Way to misconstrue the point about 3-D objects appearing on a 2-D canvas to the viewer as a 3-D object and turn it into a belief. I didn't claim that the moon was a 3-D projection onto a 2-D surface, that point was a means to say just because it looks 3-D to us from our vantage point, doesn't mean it is. If it were a projection it would look every bit the 3-D object that the 2-D canvas would be projecting to us if that were the case. I brought this up to show that just because an objects "looks" like it's 3-D in the sky, doesn't mean it is, because we don't have the vantage points required to show whether it's an actual 3-D object or not. We have this same problem in boxing, believe it or not, when it comes to scoring rounds, "camera angles" and knowing if a punch landed. Many times we have argued over if a punch landed or how well it landed right, but we have to interpret the 3-D space based on the 2-D screen of camera angles we have available, we can only visualize punches landing based on the 2-D screen we are watching it on and the limited camera angles we are given. We don't have the benefit of seeing the action from any angle we want. If we were able to score fights while watching it in a 3-D environment where we could view the action from any angle at ay time, then we could get any angle of a shot that we weren't sure about, then judging would be a lot easier. Lets face it, in many times when we argue over punches if they landed, if they were blocked etc, there's guesswork involved in many of these cases because we are relying on a 2-D surface and a set camera angle to view the action from. If we could see punches from all angles, then that guesswork about what a punch is or how well it lands is eliminated. If our view of it is limited by a bad or far away camera angle, it's no different than looking at the moon, from a far away angle where we can't get to see the object from the side or from behind it, to know for sure what shape it is.