The Earth is not Flat

Pt1 Pictures and video. "My opponent is correct in saying that NASA does use Photoshop"Both parties agree, image editing software is used to create images of earth. This "evidence" is already anecdotal, because no civilian has ever seen the earth as a ball, only a few hundred oath swearing astronots have supposedly seen this. My opponent insists that the image in question is several scans of the earth, merged together in Photoshop, (he ignores the point that this could also be done on a flat earth) which begs the question, Why? With all the satellites out there, we should be able to take a HD camera to space and take one real, unedited picture, there should be hundreds, which also means that a genuine photo would look like this, but no satellites are in any of the "photos". He also downplays this, claiming they're just touching up the image, which is ridiculous since the point was agreed upon, that several images are stitched together. To this I provide an interview with the artist, and leave it in the hands of the voters. (1) Another image of earth, also has some "discrepancies" (2). So we have an anecdotal proof that is probably faked, hell, anyone can get photoshop and provide evidence of whatever shape earth they please. Does he think NASA is just going to outright tell us they are faking pictures of earth? Here is a picture of a giant gorilla that kidnaps white chicks and climbs buildings. This proves nothing but that we just saw a picture of king Kong.You only need to look at some of their other fabulous works of art. The first one looks like it was from a PlayStation 1 game, clearly not a photo. The second one has copy and past clouds all over the bottom left. In the third picture The United States takes up a half a hemi(sphere), over double the size of anywhere else. The last one should be mostly dark, similar to the right hand side of the 2nd picture, seeing how there would be no source of light other than the sun, and it is almost at the earth's back from us. This actually aids my conclusion since this is either a proof for it or against, and we see now which it is. I'll cover Felix's high jump while we're here to touch all of the bases. As shown in the video, the horizon can easily be bent using a wide angle lens. No lens is known to straighten out a curved line, so let's examine some footage from a balloon that reached just short of where Felix was claimed to have reached. (3) The Dog cam featured both a wide angle lens, and a standard lens, one on each side. Guess which one shows no curvature? We also see an interesting sun in this video that appears to have grown substantially in size, and a hotspot directly under where the sun appears to be. But that's another debate altogether. On to my opponent's screen grabs. Take my opponent's last grab and throw a ruler on it. This is a straight line. We can see the false curvature was corrected with go pro correction software because the aluminum device extending from the craft is straight. This is the earth from the highest point in this jump. Any curvature from any altitude below this can be considered fake, especially since the bar is in none of the other shots to compare it to, the earth would not get more curved as one descends, and, since they are stills, we won't see any morphing. But we already know that Go pros were used in this dive. They were sponsors. Not sure what my opponent is referring to when he says "angle of view", they look like roughly the same angles to me. I'm guessing he thinks that looking at curved lines from a certain angle will flatten them out? Look once more at the Dog Cam, compare that to my opponents pictures from lesser altitudes he claims proves curvature.Point 2 "Most flat earthers show videos of either the horizon from the ground, or from an air plane."My opponent's attempts to group me with all flat earthers and claim this as proof of a spherical earth is just ridiculous, and wrong. I have shown high altitude balloon footage with a flat horizon, and have even pointed out an over the shoulder flat horizon on the skydive video (which my opponent ignores). Stereotyping flat earthers is not conclusive, and completely unrelated to the conclusion.Point 3My opponent again groups me with flat earthers and assumes they represent my views. The point is just a series of questions, mostly pertaining to irrelevant aspects of an overall model, none specifically pertaining to the shape of the earth. For the sake of discussion, I will review some of these questions, and provide a FAQ(4) again, and invite him to research this a little more carefully. 1. S-waves and p-wave shadow zone this evidence is also based on assumptions. First, is of course the earth is a globe, and second that scientists know anything about what exists past 8 miles below the surface. Third is how exactly whatever is down there behaves with seismic waves. The waves could be reflecting off of something, like a layer of dense liquid, cavern floors and walls, or worse (for atheists) hell's floor at specific angles.2. The sunI'm not going to speculate what the sun is, or where it is exactly. It appears to pass overhead, and when looking at an most flat earth models, the sun has a circular path around the north pole. Again, having a sun doesn't prove the earth is a ball.3. Raleigh scattering Raleigh scattering is just an excuse for why the sky is blue. The truth is, the sky is blue because there is a vast body of liquid above our heads. The same as a pool, or an ocean, blue during the day, black or clear at night. Again, having a blue sky doesn't prove the earth is a ball. 4.The theory of gravity My opponent insists that gravity can't exist on a flat earth. My answer to this is how do you know gravity exists? The observable and demonstrable fact that unsupported objects fall down is not dependent on the earth being a ball. No experiment irrefutably proves gravity, in my opponent's use of the word, exists. Look up gravity on Wikipedia and find the word proof. What makes gravity do what it does? With what? Why can't we demonstrate small objects stuck to the side or orbiting around others? Newton's Apple fell because the molecules that made it up were more dense than the molecules that made up the air around and under it. There's no need to complicate it. To say that things wood float around if the Earth was flat is a silly assumption. The theory of gravity is entirely dependent on a spherical Earth, in other words they needed a good reason for why things stick to the bottom of a ball which has never ever before been observed. It's like drawing a picture of an imaginary creature in your head and going out trying to find evidence that it exists, and upon finding the tooth of an alligator, declaring you have your evidence. An assumption based on another assumption. Point 4My opponent's last proof of a spherical earth is yet another question. That being why objects disappear over a certain distance. Modern "Scientists" love to use advanced mathematical equations to prove reality, and while sometimes these maths add up to what we observe, the human eye and it's limits are not completely factored into these equations. The ancient Greeks theorized the earth a globe from observing ships appearing to drop over the horizon. But if they were to time and measure this distance at which they started to disappear, they would've figured out the size of the earth was far misjudged. If a ship appears to go over curvature at such a short distance, and our eyes see much more from left to right that straight ahead, we should indeed see curvature from even ground level. Perspective is the reason this appears to happen. These ships are reaching the vanishing point, and intercepting the ground plane from your perspective at a certain altitude. A few blades of grass blocks the view of anything behind it when it is at or near the vanishing point from your perspective. A simple experiment can be performed to verify this. Place a camera on the ground at one end of a football field. Start walking down field. You will notice at about 20-30 yards, your shoes will have disappeared, and at the other end zone, nothing but the waist up can be seen.(5) Now my opponent can speculate that football fields are curved, and we all know that is a false assertion, football fields are level from end to end, with some slight drop from the middle to sideline for drainage. Waves and spray cause the bottom of the ship to merge with the water, creating a type of mirage. A flat earth proponent analyzed unedited footage and upon further examination, confirms this(6). So to answer my opponent's question, yes, the unaided human eye has a limit, sort of. Since this is entirely an visual observation, I'll link some videos with explanations to help understand.(7)(8)Rebuttal-rebuttals and conclusions in the last round.Sources:https://docs.google.com...