When you look at different pictures from space, the continents (compared to the whole Earth) look sometimes bigger and sometimes smaller. Why is that?
It is because the closer you are to Earth, the less of it you see (red is visible, green is behind the horizon):
When the photo is taken from a big distance from Earth, the continents appear smaller, because you see a lot of them. But when the photo is taken closer to the surface of Earth, the continents appear much larger, because only a few continents can be seen and the rest is behind the horizon.
It might be confusing when you look at random photos from space, because in both cases you see “a circle of Earth” (on the 2 dimensional photo), but the scale of continents changes and you don’t know why. But now you know! The relative size of continents (relative to the size of Earth) is changing based on the distance from Earth.
And if these weren’t random pictures where you don’t know the distance and if it was a continuous video of getting closer to Earth, you would see how the continents get bigger and bigger and the rest of Earth is getting behind the horizon where you can’t see it. But it would still look like a circle with continents. Only the relative sizes compared to the whole “visible circle of Earth” would change.
If we went to the extreme, we could just keep getting closer and closer to Earth and eventually look with the eye closely on a stone. In that case we might think that this stone is Earth, because we don’t see anything else. Everything else would be behind the horizon. Now if you make a photo of the stone, you cannot “prove” that his photo is fake, just because it doesn’t look like photos of Earth from space. The photos look differently based on the distance from Earth.
The “contradictions” in the relative sizes are expected. Therefore it is not smart to point out the differences as a proof that the photos are fake. It is expected that the relative sizes change based on the distance.