made the composite result with.
But he is not admitting the image is CGI because it is not. The composite is made from real images taken from space by an orbiting satellite.
And I note the satellite orbits over both Poles which rather blows your monopole model out of the water.
Other pictures, and the film you were shown earlier, are not composites.
And what's your take here. You believe NASA are faking all their images, but you also believe that they are perfectly happy with their employees openly giving interviews in which they carefully explain how an image was made? Man, they sure do suck at keeping secrets...