Earth is flat

"you can even see this on the Mt Everest view" This is another false statement. "Earth"s curvature can't be visually seen from any location on the ground, even from Mount Everest. Studies show that the threshold altitude for seeing the curvature is about 35,000 ft (10,668 m). " . http://epod.usra.edu... Shadows. . . Erratosthenes also assumed that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away, and that the sun's rays all hit the earth at parallel lines. Of course, crepuscular rays show that they do not, this can be verified by anyone by looking up on a cloudy day. . http://all-that-is-interesting.com... With a small close sun, as proposed by the flat earth model, the same results can be achieved. . http://www.eratosthenes.eu... "You can see farther from higher" This just a property of perspective. The earth, of course, isn't perfectly flat, there are obviously obstructions everywhere. Take for example, this football field, though we know that football fields aren't curved, when the camera is low to the ground, even a 2 inch high patch of grass will hide anything behind it, raise the camera, and the man will come back into view. . https://youtu.be... Most of the earth will not be mathematically flat, so this works with hills, waves, etc. Consider, if you will, the image of the railroad tracks or specifically, the poles that run alongside it. If you were make the first pole a wall, you wouldn't see any further poles behind it. Shrink all of the poles down, though it may take a little longer, at one point, the wall will rise to th eyes level, and will block anything behind it. An increase in elevation will of course allow a better view over this obstacle, until the next one approaches the eyes level, further away. . http://www.drawinghowtodraw.com... My opponent makes a vague comment about being able to demonstrate curvature from "the center of gravity to simply observing the other round objects that are visible in space". Though he didn't ellaborate much on this, I'll quickly cover it so as to not drop any points that my opponent can use later. First, gravity is a theory, objects go down based on their density. Since the time of ancient Greece people thought the earth was a ball, but when people got smart enough to beg the question: why don't people fall off of the bottom? Globalists needed an answer. So it was theorized that the earth were acting as a big magnet of sorts, and was pulling thing towards the center of it. In short it's a theory that was based on an assumption. It's ok to scientifically make assumptions when forming a hypothesis, but eventually, you have to prove that initial assumption, Which is what you are trying to do with the theory. Bassackwards much? As for other objects in the sky, critical thinkers know that we have no good reason to associate the terra firma we stand on with lights in the sky. It's similar to observing billiard balls on a table and assuming the table was a giant sphere, based entirely on that observation. It's a ridiculous argument when looked at with a critical , unbiased eye. "Another way is the triple-right triangle:" Another myth globalists propose is that if you travel an undetermined distance. .. you can form a triangle by taking two 90 degree turns. I had a few problems with this: first, what distance is this, if I go into the city and do this, it doesn't work. If you suggest a much bigger distance, are you using a compass? If you follow a compass and travel due west or east, you aren't actually going in a straight line, globe, or flat. Going west on a flat earth is just going around the north pole, and on a globe, you'd be dipping the nose down constantly on a plane, around a curve. In short, the argument, like the globe, doesn't hold water. The moon Most of the first paragraph is aneqdotal, most of humanity has never been to the moon, so we're essentially taking NASA, a government organization whose name coincidentally means "to deceive" in Hebrew, word on that. My opponent finally makes his point, and claims that since lunar eclipses feature a round shadow, this necessarily proves the earth a ball. But he is assuming that " the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon". Over the last 50 or so years, several recorded instances of eclipses happen when both the sun and moon were both above the horizon, this would be impossible if " the Earth"s orbit places it directly between the Sun and the Moon" Either you would see the moon being eclipsed, or the sun, never both. So the overstatement "every lunar eclipse proves that the earth is not only round but spherical " absolutely, utterly, beyond a shadow of a doubt not flat. " Can be dismissed with the rest of these proofs. My opponent makes a brief statement that the rotation of earth can be proved with Foucault pendulum definitively proves the rotation of the earth, even after my evidence of non rotation with gyroscopes. Yes, some time back, some people convinced everyone that they swung a pendulum and the earth moved under it, instead of the obvious, that the pendulum moved around over it's surface. Perhaps my opponent has never heard of the Allias effect, where during eclipses, the pendulum does curious things, such as change directions and speeds, now according to the heliocentric model, the earth does not change directions or speeds, so the pendulum must either rotate due to some yet to be discovered, or forgotten reason, such as the aether, or is just a clever parlor trick, meant to deceive the gullible as they gape in amazement at these swinging balls in institutions and establishments worldwide. If the earth really moved under a swinging Pendulum, logically we should, intending to holiday to France from the US, be able to do so by ascending in a balloon or helicopter, flying a little north or south, and waiting for their destination to come to them at roughly 1,000 miles per hour. The next paragraph is confusing. My opponent claims that someone may or may not have sent men to earth, but Russia "did definitely throw a probe at it's surface showing it appear flat but it's actually spherical" with no source or much of anything to back up this claim, I must ask my opponent to clarify most of the paragraph. I'll start with what I can understand of it. He would like a picture of what I propose the earth to look like. I don't believe that anyone has gotten far enough away to take such a picture, but I'll provide an illustration of such. . https://www.henrymakow.com... My opponent insists that my analogy of other planets being "spherical" is invalid. Claiming that these planets, which were known for thousands of years as wandering stars, are somehow just lIke earth, but the only evidence we have of this are images from nasa. My opponent has not visited these planets to verify that we are looking at physical terra firma, so yet again we have an aneqdotal assumption. He assumes the conclusion, ie. The heliocentric model, and pulls his evidence from such. I could further show how NASA is lying about these wandering stars, but I feel it is not needed and the point has been made. Anyone interested in such an argument can view this debate. . http://www.debate.org... Forward all points since my contentions weren't even acknowledged.