The article you sent from Astronomy magazine as proof of anything is quite humorous — that artist rendering of the astronauts making repairs on Apollo 17 is a hoot! “NASA brought color tv to the Moon for -the Apollo 11 mission” - Further proof of my statement about Kubrick/Space Cowboys psyops. Astronomy magazine is a purveyor of fantasies people want to believe, which makes it that much easier. Proof and evidence are not the same thing, but you can’t have one without the other. You cannot start with a false premise and then ask others to refute your conclusion based on that false premise. What if you don’t know it’s a false premise when you start your inquiry? You test it for replicability no matter who is doing the testing with the exact processes, and you publish your data, your evidence, your conclusions, for peer review. You don’t make stuff up to please your funding source, like the hockey stick man. You don’t write your conclusions in a way that completely contradicts your actual evidence. This is why in a court of law we have to swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth with honesty and forthrightness, not to sway by innuendo or ad hominem insults or making irrelevant points and circular reasoning to confuse the matter. The Prosecution is required to provide exculpatory evidence, not withhold it so that the jury will come to the desired verdict. The jury is still out on FE for me, but I am 100% saying Guilty for the Lying Liars of NASA as the keeper of the keys of truth about space and our earth.
You accuse me of no original thought – That’s in the eye of the beholder. Even when I tried, you head right for the ad hominen projections. You (and others) offer your sources as the acceptable ones (NASA primarily). My sources you describe as ‘cheesy,’ yet these are the ones who look beyond the press releases and the ones who actually noticed the glaring holes and falsification of evidence that betray all of us. I have a BS and MA in Geography. I have studied this earth for more than 50 years all based on ‘acceptable’ sources. It is only now in the last few months that I heard anything to refute ‘common knowledge’ of the earth’s sphericity. With the use of propaganda and advertising, we know how easy it is to sway public opinion, morphing it into ‘common knowledge. It helps to have approved smart people with advanced degrees in astrophysics who become famous for promoting only one acceptable way to think. Those scientists and thinkers who don’t cooperate with the Official Narrative (whatever the subject) are put in the dustbin of public scorn. Nothing new about that, however.
All that being said, here are some concrete bits of evidence that could lead an objective person to consider that the earth is not a sphere, in no particular order of significance:
1) There is no downward surface curvature towards the horizon no matter how high you rise or low you are on the surface. I witnessed this on countless airplane flights, but figured it was because of the size of the earth that I couldn’t see the curvature. That shouldn’t be so in reality. Auguste Piccard, a Swiss physicist in his 10-mile high balloon flight in 1931, described the earth as a flat disc with an upturned edge; was he was merely stating what he saw and then moved on? Seems like a rather significant observation. Whether he had any more about to say about it, I would have to get his original papers as his grandson who now runs the family foundation states that this observation proved the opposite.
2) If Earth were a sphere, no matter how large, as you ascend in altitude, you would have to adjust for the curvature and rotation in order to reach your destination. Once an airplane attains altitude, that’s where it stays until descent for landing. Pilot navigation is done using flat plane maps. The Concorde flights were above the cloud mass for the most part, but when could see out your fish-eye window, it still looked pretty flat out there.
3) The natural physics of water is to seek and maintain its level. The theory of gravity had to be invented by Newton to explain how water could remain level on the side of a globe spinning 1000 mph at the equator and slower at the poles. No need for a gravity theory on Flat Earth as the density and mass of all matter explain it much better.
4) The ocean water doesn’t fall off the edge of the earth if it is a flat disc because of the extreme cold frozen conditions at the extremity? Antarctica was legally set off limits by International treaty except for limited coastal areas where you still have to have permission to go ashore. You can take a cruise to coastal areas of Antarctica, and camp with the penguins, but that’s it. Don’t try to do what Admiral Byrd did because you will be stopped. Original thought: folks who think they will be able to prove anything one way or the other by taking the FE Cruise are mistaken, I think. Captain Cook circumnavigated Antarctica already. As I recall, he measured the trip at 60,000 miles, but that proves nothing one way or the other about FE or a continental mass at the bottom of the globe.
5) A thought: I watched big ships on Lake Superior heading for the Soo Locks, 50 miles out and beyond on a clear day. That shouldn’t be possible if there is this curvature dip of one foot per mile based on the 25,000 miles circumference of the spherical earth. A photographer clearly captured the Chicago skyline all lit up 60 miles away from St.Joseph, Michigan, but that shouldn’t be possible either: “According to NASA, the Windy City seems so much closer because of the way light is bent through layers of varying density. The light that reaches your eyes comes from different angles across the lake, and thus, the city seems to be growing or even floating.” WHICH IS IT: that ships sink off the horizon into invisibility because the earth is curved…or you can actually see that ship (or skyline) but it’s due to light refracting differently, or that unspoken third choice that there is no curve.
6) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space… they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever. Similarly with Foucault’s Pendulum experiments to prove the earth is rotating, no consistent results have been documented as proof of anything to do with rotational spin. If you can accept that it is necessary to move the pendulum by hand to get it started/restarted or motorize to overcome other natural forces, all to prove the earth is spinning, and hide what you are doing from the observer to support your theory, that is wrong and unscientific, and as for me: Fraud.
7) If the earth is as described in Genesis, with the sun and moon and stars all contained within a massive expanse above us within an impenetrable dome, that would explain why we can always see the stars and planets in the same relative position. NASA recently acknowledged that the moon is contained within the earth’s atmosphere, whatever that is supposed to mean. https://www.newsweek.com/earth-atmosphere-moon-apollo-nasa-esa-geocorona-1338611
8) If our Earth is just one of several spheroids hurling through space 93 million miles away from the Sun, and we have sent rockets to the Moon, to Mars, to Deep Space, to Venus, etc., where is the PROOF beyond Hollywood-produced CGI images? Why does NASA finally admit to color enhancing Mars to its red glow out there supposedly 35 million miles away… and yet we accept that and the explanation of why we can’t go back to the moon 240,000 miles away cuz it’s just too hard?
Bottomline is that I cannot be insulted or disparaged to stop asking questions and deciding whether the status quo answers pass the smell test. If I am giving Christians a bad name by being a skeptic, so be it.
That shouldn’t be possible if there is this curvature dip of one foot per mile based on the 25,000 miles circumference of the spherical earth. A photographer clearly captured the Chicago skyline all lit up 60 miles away from St.Joseph, Michigan, but that shouldn’t be possible either: I'm going to pick on 1 thing at a time. I'll start with this because I used to live on Lake Michigan and there were times that I experienced this phenomenon.
Let's start with a couple of things. If you ARE correct we should have MILLIONS of photographs of the ALL buildings in Chicago from ANY city on Lake Michigan regardless of distance if it's a clear sunny day or a clear night. But we don't. We have images when the weather is just right but that's the ONLY time.
Does that make sense? On any clear night we should be able to see the lights of all cities on the other side of the lake..right? And on any clear day we should be able to see buildings, no matter how tall, on the other side of the lake from anywhere.
We don't though. What would be your explanation for that?
I did some digging on this too... This (maybe) the image you're referring to:
The photographer himself and anyone who is educated on weather or photography attributes this to a mirage effect.
You'll notice that in the photo there are some parts of buildings "floating" as well.
You can see this effect in this YouTube Video which shows "floating" buildings and other bizarre mirage effects.
How would you explain the "floating" buildings if this were anything but an atmospheric mirage phenomena?
I'll await your answer to this point before I move on to other points you made.