If people linked to the image on the photographer's website instead of websites that had copied the image...
Oh, come on, Isaac, you linked twice (post #65 and #71) to the page which did not contain any explanation.
... years and years of not being used to "horse view" and having people shout -- we're being deceived...
And that's why, during those "years and years" there was a caption educating people it was a fish-eye (or horse-eye). Then again, in case of a fish-eye, especially the circular one, nobody felt deceived even without a caption (intrigued, yes), as it was so obvious it was a special effect.
The problem with the originally linked photo is that it is, just like department store mirrors, distorted just so that it leaves us on the verge of wondering if we shall be in awe from mother nature, or ask for explanation (in case of department store mirrors, most of us choose
to believe it is mother nature