The earth is a sphere, or a spherical shape.

Rebuttal I: Bedford Experiment.Con doesn't explain how his light curvature case affects the experiment... Nor does his source. The source doesn't seem to make any mention of the Bedford Experiment. Con can not post a source, and let it do the talking for him, especially when it doesn't even seem to refer to his case. Funny enough, Con and his source are wrong. Light doesn't curve up, it curves DOWN(1). This makes the Earth appear flat by allowing the telescope's view to curve with the Earth. It's used in navigation to give the ship a further view of the Earth.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttal II: Acceleration / Balloon Experiment.Con makes a fast assertion without proving that my video uses fish-eye lenses. Where is the source of his claim? The video is with a Go-Pro, which doesn't have fish-eye lenses. Had Con researched it, he would have known that. Con also doesn't post these new videos of his.As for water, Gravity holds the water flat against the Earth. Water won't fall off the Earth because the strength of Gravity keeps it in place.Rebuttal III: Anteratica.Con's evidence is an opinion piece... One that is wrong. It claims 200 billion barrels of Oil, but in reality, there is only an assumed 50 billion at most (3). This is well under most oil producing nations, and far under the 1,200 billion in OPEC (4). This alone dismisses the whole point of Con's source, which was built on this one lie. Con lies, as well. He claims I said there was no oil. This isn't true. I said there wasn't a lot. Especially since the 50 billion barrels are divided among the individual nations. At most, all the oil in Antarctica would increase the world's reserves by only a few percents.As such, my case stands. The profits of mining Antarctica are offset by enviromentalist's concerns. Con's case assumes letting mining on Antarctica would prove a flat Earth, but as source 3 says, there is no notable oil reserves on Antarctica... It's all offshore. This means drilling for it wouldn't reveal a flat earth.[3] http://www.businessinsider.com...[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...Rebuttal IV: Motion of the Earth.Con's case assumes the rotation of the Earth doesn't affect the plane. In truth, the Earth's atmosphere rotates with the Earth. This carries the plane along, keeping in line with my example (5). So image the moving floor, where the air around it moves with the floor. When you jump, it's no different than whe you were walking. It would make sense that the force that rotates the Earth would rotate the air around it as well.[5] http://www.thenakedscientists.com...Rebuttal V: The Sun.I'm confused as to what profile pic Con refers to... Either way, his argument doesn't seem to make any sense. Why would the rays move in one direction? Con seems to drop all of this argument in favor of one he never explains. Rather the Sun was nearby or far away, the light would do the same thing.Rebuttal VI: Blue MarbleCon's "proof" was simply an photo made with odd choices needed to fix lighting errors. As the photographer himself said... (6). "Now, VIIRS is a non-tilting ocean-color instrument and therefore suffers heavily from sun glint contamination. The fact that I picked January helped since most of the glint would be in the southern hemisphere. Nevertheless, to avoid distracting glint streaks in my image, I would need to limit my coverage to mostly the northern hemisphere. I also could not include the arctic regions of the planet because the Arctic is dark in January. I still wanted to present the imagery "in the round", so I opted to use a near-sided perspective projection from an altitude of just over 2100 kilometers above 20 North by 100 West. This projection results in a very wide-angle presentation such as one might get with a fish-eye lens"— Norman KuringThis gave it the appearance of being half a hemisphere stretched over a whole hemisphere.I'm confused about what "sex" has to do with it... They are clouds. They look like things sometime... If it is altered, it means SFX, not sex. But again, there is no evidence that this photo is altered. As for the 8 photos side by side, this is silly. Each photo is from a different angle, different seasons, and different continents, and used different methods to photograph. There is no evidence here at all. Although, as I see it (keeping angles in mind) all but the 2012 Blue Marble looks the same.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...Argument I: Size of the Conspiracy // Errors in the Theory.Con seems to ignore my argument... I listed several people not related to Google or NASA who found that the Earth was round. He doesn't really counter my argument at all... He does NOTHING to prove the hundreds of thousands of people needed to keep such a conspiracy... There have been 460 people to enter space (7). Did each one keep it's flatness a secret? Despite the hundreds of millions to be gained by revealing the truth?Con also fails to answer an important question... Why keep the Earth's shape a secret? What's the agenda?[7] http://scienceline.org...Argument II: Arguments for a Round Earth.The fact that you see farther when you're higher is evidence of a round Earth. If the Earth was flat, you would see the same distance at any hieght. If anything, you should see less from up high, since you're further away from objects the guy who is lower down can see. However, because of the round Earth, the higher guy can see farther as he sees slightly over the curve: Conclusion:Con doesn't, by any stretch, prove that the Earth is flat. He gives, at most, no reason to believe in his massive conspiracy.