>>3615478>when you can check earth pics from spaceto answer this, they discover find as many pics of the earth and because sometimes they're edited, there are a whole bunch of discrepancies in them - continents have different sizes, some of the cloud cover looks edited - like the same cloud formation would appear in multiple places like it was copy pasted, etc. that's how they address the issue of pictures of the earth. since the images are sometimes edited/doctored to make them more appealing to the public, they just take that to mean, they're entirely fabricated
>>3615466>>3615368well, it's hard to say, you have to have been looking at this stuff a lot. a good trick i've seen them do is say "if the earth was round, there should be a visible curvature at X height, but from this footage it appears completely flat". or even just cast doubt on official sources. like say, if a picture shows a very obvious curvature, they point out that they're using a fish eye lens that shows visible curvature on objects right next to it too - like for example the solar panels on the iss.
the best arguments are just things that discredit official sources due to minor mistakes.
