The Earth is not Flat

This round will be presenting my rebuttals to my opponent's points, and they will be separated into the points my opponent presented. Let's begin: Opponent's point 1: My opponent proposes that the globe Earth has a circumference of 25000 miles, with the curvature declination being 8 inches per mile. He is correct, and he is also correct in calculating the declination of the earth's curvature in his example of 10 miles. With this, he goes on to falsify the curvature by giving the example of Chicago viewed from across Lake Michigan which spans across over 60 miles. I should mention that the curvature declination of 60 miles is about 2380 feet, and since the tallest building is 1400 feet, it should be impossible to view Chicago from 60 miles across! Or so he proposes. Well, it should be made clear that the position where Joshua has been taking the photos of the Chicago skyline is actually NOT 60 miles, this is a common mistake flat earthers make when arguing against the curvature (since the Chicago skyline is something referred to commonly by flat earthers as evidence against a curvature, it is not a new argument I should mention). Where flat earthers got the 60 miles figure is by travelling around the bottom of the lake, while the direct distance from the place the picture was taken from and the Chicago skyline is ACTUALLY 35 miles. Now, let's refer to the handy calculation of the curvature declination, and with that the declination is... less than 1000 feet! As my opponent ever so correctly pointed out, the highest building in Chicago is 1400 feet (I thank my opponent for giving me such figures). With these newly gained revelations, let's see some errors with the flat earth argument on the skyline. We have already discovered that it IS possible to see Chicago on a globe Earth (from where my opponent proposes the photo was taken from). My opponent makes the other mistake of suggesting we are seeing Chicago in its entirety, when in fact we see but a fraction of Chicago. Here are just some of the things we cannot observe on this photo if we are seeing Chicago in it's entirety and if the Earth was flat (remember that I am referencing the photo my opponent sourced): 1. Chicago has a pier named Navy Pier and on that long boardwalk is a 150 ft Ferris wheel. It is brightly lit around dusk and yet it cannot be seen. 2. Chicago has a famous road called Lake Shore Drive. It sits right on the edge of the lake for most of the 16+ miles. We cannot see the the traffic on LSD, which should be illuminated by streetlights and headlamps by this hour. 3. There are several beaches " Montrose Harbour, North Avenue Beach and Oak Street Beach to name a few. They are well lit and prominent in their visibility, and yet we cannot see them in the photo my opponent sourced. 4. All of these many buildings in the photo are but a fraction of the city. There are more that you can"t see. 5. Additionally, Chicago sits well above the lake on a break wall. I shall await an explanation of how we cannot see these things in the photo if the Earth was flat, and I shall not accept such excuses as 'we cannot see these things due to the light not being able to reach us' or 'we can zoom in and see these places'. Note: I am not accusing my opponent of giving ANY of these excuses, I am simply referencing some excuses other flat earthers have given. Opponent's point 2: I would first like to point out that my opponent has not made it very clear what he is exactly focusing on, so I apologize in advance if I misrepresent any of his second point. But from what I can understand, my opponent is focusing on crepuscular rays and the impossibility of such rays in a sunset, since that would require the sun to be below the flat earth, which he implies should not be the case since he claims that the sun is a moving light in sky, which I should mention is yet another vague proposition, since he has not specified in which direction it moves in to fit into what we can directly observe. However, I cannot see why he would mention this since there are anti-crepuscular rays which are observed at sunrise or sunset which can explain how the light my opponent observes can occur on a globe earth. I would like some further clarification on this argument from my opponent since I am unsure whether I fully understood what he was trying to argue, since it was quite vague! Note: I would also like to mention that his proposed experiment and its results will not be comparable to the situations we see on earth, since the metal and the earth has quite different surfaces and atmosphere and compositions (if you haven't noticed), and comparing two contrasting things would be a false comparison. Opponent's point 3: My opponent is correct in saying that NASA does use Photoshop on the images we see of Earth. But NASA uses Photoshop in the same way one's wedding photographer would use Photoshop, or in the way that the editors of cookbooks would use Photoshop. What flat earthers heavily misrepresent is how NASA uses Photoshop on their images of Earth. Let us recap on how a picture of Earth by NASA is created - a composite of several images taken by satellites is brought together into one image, which can explain the discrepancies seen on these images (see Blue Marble (1)) since the Earth would have spun while these multiple images were being taken, and after it is one image, this is where Photoshop comes into play. Just like a wedding photographer would use Photoshop to enhance the images taken of a husband and wife, NASA uses the program to enhance and make the image truly appear like one image. My opponent is open to rebut this but what I do not want is a repeated assertion of the claim that 'it is fake!'. 1. - http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov... My opponent is also correct in saying that fish eye lenses were used in recording Felix's jump which would have distorted the surface quite heavily, which can be seen in this photo (1). But perhaps my opponent forgot to mention photos such as this (2), this (3), or even this (4), where even by eye inspection, a clear curvature can be seen. It is slight I should admit, but it is clear enough to see a curvature. Perhaps my opponent might use this (5) to argue against the observed curvature, since the photo was taken at a higher altitude than the previous photos, but hopefully he shall not forget the importance of angle of view on a photo! Note: his analogy of the globe Earth to a 'religion' is demonstrably false, but that topic is for another debate. 1. - https://www.extremetech.com... 2. - http://gymflow100.com... 3. - http://www.space.com...:* 4. - http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com... 5. - http://en.es-static.us... Opponent's point 4: It clear that my opponent is arguing that the velocity at which the Earth is spinning is an absurd notion, since we should be moving or at least feeling the force of such a velocity (also somehow the non-existence of motion sickness since we should be moving at speeds faster than any vehicle should, further suggesting how we should be used to feeling the force of the velocity). I shall rebut that first. It is scientifically established that Newton's Laws of Motion applies to all physics involving movement (refer to name of the laws - Motion). My opponent in his earlier point suggested that Felix should have landed on ground that would have arrived at his feet from the spin of the Earth, but this is an impossibility since Felix would have still been moving in the same direction of Earth's spin with the same velocity, since objects in motion stay in motion unless influenced by other forces, meaning that Felix would not have traveled downwards separately from Earth's spin and velocity. Furthermore, the reason we do not feel the Earth's spin is: Simple - we are moving at a constant velocity and therefore would not be feeling any force. This is simple forces physics. Complex (explained using the Coriolis effect) - To fully explain how we do not feel the spin of the Earth, we need to take the example of a much faster spinning planet that Earth. I am running out of space so here, read the second answer. (1) 1. - http://physics.stackexchange.com... Your mentions on the Aether and the flaws of heliocentrism are non-sequitur to this argument which specifically focuses on a flat earth, so please withhold any mentions of it. If you want, I will be open to debate heliocentrism and even special relativity on a later debate, but it is not related to this one.