You haven’t understood my point… I’ll quote again from your essay: “The official version of Earthrise does not represent the true orientation of the original photo. Bill Anders’s shot featured Earth next to the moon, not above it.”
What is the difference between being “next to” something and being “above” something, when we’re talking about objects in space? What makes one version “the true orientation”, the other one not true?
The way the shot was first presented by Bill Anders, was the up-down direction based on anything more than the orientation of Apollo 8’s equipment, such as the seat the astronaut-photographer was sitting in?
Is it not “human narcissism” to suppose (as you do), that this is the “true” up-down orientation?
I’d suggest that the rotated image is at least as “true” as the original. Perhaps more true, because in it the Moon’s surface looks like a plain you could stand on and walk on, rather than like a vertical cliff face?