There is no real photos of earth and we've never been to space

There is no real photos of earth and we've never been to space.

Pic related it's a fake image
Inb4 flat earther, I'm not a flat earther

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=7BVn2Ve09XQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Hey man, i'm in the same boat.
Don't think the earth is flat but I'm also pretty sure I've never seen the fucking earth like you mentioned. Also, the Earth is supposed to be more pear shaped? WTF?

The only logical thought I have come up with, is maybe the earth is so big, they have to make a composition with smaller photos? No idea.NASA... never a straight answer

Yeah bro I agree, I get where you are coming from with the composition with smaller photos but didn't we send a robot to mars recently? Wtf is going on

>Pic related it's a fake image

and you "know" this how?

what is the, and I hesitate to use the word, logic behind this entire example of scientific illiteracy, OP?

Free thinkers thread only sheep

Pear shaped.
You fucking idiot.

It looks fake and where are the stars in the background unless it's photoshoped out i can understand that, but it just looks fake and all the previous ones too. It is a big deal you know, it's the place you live unless you like being psychotic

Don't call him an idiot, I'm pretty sure neil de grass said that faggot

> Also, the Earth is supposed to be more pear shaped? WTF?

the earth is an oblate spheroid, not a sphere.

however, it is 12,756 km in diameter at the equator, versus 12,714 in diameter around the poles.
to put that into perspective, if you were to shrink the earth down to a 1m ball, the difference would be less than 1/2 a millimetre. (0.02of an inch, if you're american).

Now, I dont know about you, but I know that I would be hard-pressed to observe a 1/2 millimetre discrepancy in diameter, on a 1 metre ball.

Likewise, there is a bulge in the southern hemisphere - its fractionally larger than the equivalent latitude in the northern hemisphere.

So when they say its "pear shaped" it is referring to extremely slight variations from the mathematical model of a sphere. its not the massively exaggerated shape you are imagining.

see It is pear-shaped... _very_ slightly.

the problem is that OP is taking it far too literally, and thinking of it as a... well, a pear, when the reality is we're talking a difference of a few fractions of a percent larger than the equivalent point in the northern hemisphere.

>where are the stars in the background

You realize the Earth reflecting the sun's light is 1000x's brighter than the stars, and if you wanted to show them in the picture, the Earth would look like a white blob

Same goes for the moon landing photos

All you do is just think about yourself

This

> and where are the stars in the background

the same place the stars are on the moon landing photos.

Invisible to a camera.

for the stars to have been visible, the surface of the earth would have been over-exposed so it looked like a snowball of white glare.

here's a simple 'shopped image of one of the moon landings. This is what they would've looked like if the film exposure was calibrated to pick up starlight.

No I didn't realize

There is 100,000,000,000,000's of pictures of the earth. Every time someone takes a picture outside and the ground gets in the picture it's a picture of earth
youtube.com/watch?v=7BVn2Ve09XQ

Well why can't the put a visor in front of the lense, pretty sure those astronaught could see some stars

look at this faggets talking about space lmao

Whole earth

What about satellites, who the fuck says they can see those shits with naked eye come on that's some bs

well, you do now.

taking a photo like that is pretty much akin to taking a picture of a woman on stage, who's standing right next a guy who's in a spotlight.

point the camera at the guy, the camera film (or CCD nowadays), is exposed for how brightly he's lit. the woman's going to be in almost pitch darkness by comparison, and not visible - or at least, damn hard to see.
Point the camera at the woman, so the film is exposed for the amount of light on her, and the guy beside her is just going to be massively overexposed.

The starlight is orders of magnitude less bright than the reflected light bouncing off the earth (or moon, etc.). Its the same reason you cant see the stars in daylight. the glare from the sun is so much more powerful that even the scattered light (which is what makes the sky look blue) is enough to obscure the stars.

On the moon, there's no atmosphere to scatter the light, but the glare from the surface is still enough to blind the eye to the far fainter light of stars.

>Well why can't the put a visor in front of the lense, pretty sure those astronaught could see some stars

According to those who walked on the moon, no, they could not see stars while doing EVAs.

Any filter to block the glare, would also block the starlight. You cant magically filter one, without the other.

its a bit like you putting sunglasses on while driving at night... yes, the oncoming car headlights aren't going to be as bright, but you're certainly not going to see the stars before you crash into a fence at the first corner you didnt see coming up....

whole earth images are fake as, each one every year has different size continents

Well god damn. Ok. Lol. I mean, i wont take what you say for fact til i look more into it, but ive heard it was noticeable.

Ok ok forget about that what about this

WHAT ABOUT THIS