Yes. I see that bottom 15%. I also see 85% empty sky.

This would be more appropriately titled “Empty Sky.”

Composite, I presume?

Cuz every time I point my camera at a moonrise at sunset, the sun is more or less directly behind me. Here, the sun somehow is at about a 90 degree angle to the moon.

Ah, you went with the orange/teal color grading. Bold choice.

I demand more vignette.

I wouldn’t say this is the Superstitions’ most flattering angle.

I’m guessing many people were there last year.

I was on here saying it was fake, and I was very confident in my judgment. I've since deleted those comments. Knowing that photo was taken near Centerville, Washington on Oct 10 at 1:09 PM, we can determine the angle of the sun was at 37 degrees. Any rainbow formed at that time would have been a low rainbow, with the top of said rainbow only extended about 5 degrees above the horizon.

It's real, and now I feel like a big, stupid bully. Sorry, OP.

Yep, impossible to get a detailed moon and a well-exposed foreground shot at the same time. I'll take a blown-out, properly sized real moon over a super-sized, highly detailed fake moon any day of the week.

I’m upvoting this in appreciation of a photo of a moon on this thread that isn’t a ridiculously fake Photoshopped moon. Thank you, OP. Thank you.

I’m sure it was, but what did the sky actually look like?

True, there are lots of leaves here, but it’s the flowers you wanted to highlight, yes? Flowers aren’t foliage.

Composite, yes?

As a former research scientist who published a few articles in the same journal (Hormones and Behavior), I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this is a spurious correlation. I wouldn't buy it until this is replicated by another researcher.

Also Photoshopped. That helps a lot with the "magic."

Also, only full moons set at sunrise. So this moon is in the wrong phase AND in the wrong orientation with regard to the sun. It’s really distracting, tbh.

Man, that haze! It is super windy?

Excellent work.

Oh, you go some really lovely morning light for that one! Nice work.

I’m ok with this. If you trust the YouTube videos your cousin shares on Facebook over medical professionals, then by all means… you do you, you f—-ing nincompoop.

This was very likely part of a much larger study, but they had the data to test these hypotheses, so they did. Happens all the time in the social science. You have TONS of data from a big study, so you think about the hypotheses that you could test with the data set you have, so you do that and write up the results to be published.

I find that 99% of people who question scientific funding have literally no idea how any of it works. But that’s people for you.

For those who think this means “horny guys wants sex,” consider for a moment that maybe scientists aren’t as worthless as you think. There’s quite a body of research on what factors influence men and women’s interest in short-term mating opportunities (e.g., one night stands) as opposed to committed, long-term relationships.

Believe it or not, not all men in all situations seek a quick bang. Often, they’d like an actual long-term companion and invest a LOT of time and resources into pursuing that to the exclusion of short-term partners.

What this study says is that regardless of personality characteristics, relationship status, etc., sexual arousal sort of pushes everything else to the side, and even men who tend to be committed and uninterested in a one night stand shift their strategies/interest to short-term mating.

Might you have predicted this? Probably. Were there reason to doubt it? Actually, yes. There were. Men aren’t just straight up f%^#ing machines. They actually have other motivations. But this study clarified the matter.

And that’s what science is - testing hypotheses, even those everyone thinks are obvious, so that evidence actually exists to support ideas.

This is science. That’s how it works.