Why does the earth seem flat, and much of globe teachings faked (ISS, images, etc)?

1. Why everyday experience favors a flat interpretation

Standing on a plain or looking at a calm horizon gives the intuitive impression of flatness because the Earth's curvature is extremely gradual at human scales, and vision and cognition are optimized for local, not planetary, environments — researchers note that “the Earth looks flat when you’re standing on it” and that visual experience strongly shapes belief ^[1]; two‑dimensional maps and local observations therefore feel like direct evidence to lay observers ^[3].

2. The scientific evidence that contradicts a flat impression

Empirical measurements accumulated since antiquity—Aristotle’s observations, Eratosthenes’ calculation of circumference, and modern gravity and time‑zone measurements—fit a spherical, slightly oblate Earth model and are reproducible across methods and eras ^{[5] [2]}; satellite navigation, timing corrections and the geometry of lunar eclipses also match expectations for a globe and would fail or require ad hoc fixes in flat‑disc models ^{[6] [2]}.

3. Why people say space agencies and ISS imagery are “faked”

The accusation that images from the ISS or NASA are faked combines three currents: distrust of institutions; selective readings of photographic artifacts (e.g., seams, processing, composite frames); and social incentives in online communities where contrarian claims attract attention and cohesion ^{[3] [4]}. Mainstream outlets and scientists counter that continuous, independent lines of evidence — from astronaut testimony to satellite telemetry and global systems that depend on curved‑Earth physics — converge on the globe model ^{[7] [2]}.

4. How conspiracy and community dynamics sustain the doubt

Scholars and journalists point out that the modern flat‑Earth revival traded on viral videos and community formation on platforms where anecdote and experiment are amplified, and where perceived censorship or ridicule can be reframed as proof of a cover‑up ^{[3] [8]}. Psychological research shows extraordinary beliefs often provide social belonging and a simplified causal story in an era the EL PAÍS piece describes as marked by broader attacks on scientific authority ^{[9] [1]}.

5. Where reporting, evidence, and agendas intersect

Reliable debunking sites and scientific pieces catalogue the specific technical failures of flat‑Earth claims — from misunderstanding gravity and Coriolis forces to misreading maps — while flat‑Earth proponents point to perceived gaps (for example, demanding a “single continuous video” of full Earth rotation) as disproof, ignoring that multiple independent datasets already satisfy the same standard of repeatability used in science ^{[2] [6]}. Media coverage can mischaracterize the movement (sensationalize, underexplain motives) and actors on both sides sometimes carry implicit agendas: promoters attract audiences and influence, while skeptics risk oversimplifying the social causes behind belief ^{[8] [10]}.

6. Bottom line: perception, proof, and the remaining task

Perception and community explain why the Earth “seems” flat to some people; the cumulative, cross‑checked physical evidence from ancient geometry, modern instrumentation, satellite systems and astronomical phenomena supports the spherical Earth and contradicts flat‑disc models ^{[5] [2] [7]}. Where reporting falls short is in treating the debate purely as fact vs. fiction instead of a social phenomenon that mixes legitimate epistemic questions, cognitive limits, and organized misinformation — addressing all three is necessary to close the gap between what people feel and what the evidence shows ^{[3] [11]}.