Does the P1000 Prove that Photos of Planets are CGI?

What software did you use and could you link to your source pics? I'd love to verify that for myself. Because simple common sense and basic vision tells you that's the same guy.

I don't know how well your software handles Iridology but the mans Irises are the same which is pretty much impossible.

This video examines his teeth and narrow palate.

I also find it interesting that his dialect is similar. Obviously as an older man he has some vinegar in his voice, but his enunciation of "er" sounds has the same ring and the timbre and tone identical.

But, Astro did a study, so I guess it's not the same guy. I mean from Wiki Michael John Smith (April 30, 1945 – January 28, 1986), (Capt USN) was an American engineer and astronaut

And this professor is a professor of what, exactly?

Oh, Engineering! Probably not the same guy though. Astro did a study. Now just to be clear, both bios have very different Engineering backgrounds...one Aeronautics and one in Industrial safety/psychology.

The Professor's bio has him educated at University of Wisconsin which is of course different from Astronaut however, one might be ready to assume a few things about The Astronaut's bio being created whole-cloth in order to sell the charade.

I mean a fake death requires a fake person and an actor to portray him. But why leave the names the same? Some would argue because THEY WANT YOU TO KNOW and they know you'll never truly prove it....cognitive dissonance, PTSD, metabolic disorder and on to health problems.

I'm not going to engage in a trolly argument about what is obvious and what is not. Shill all you want, it doesn't change one bit what is clear to me and so many others.

Okay, one point for those who are on the fence:

These alleged "differences" if you even agree they are apparent can be accounted for in various ways. I do photography and I can tell you that facial features morph from the following:

1. Different focal lengths. A greater focal length flattens a face and widens features, gives a less "3d" look. A lower focal length gives more of a 3-d look all the way up to "fish eye" which is a really small focal length.

2. Light setup and placement. 3 main types of lighting: butterfly, clamshell, Rembrandt and the unflattering FFB or full-frontal blast. Changing the angle of light changes shadow fall-off which adds contour or smoothing depending on how you work it.

3. Aging. I don't need to explain this. This bloat and sag with age.

4. Dentistry, Cosmetic procedures. But in this case, you don't even need to go here because 1-3 cover 99% of the "Differences" that shills like to claim.

I'm not going to engage in a trolly argument about what is obvious and what is not. Shill all you want, it doesn't change one bit what is clear to me and so many others.

You know what you're totally right, that's not the same guy, at all. How could anyone think that?

Space is a vacuum. No pressure.