Flat Earth debunks - Astrophotography

{{pseudoastronomy}}
{{ArticleSeries|Flat Earth|the Flat Earth}}
Flat-Earthers have made several incorrect observations to claim the Earth is flat. This article refutes claims made by flat-Earthers about astrophotography.

=="So why are there no REAL photos of the Earth?"==
[[File:Apollo_17_Blue_Marble_original_orientation_(AS17-148-22727).jpg|200px|right|thumbnail|Original {{wpl|The_Blue_Marble|Blue Marble|}} photo of the Earth as seen by the Apollo 17 crew on December 7, 1972.
No Photoshop or CGI in the 70s, son.]]

There are. It's just that flat-earthers can't tell the difference between a composite and a photograph.

One argument used frequently by flat-earthers is that there are no ''real'' photos of the earth. E.g., Eric Dubay has [https://youtu.be/N9CQPMOzeRs?si=o0-X7toHnAS3XIol&t=6954 claimed] [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/BlueMarble-2001-2002.jpg a Blue Marble photo] shows copy-pasted segments, therefore the Earth is flat. This is downright misleading.

# As Wikipedia says {{wpl|The_Blue_Marble#Imaging series_2001–2004|here|,}} that 2001-2002 image is a composite. More precisely, a 3D rendering of {{wpl|Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer|MODIS}} composited surface &amp; cloud data. NASA has never claimed the image is a photo taken from space.
# Why would the Illuminati, that's supposedly generating the images with CGI to hide the shape of Earth, create duplicate clouds? Also, if it's a mistake, why wouldn't they have at least ten guys hired to check every photo carefully? That would not be too expensive considering the [https://www.space.com/nasa-white-house-2025-budget-request 25.4 billion dollar budget].<ref group=note>Dubay [https://youtu.be/CMzZrQc_eXI?si=Q_9ua58QtqKR2XRX&t=224 claims] NASA's budget is a massive "black budget black hole". Funnily enough, he completely fails to mention the actual US government black budget that, e.g. in 2013, was about twice as much at [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/black-budget-summary-details-us-spy-networks-successes-failures-and-objectives/2013/08/29/7e57bb78-10ab-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html 52.6 billion dollars].</ref>
# There are many photos of the Earth including photos which predate the equipment required to create fake images. For example, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble#/media/File%3AThe_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg here is the original Blue Marble], taken by the Apollo 17 crew in 1972. Flat-earthers often confuse it with the 'fake' from 2002. You can even see scanned 35-mm film in the Apollo image archive.<ref>[http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/ABOUT_SCANS/index.html Apollo Image Archive], apollo.sese.asu.edu.</ref><ref>[https://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/gallery/Apollo/17/Hasselblad%20500EL%2070%20mm#AS17-148-22727 Blue Marble 35-mm AS17-148-22727] tothemoon.ser.asu.edu.</ref> The [https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2022/blue_marble/full/epic_1b_20221207073937.png next true-color photo] of the entire sunlit face in one shot was taken 50 years later by the DISCOVR satellite.<ref>[https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/galleries/2022/blue_marble Blue Marble 50 Years Later] ''epic.gsfc.nasa.gov''.</ref><ref>Yulsman, Tom (Jul 21, 2015). [https://web.archive.org/web/20221215133618/https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/a-spectacular-view-of-earth-unlike-any-seen-since-1972 A Spectacular View of Earth Unlike Any Seen Since 1972] ''Discover Magazine''.</ref>

These days you can see [https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/goes/fulldisk.php?sat=G16 real time images refreshing every ten minutes] of the entire Earth, taken by the {{wpl|Geostationary_Operational_Environmental_Satellite|GOES East satellite|}} from geostationary orbit.

Of course, they use this argument while all their flat Earth pictures are claimed to be real, despite being computer generated or edited themselves. Their argument works better against them.

Dubay has also [https://youtu.be/N9CQPMOzeRs?si=AsPGWFuETp3AJ7-S&t=6984 claimed] NASA photoshopped the word "SEX" into clouds, and Disney's Pluto (the dog) onto Pluto (the dwarf planet). The simple reason these appear is the same as why sometimes clouds look like animals etc.: {{wpl|Pareidolia|pareidolia|.}} To show Dubay is a hypocritical fuckface, [https://youtu.be/AC9uOyg0eq4?si=W_FfQsbAyY3DrFzg&t=140 here is a video] of him telling one can see the "rabbit or the man on the moon".

=="So why are there no photos of Earth with the stars visible?"==
[[File:Meteotek08 - curvatura.jpg|200px|right|thumbnail|Footage of a high altitude weather balloon during daytime. Earth's albedo overexposes the camera. Although the Moon is still visible... WHERE ARE THE STARS FLATTIES?]]

Flerfs like Dubay have [https://youtu.be/SauZfMS-lZo?feature=shared&t=18694 complained] about there not being photos from the Moon, where Earth and stars are visible at the same time. This is also a common argument for [[Moon_landing_hoax#Stars|Moon landing deniers]]. The reason is, that Earth can be [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthshine-lights-up-the-dark-side-of-the-moon/ 50 times brighter] in the Moon's sky than the full Moon is on Earth. Also, the Sun that's illuminating the Moon's surface will be very bright, and since the point of these photos has been to photograph the Moon and Earth in the same photo, i.e., two bright objects, the film speed, i.e., its ASA/ISO sensitivity, has been selected to be relatively fast, to ensure neither the Moon or Earth are overexposed. This will mean that dimmer objects will not be visible. To prevent this, you'd need HDR composite images, which a) didn’t exist before Photoshop CS2 (released in 2005), and b) would have triggered complaints from flerfs about CGI, making the whining a bad-faith argument through Kafka trapping.

One good to UNO reverse card this argument against flat earthers is to show them how in high-altitude weather balloon footage no stars are visible during daytime despite the fact the sky is pitch black, just like nighttime, or space in Earth photos. They might excuse themselves by claiming the stars are too tiny to be seen in those videos, but this is refuted in high-altitude weather balloon footage recorded at night ([https://youtu.be/AuqLEuYs-CY?si=chzmAf_gPJr5O8LP high-altitude weather balloon footage like this one]) where the stars are completely visible (and even the streetlights of cities!).

=="So why do continents cover different areas in photos of the globe?"==

[[File:Comparison of Earth and Moon size experiments 2.jpg|thumb|170px|No CGI. No Photoshop. Nothing. Just different focal lengths and distances.]]

The amount of Earth you can see actually changes the closer you move, somewhat counterintuitively, even when you can see the edges. This can not be demonstrated on a 2D surface like a computer screen, so don't test it with Google Earth. Try it with globe model or literally any ball. Draw something on it, and then look at the sphere from near and far, and witness stuff at the edges disappearing as you move closer. 

Now you might argue that doing so changes the angular size of Earth before you, but the NASA photos have the same sized Earth each. You need to understand any two images of a globe will have round edges, and thus the two circular shapes on screen can be scaled to have the same pixel width/height. But again, how much of the surface you can see depends on the viewing distance. What happens, is as you move closer, more of the Earth disappears behind the globe model's curve. You do agree the curve is at least present in the sphere you're holding, right? RIGHT?

=="So why do the Earth and Moon appear different sizes in many photos?"==
Again. Same point as above. Because of perspective, different distances and focal lengths. No CGI or Photoshop is needed. Just Basic Photography 101. Adjusting the focal length is also a common effect in films, called the [https://youtu.be/sKJeTaIEldM?si=BjJatAZ4QttklfAa&t=95 vertigo effect], after the {{wpl|Vertigo_(film)|film}} that pioneered it.

[[File:Comparison of Earth and Moon size experiments.jpg|thumb|170px|left|Yes. Same thing with the Earth and Moon. Get over it...]]

[[File:Focal length horizontally.jpg|thumb|center|1200px|How changing the shooting point along with changing of focal length affects photograph composition. One subject remains the same size, while the other changes size.]]

==== "So why are there no REAL photos of all the orbiting satellites?" ====
[[File:Landscape_with_rainbow_and_the_Old_Bridge_over_the_Nam_Khan_river_in_Luang_Prabang_Laos.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Where are all the thousands of animals living in this landscape!?]]

''Fun fact!'' Right now, as you are reading this, there [https://www.flightradar24.com/29.96,-41.31/3 are] thousands of aeroplanes flying in the sky.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Here's How Many Planes Are in the Air at Any Given Moment |url=https://www.travelandleisure.com/airlines-airports/number-of-planes-in-air |access-date=2025-01-08 |website=Travel + Leisure |language=en}}</ref> ''Quick question'': Do you see them? No? There you go. Still, one can falsify the flat-Earth concept on any clear night an hour or two after sunset by observing satellites cross the sky.<ref group=note>A handy way of knowing when and where to look for them is [http://www.heavens-above.com/ Heavens Above] or any other website or software supporting satellite tracking.</ref>

Flat-earthers don't stop considering the ridiculousness of asking for a picture of all satellites from outer space. Most satellites on Earth are the size of a car, and they orbit miles away from each other. We can barely see a car from a distance of 5km (3 miles), and satellites orbit anywhere from 160km to 2,000km (100..1,200 miles).<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-12-17 |title=Visualization of Satellites and Space Debris |url=https://flatearth.ws/satellite-visualization |access-date=2025-01-08 |website=FlatEarth.ws |language=en-US}}</ref> Only big massive satellites like the International Space Station (orbiting at 418 km or 260 mi) or the Tiangong Space Station (which are the size of a football field) can be seen more clearly and there are many detailed pictures of them from Earth:

<gallery>
File:ISS_crosses_the_Sun.jpg|Photo montage of transit of the ISS passing over the Sun. The ISS blocks the sunlight, leaving a trail of its silhouette.
File:International Space Station Transit Illuminated cropped.jpg|Photo montage of transit of the ISS passing over the Moon but illuminated by the setting sun, thus showing its true colour detail rather than just its silhouette.
File:Estação Espacial Chinesa Sobrevoando Jundiaí.png|Photograph of the Chinese Space Station captured in Brazil using a 203mm aperture telescope and a planetary camera.
Isshtv120090917200858nm.jpg|The ISS photographed through a telescope by astrophotographer Ralf Vandebergh of the Netherlands. You see the Japanese Cargo Ship HTV-1 a few hundred meters below it.
</gallery>

Flatties will reject these satellites with excuses such as:

*'''The satellite hangs from a balloon!''' ({{wpl|High-altitude_balloon#Geostationary_balloon_satellite|balloon satellites}} have balloons many times the size of the satellite above them. Why can't we see the balloon? And have you ever known a balloon to move so fast it crosses from horizon to horizon in under 5 minutes?)
*'''The satellite is a hologram!''' (Then how can they block light when they pass through the Sun and Moon?)
*'''The satellite is on a ballistic trajectory!''' (Why not just use balloons like they're sometimes using anyway? Where are the leaked [[Fun:Scientific Geoterrapinism‎|images of the stack of turtles?]] )

Btw. ''"No satellites, therefore flat"'' is [[not even wrong]]...

=="But NASA's photos of planets are fake CGI!"==

[https://youtu.be/J7RwAcL4Iq0?si=NZSFoKwxcJ4dSalQ&t=7112 Says] Eric Dubay. A Nikon P1000 has pretty good 125x optical zoom and a focal length equivalent of 3000mm.<ref>[https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/lineup/coolpix/p/p1000/ "Nikon Coolpix P1000"]. Via nikon.com</ref> However, the 1/2.3" sensor is about the same size as the one in your iPhone. However, here's some folks who know how to use their P1000 to shoot planets, by putting it on a solid mount, and adjusting the focus to infinity:
* [https://youtu.be/4pVCsl8IQDU?si=ZQ89HZVPf1Gi8kir&t=18 Saturn]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tct5opOj9_w Mars]
* [https://youtu.be/KJ-razPD0gE?si=8cdz6I6NwWI2Csyi&t=17 Jupiter]
Still think planets are just hazy dust in the firmament? Then dump your Nikons and buy a real telescope like astrophotographers do:

<gallery mode="packed"  caption="Pictures of planets taken with a Nikon P900">
File:Mars during Opposition of 2020 - Taken with Nikon P900.jpg
File:Saturn taken with Nikon P900 - 2020-07-23.jpg
File:Jupiter and Red Spot, Ganymede (and transit), Io, Europa, and Callisto, taken with Nikon P900 - 2020-07-24.jpg
</gallery>

<gallery mode="packed" caption="Pictures of planets taken by astrophotographers">
File:Astrophoto11.jpg
File:Astrophoto10.jpg
File:Giove Io & Ganimede - La meravigliosa danza dei satelliti.jpg
</gallery>

Very similar to NASA right?

== "So why is there no ISS footage of satellites or space debris?" ==

The flat-earthers have complained about the ISS live footage not showing occasional satellites or space debris flying past the camera. Firstly, the number of debris larger than 1cm is 670,000 and, the number of debris objects larger than 10cm. is 29,000.<ref>European Space Agency (ESA). [https://www.esa.int/Space_Safety/Clean_Space/How_many_space_debris_objects_are_currently_in_orbit "How many space debris objects are currently in orbit?"]. Via esa.int.</ref> As explained by Dave McKeegan in [https://youtu.be/D5Cr0XcNfHc?feature=shared&t=382 his video] about satellites, the surface area of space at ISS altitude is 7.77✕10⁸ km², which makes stumbling on an object extremely rare. Practically all major space debris is being tracked, and when their trajectory brings them even close to ISS, it is considered [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U0suvWumI4 an emergency.] Space junk has also [https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/01/world/iss-orbital-debris-robotic-arm-scn/index.html hit the ISS], and the ISS [https://www.npr.org/2024/11/20/nx-s1-5196986/iss-dodge-debris has adjusted its orbit to avoid space debris], many times.

As for satellites, when the lighting conditions are correct, satellites [https://youtu.be/D5Cr0XcNfHc?feature=shared&t=655 are trivial to see].

== See also ==

* [[Flat_Earth|Flat Earth]]

Flat Earth debunks

* [[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_The_Earth|The Earth]]

* [[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_The_Moon|The Moon]]

* [[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_The_Sun|The Sun]]
* [[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_Stars|Stars]]
* [[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_Celestial_mechanics|Celestial mechanics]]
* [[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_Celestial_objects|Celestial objects]]
* [[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_Astronautics|Astronautics]]
* '''[[Flat_Earth_debunks_-_The_conspiracy|The conspiracy]]'''

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theories]]
[[Category:Denialism]]
[[Category:Flat Earth]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Pseudoastronomy]]

Categories: Anti-intellectualism, Conspiracy theories, Denialism, Flat Earth, Pseudoscience, Pseudoastronomy