The earth is spherical and spinning

I explained earlier how evidence should be examined. First you check to see whether it is relevant to the outcome. Then you check to see if that evidence is substantial enough to be a proof. I've shown that more of my arguments pass more tests than my opponent's measly 3, none of them passing both tests. RR1 Not one picture or video... "In my previous links, there are innumerable images of the earth from space" All of which are proven fakes, or misunderstood, as I explained in the last round, which my opponent ignores, likely because he pretypes his rounds. Maybe I wouldn't have had to rebut this twice, nevertheless we'll discuss pictures from NASA and co., yet again. " he claims that all images are photo-shopped by a conspiracy, and yet for some reason they are willing to fake LEO pictures, but not distant pictures; why not? " I didn't claim all images are Photoshop for conspiracy, I claimed that each image is Photoshop under NASA's admission. Again, this is why we read the last round arguments before we type up a rebuttal in a formal debate. They stitch scans of the earth together in Photoshop, to create a ball (11). Leo pictures and videos are using fisheye cameras. The ISS footage is a miniature version in front of a green screen. Like I said, with more than half of Americans realizing events like 9/11 were staged or false flag events, including many architects and engineers(14), it's become impossible to trust authority sources. "good examples of such pictures are Apollo 8 and the EPIC camera." Both images are put out by NASA, by looking at both the proofs presented here and in the last two rounds. As stated in rule #4 in round 1. I feel that this source has been proved untrustworthy multiple times. If this isn't enough, I will provide a few more instances showing that NASA is faking images of earth on several accounts, and move to dismiss this source, and any evidence using it. Source 2 has obvious discrepancies, and I'm glad to say my daughters 4th grade class's dictionaries were switched when I showed her principal this(1) and the three sixes over Antarctica. Which overlaps with this(2) This gem, that has a virtually craterless dark side of the moon (the one that isn't protected by the earth, and it's gravity) and clouds that never change formation over how many hours? Not to mention the apparent flyby instead of an orbit. (It doesn't change size)(3) Pluto on Pluto(4) Han Solo frozen in Mercury, on Mercury (5) This video includes footage of rockets "reaching escape velocity" by just going over a big arch and back down to earth.(6) Not to mention the tape of astronots faking pictures of earth. (7) I would spend more time on this, but since the point has been made, I'll leave this source and evidence in the hands of the voters. People ask me why I don't trust NASA... "whistleblowers from exposing the lie."(8) There is. RR2 Distances sighted Chicago skyline This is one of those cases where globalists make the curvature unfalsifiable. Like saying ya, we see a lot farther than we should, and the earth looks flat, but its just a trick of the eye. When the sun is making a silhouette out of the skyline, do we still assume this is a mirage?(12,13) If someone were to get in a boat and ride this distance, and it was visible the entire way, would we still assume this is a mirage?(9) My opponent gives some different types of refractive effects, inferior and superior mirages(14), mock mirages (15)and atmospheric bending, which are not mirages, in looming and stooping, but he doesn't suggest which type this is, that appears all day, and into the night. Mirages are not known to last long, and ALL mirages have some type of inversion. Mock mirages only deal with sunsets, providing green flashes, and a small inversion of the sun above it. This leaves us with looming and stooping. Looming effects are very rare and appear most commonly in polar regions. As the two time lapses, and the very many photographs of the Chicago skyline shows, this is not rare. Stooping is just when an object appears shrunken, and since this is supposed to be doing the opposite, we can rule this out. Lake Michigan is known to have up to 65 feet waves, so the bottom not being visible is due to this. Mauritius and Reunion My opponent all but ignores my argument and invents his own for rebuttal with no mention of Cimendef. Seems like a dodge, but we'll continue. "Even if it was not taken at the top of the mountain, even at 4500 feet (about 2/3 up), much of the tip of Mauritius" highest point would still be visible" Much more than just the tips of these peaks are visible. My opponent concludes that we should be able to see what we see in this pictures, but I must ask him, from Piton de la Fournaise to Roche Ecrite is almost 100 km, so there should be 2,562 feet of curvature in the middle. Where is this curvature? RR4 My opponent apparently misunderstood the Dog Cam proof. The screen grab he manipulated is from the fisheye camera on the balloon, or the left side, we can see the obvious curvature when the video is cut to this camera. The right camera shows a perfectly level horizon. His entire rebuttal is therefore irrelevant. I question whether he was being dishonest or just not being thorough in his examination, which is apparent in his pretyped rounds so far. His evaluation of the Red bull dive is equally dishonest, I actually zoomed into his source 26 picture and his red line actually drops below the 1pixel worth of "curvature". So it is not the horizon that curves upward 1 pixel at over 120,000 feet, it is his line that curves downward 1 pixel, then back up. I'm sure my opponent will think of some other way to deceive us RR5 Reflection of the sun off water "The curvature of the earth is 8 inches per mile," This true for the first mile, but we don't live on a slope, my opponent is misleading in his statement. The average person standing close to see level will not see the ocean's surface past 3 miles. Since the sun is 93,000,000 miles away in your model, the angle that the sun hits the earth would produce a reflection that would not be visible at the time of sunset. My opponent provides a "picture" from space, likely a fisheye lens, but the reflection is indeed what we would see on any size ball, a specular highlight, so why don't we see this on a level that everyone can verify? My opponent also offers a picture of a sunset on a flat surface of water that if indeed were curved at the required 8" per mile squared would show a fun house mirror type reflection. He completely ignored the experiment I have provided that would show this. RR6 planes fly level. My opponent appears to mislead the voters with his own translation of the earth' s curvature that 1 degree of a ball that is 25,000 miles would not be great enough to notice. The declination would be, according to spherical geometry, 1,223 feet per minute, 20.3 feet per second which would be very noticeable indeed. RR No motion detected My opponent claims that we don't notice that we are moving faster than the speed of sound because the earth is so big.... Even at 4 miles per hour, humans can tell they are moving, especially if you were moving yourself, on a slow hayride for example, when one moves from front to back, there is a noticeable difference than going the other way. We aren't even accounting for the rest of earth's supposed motions in every imaginable direction. Were tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around the central axis, traveling 67,000 mph around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the galaxy rockets 670,000,000 mph through the Universe. That's a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we"re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever. These experiments my opponent denies were done to show the earths motions in respect to the aether. Since none was found, and it was ASSUMED that the Earth was spinning, it was implied that the aether didn't exist instead of that rotation which is why Einstein said what he did, which my opponent drops. Sagnacs interferometer proved the aether existed, which science then covered up.(10) Foucault pendulum can easily be faked with magnets, or may even be due to rotation electromagnetic frequencies from our 2 celestial bodies, which might explain the Allias effect, when modern astronomy cannot, It's discoverer explains this phenomenon with effects of the aether. During eclipses, the pendulum is know to change directions, and increase or decrease it's speed. So do eclipses cause the earth to change directions or decrease or increase it's movements? My opponent offers gyroscopes as proof of a spinning earth while citing a wiki link for gyrocompasses... Let's read. "Although one important component of a gyrocompass is a gyroscope, these are not the same devices" and then: "A gyroscope, not to be confused with gyrocompass, is a spinning wheel mounted on a gimbal so that the wheel's axis is free to orient itself in any way. When it is spun up to speed with its axis pointing in some direction, due to the law of conservation of angular momentum, such a wheel will normally maintain its original orientation to a fixed point in outer space (not to a fixed point on Earth)" Meaning that gyros remain in a fixed position relative to space from which they are started. So as the earth spins under it, the gyro should counter rotate at the same speed. However several experiments show this is not the case(16). And planes are outfitted with gyros that should also counter rotate, rendering these(17) useless. Which further proves C5 Planes fly level. I'm sure my opponent will try to deceive our voters in the last round. I urge voters to be skeptical of his evidence. Vote con! https://docs.google.com...