Really, this line of discussion isn't helping anything; we're not here to debate the the veracity of the Apollo moon missions or FE hypothesis in general, we're here to talk about photographic evidence that demonstrates the spherical nature of earth and to get FE supporters' opinions about why they see these photos as credible or not.
EarthIsASpaceship: I'd really like to hear your thoughts on my previous post addressed to you. I'd also like to hear the thoughts of any other FE supporter.
Thank you Theo. It's refreshing to actually engage in a discussion without personal attacks and other people piping in with off topic comments. As far as the terrain in the moon images from the LRO compared to the terrain of Earth, you were correct with your first assessment of what I meant. I do not mean the trees, rivers, contrast, etc. I meant the images of craters and shadows that we normally see on the moon from Earth.
EarthIsASpaceship: Agreed, personal attacks don't serve anyone's interests when it comes to having a real discussion!
When it comes to moon terrain, I hope you didn't think I was accusing you of expecting to see trees and rivers etc. on the moon. I was trying to illustrate why the moon terrain might seen unnatural to you, we are all used to seeing earth terrain with its highly varied and robust landscapes that are mostly the result of living things here on earth, but the moon doesn't have anything like that since it is lifeless, so it seems alien to us, you might not expect such an unusual looking landscape.
...but, since that wasting the issue, I guess I'll leave it at that.
Back to your original point: why don't we see more detail of the moon's terrain in the pictures I posted from JAXA's lunar satellite? The answer to this is all about perception.
Just so I know we are on the same page here, you and I both acknowledge that the moon is a very large object that has a diameter of several thousand km, right? Even if you don't accept that the moon is that large, it's clear that the lunar satellite that took these pictures had to be at least a thousand times closer to the moon than us on earth since at the distance the photos were taken you can hardly make out the curvature of the moon's horizon at all.
So, given that the lunar satellite is so much closer to the surface of the the moon than we are, it would mean that any major features of the moon that you can see from earth (large creators, maria beds) would be so large from the perspective of the satellite that you wouldn't be able to see even a fraction of these objects - those creators that you can see from earth would look like mountains from the satellite's perspective.
A good analogy is this: if you were flying over the Appalachian mountains on the east coast of the US, you would see many rolling mountains with long valleys in between and plenty of other major features, but if you were climbing up those mountains on foot, you wouldn't be able to see these large scale features, you can only see the fine details like the trees and the rocks.
Another example of this same perspective issue: if you look at your hand, say one of your knuckles, you'll see a lot of features, cracks and wrinkles, maybe some patchy skin color, and so on. But if you magnified that same area of skin by a factor of 1000 (it doesn't matter if the focus is on one of the wrinkles or cracks or other major features), what you will see is only part of a single calcified cell of your epidermis, there would be very little detail and you wouldn't even come close to being able to discern a crack or wrinkle in your skin.