Space Station Photos Validate Flat Earth

italy compare

Is Italy Really that big, or is it the camera lens?

The latest photos released by Tim Peake to Flickr from the International Space Station bring to mind the latest debate going on about weather or not the earth is a globe. Have a look for yourself and tell me what you see.

sainai Syria

Sinai, Syria Peninsula, again, how big should be?


Check out Cuba has grown.


A slite lens curve dose not make a globe.

south africa w

Shouldn’t there be a star or two or three…..


How can we see no stars?

And for those that say it is because of the lighting or camera, please explain why this pic has stars, then, while the others don’t
Lookie... stars.png

No curve1

Atmospheric curve?

strait line.jpg

I don’t have the answer, and I won’t assume I know what is going on. My mind has been saturated with the lies coming to light, of late, and I, like many others, am trying to make a bit of sense of it. If you have some light to shine on the issue, please share it with us so we can put this issue to close.

I have a question for the “space stations” out there. Can you send us a non-cgi photo of the earth? I can’t seem to find one.
Thanks Pat


20 thoughts on “Space Station Photos Validate Flat Earth

  1. Pingback: How to silence an anti-Glober – COMMON SENSE

  2. Pingback: Questioning NASA – COMMON SENSE

  3. The earth is a flattish elliptoid with 2 sides and 2 worlds that merge seamlessly at oceania,mandela effect is due to memories from otherside.


  4. I’m assuming this article is not a joke. Either way, I found it personally quite illuminating in ways the author may not have intended. Probably like it’s author, I have always questioned things and as the author mentions, many lies appear to come to light – both, of late, and probably at any time in history.

    But when do we know something is a lie? When someone else calls it a lie? Does that make it a lie? Perhaps the one with the counter-story is the liar or perhaps in good faith, they have their own preconception and just like those they accuse of lying, simply gather and interpret the evidence in a way that supports it.

    But for both those who create and those who consume content, healthy cynicsm can, in time, grow into basic paranoia, and taking hold, can skew our perceptions just as much as ignorant credulity. Without realising it, in searching for the truth behind the story we can look past the simple and obvious and believe the ridiculous, just because it fits our expectation.

    I don’t mean to be impolite but I have to say, this article, if it is not a joke, is a really beautiful demonstration of this. A few fairly unremarkable photos from near space, someone who doesn’t know a great deal about elementary physics, and suddenly the world is flat!! Like, what an astounding conclusion!!

    And here I am following a Facebook link, actually giving the idea an open mind. Then, I see this and I just realise how far gone I must be, to say nothing of anyone who actually gives this a moment of credulity. For anyone in that category, see the comments above (all of which are simple general knowledge about the way photography works) and then, more importantly, you should really have a good long think about your own belief predispositions and how in jumping onboard every conspiracy bandwagon, you may be further from the truth than the very simpleton you are trying so hard not to be. I’m not trying to be a smartass – I mean this well – it’s a crucial thing to understand..

    No, wait this really has just got to be a joke right…?


    • So instead of discrediting the article with facts, you attempt to discredit the author with a statement it may cause paranoia? Many so called philosophers, and psychologists and propagandizers have been doing that for years yet they don’t seem to want to discuss the evidence presented. Please, give the evidence you have to show this article can’t stand to critical thinking. Show me the facts. Did I make any statements that are not true?


  5. The photo you show of the Soyuz (where there is a slight curve of the Earth) was taken with a 500mm lens (you can check this in Flickr). As such it only shows a relatively small section of the Earth. That is why there is only a small curve and it’s also why it’s unlikely to be due to lens distortion as long focal lengths tend not to produce curvature distortion.


      • I’m not sure if you’re looking at the same photo. I’m talking about the one with the Soyuz capsule in the middle.

        It’s not the distance that I’d important here, it’s the width of view. Using a 500mm lens has an effect a bit like wearing blinkers either side of your eyes. It restricts your view so you can only see a small section across. This is like looking really close up to a basketball. The curve is not all that apparent until you take in a wider view.


  6. There are no stars in the photo because the camera was set to expose the Earth/space station. Since the stars are much more faint in comparison they don’t show up in the image.

    You can get the same effect yourself. Go outside at night when the stars are visible and take a photo of something nearby using the flash, but be sure the sky is also in view. Unless you are doing complicated long exposures you will find the camera exposes for the bright object (that illuminated by the flash) and no stars will be visible in the image.


      • No. They did not use a flash. The point if the flash in the experiment is to create a bright counterpoint to the dimness of the stars in the same way the Earth is bright relative to the stars. This means the camera then exposes for the illuminated subject of the photo rather than the stars.

        If the camera exposed for the stars in these examples then the Earth/space station would be overexposed.


          • You don’t have to buy anything. You just need an open mind. A simple experiment as described will show you why the stars don’t appear in the photo. If you choose not to believe it, it doesn’t mean it ain’t so.


          • That photo looks like it could be 2 or 3 images combined. One exposing for the brighter parts (Earth and ISS), one for the darker parts (space and stars) and often, one for the middle. These are combined to give an image which is well exposed all round.

            Alternatively, the photographer could have used a dark filter to cover the brighter part of the view. This allows the camera to use a slower shutter speed so the stars, Earth and ISS exposed correctly.

            Another option is that it could have been adjusted in post-processing.

            As you can see there are several methods, but they all require more time and effort.


    • Then why can I see the stars from earth? There quite a bit more light pollution than in space, and it supposedly has no ionosphere to have to look through.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s