Someone viewed two photos, though, one for photo #4 and one for #5.

False alarm!  'Twas only I.   I haven't been around the flattist ghetto much lately, because I concluded that debating its stubbornly ignorant residents was an indefensibly poor use of my time [*].

Altho' making a digressive visit to the ghetto, the obnoxiously imperative topic that was posted by Butler, with its most recent replies by Obstat, caught my eye.  "Go look at the moon right now!"?  Really, why?   I haven't looked at the Moon since its progression into the Paschal Full Moon back in March.  But Butler was useless to explain the subject of his own topic; he apparently expects readers to "just click" on links posted without any introduction.  Like [Hades] I will!   As I read on, I was pleased to see that Obstat had kindly posted the subject images, which all seemed to feature a badly butchered photo of a gibbous Moon (not full, as shown by its leftmost dark crescent).

Was the unexplained occlusion on the upper right the reason for Butler's attention?   As I've come to expect, he didn't enlighten readers, what with him being among the more illiterate flattists, thus unable to write more than 17 words total in his initial 4 postings in this topic he originated.

I guess that someone photographed a Moon, whose occlusion is pretty obviously explained as tree branches, in very-low-contrast lighting (e.g., shooting thro' ground fog at night).  Then used a photo-editor to plop that mutilated Moon into an image that provided an empty blue sky.  Fog could account for the blurriness of that Moon.

The obvious side-illumination of the mutilated gibbous Moon might be at odds with what seems to be a relatively forward angle of illumination for the front of the chimney.  What seems to be classic long-focal-length foreshortening clobbers my confidence in guesstimating those angles.

And while we're looking at chimneys, does its style indicate anything about its geographic location?  It's not a style I'd expect to see, e.g., in California "ticky-tacky little boxes", nor in Florida tract-houses.

But they must not have understood what they're looking for because there's been no answers.

I know perfectly well what I  am looking for.  Years ago, as an annual task, I began to generate & store a wonderfully useful table from an authoritative source, but it's now on a computer that I've powered off because of some computer-archæology I'm doing here.  Besides, the table is in the style of line-printer output from a mainframe, so the more illiterate flattists might be completely unable to figure it out.  I did find something that has pictures, so they might be able to understand that.  But they, plus those who can figure out printed numbers, as we've seen in the past, would then likely reject its authoritative source as "demonic, pagan, and masonic" or somesuch.

Mindful of my proper place as a formerly more active spherist, I'm stifling my own answers, out of respect for the excessively generous deadlines offered to the flattists by announcements in this topic from Obstat.

-------
Note *: And for making that conclusion of "A Complete Waste of Time!" unavoidable, I can thank a compilation-style topic that was originated by Obstat himself!

Anyone who thinks they are possibly taken in one honest photo doesn't know what to look for in recognizing a fake photo.

Well, it's been more than adequately demonstrated that the flattists are ignorant about the technologies of photography and optics.

But that doesn't really matter, in the end.  It's far less important than one overriding reality of this whole thing.  Because even without the chimney, the "moon" all alone, given the date the picture was taken, is all you need to know.

Yes, I know that.  I had assumed that I was not being too subtle when I wrote:

Mindful of my proper place as a formerly more active spherist, I'm stifling my own answers [....]

Annnd

I know perfectly well what I am looking for.   Years ago, as an annual task, I began to generate & store a wonderfully useful table from an authoritative source, but it's now on a computer that I've powered off because of some computer-archæology I'm doing here.  Besides, the table is in the style of line-printer output from a mainframe [....]

Ummm, actually 2 of the astronomical tables that I've annually generated & stored are applicable.  Indeed, their column-headers are months, and their row headers are the days.  No entertaining animation, no pretty colors, just unadorned information.

Those tables are excellent examples of how modern astronomy (or astrophysics) can routinely be applied to make predictions whose outcome can be verified (sometimes trivially).  Unlike (ahem!) what we might call "the flat-Earth model".

But your gauntlet wasn't flung at me, it was flung at the flattists.  So I, too, will wait to see their responses--if any.

.
It takes the low level of understanding flat-earthers have of our sun and moon to be fooled by this fake moon image.
.

No special tables are necessary here.  Nothing fancy required.
[....] no flat-earth model is possible that could shed any light on whether these pictures are fake or not.  But there is a commonly accessible reference that settles the question in one fell swoop.  It's nothing fancy, and you probably have one on display in your office or in your home.

I'm invoking the fictional Prof. Kingsfield, whose favorite advice included this imperative: "Nevah assume".

Well, what I have "on display" is the CMRI/Mary Immaculate Queen Center "Traditional" 2018 edition.  It does not show the symbols that you seem to be assuming must be shown in any reference like it.  Not even the crucial symbol that would be expected in Passiontide, on which much of the liturgical year depends.

.
I will now proceed to demonstrate the ridiculousness of flat-earthism in one argument, right here.
.
In case you're entirely confused with what I'm asking for, take the first photo, below, and look carefully at the shadows on the chimney image. Look at how the chimney's corner is in front of the so-called moon. Compare the image of the moon to the image of the shadows on the chimney in the foreground. I shouldn't have to give you any more clues than this.
.
BTW (left single) click on the image below to view an enlarged image.
.
The ball is in your court. Flat-earthers unite! You get exactly one chance, and this is IT!
.
Go on your flattard blogs world wide, if you must, and summon all the help you can get, because you're going to need it.
.

.
Flat-earthers have chosen not to defend themselves.
.
Smugley Butthead started this thread because he was alarmed when he saw the image of what he thought was the moon online:
.
.
Then happenby joined in with similar astonishment, and both of them (and untold numbers of others) bought into the scam.
.
Why didn't they simply check their calendar to see what the moon phase was that day?
.
They don't know how to use the calendar moon phases. They've shown that to be the case numerous times.
.
But even if they did know how to use it, they wouldn't think of using their calendar, because they don't believe it.
.
They don't have a "flat" earth calendar, so they think the one they do have is bogus.
.
Part of the globalist conspiracy, you know.
.
But presuming they could use their calendar and they could find out what the moon phase is, they wouldn't be able to use that.
.
Because the phase of the moon for that day would tell them something they couldn't use.
.
They couldn't use the information because they don't understand the information. 
.
Therefore, flat-earthers were SITTING DUCKS for this scam. They do not comprehend the basics of cosmology. 
.

.
BTW you just missed another great chance to estimate the distance from earth to the sun. 

.

Definitely not nearly a billion miles away.  What a joke. 

.
Who said anything about the sun being "a billion miles away?" Are you on drugs again?