Pete, you are basically implying that everyone is dishonest because there is the opportunity to be dishonest.
I haven't called anyone dishonest. I pointed out simple facts and consequences of digital photography.
throwing red herrings about panaroma captures on cell phones.
You do realise I wasn't the one who brought panoramas into this, right?
The point is, in order for me to have taken that I had to be at the Grand Canyon
You didn't. You could have generated it through plenty of other means. I see no reason to doubt that you visited the Grand Canyon, but your ability to post a panorama here doesn't affect my belief.
And that is neither here nor there. We're not questioning the entire photograph's existence. We're questioning the significance (and possibly existence) of the supposed small unidentified object. I explained exactly why I believe it to be an artefact. If you want to verify it yourself, you could try one of these common tricks:
- Up the contrast and note that the surroundings of the "object" are uncharacteristically bright when compared to the remainder of the surface
- Increase the saturation and note that this is the only section of the photograph that's not actually monochrome.
in order for a composite photo of the earth from space to be made the pictures which make up that composite have to be taken from space.
This claim is a new low, even for you. All you need to produce a composite image of the Earth is a collection of images of the Earth. They could be taken from any distance, if you're willing to put in the effort into stitching them together.
If the claim is that the photos are fake then why the hell would you make a load of fake pictures and then composite them? Just make one big fake one!
Indeed - why the hell
would you make a load of fake pictures (that we haven't seen) and composite them? You'd naturally just make one and claim that there are thousands of frames that we're not seeing because of reasons.
Note, of course, that no one claimed the photo is "fake" - we're merely trying to explain to you how digital photography actually works. The fact that you idiots are sitting here and pondering what physical object might be represented by what is most likely a compression artefact or a tiny bit of overexposure is hilarious. You know what? I bet that thing there is actually Brexit. Yep, it's on the moon. Now you just need to go and get it.