Earth is spherical/spheroid shaped

Ok, the rebuttal to my opponent's argument is simple. Pictures and video you see on the T.V. or your computer are not scientific evidence. If I show a picture of a 150 foot tall lizard: Here is a 150 foot tall gorilla: You can see a video of them fighting on the television. This is proof of nothing but that you saw Godzilla verses King Kong. Seriously, I know this may not cut it with my opponent, claiming images are faked is not sufficient, so I'll show him some clearcut examples of NASA faking images. Anyone who has an iphone has seen this image: Robert Simmons did a really nice job on this one. That's right, he created it. Like with photoshop. Here is the interview.(1) Quotes from the article. "My role is to make imagery from Earth sciences data." "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17." That's funny, they used the same "photo" of earth for over 30 years? I can show that that image was faked too, If my opponent likes. Continuing. "Then we wrapped the flat map around a ball. My part was integrating the surface, clouds, and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble." Then there was this (2) NASA faking images of earth. This alone should raise a red flag. Granted, a photo may be presentable as scientific evidence, but a photoshop image? If one were to say, present evidence against the source of my opponent's photographic evidence, it should be recognized that the source is an unreliable source of information. My opponent presents pictures of earth's curved horizon in even more pictures. Though this technically isn't a picture of the earth as a ball, I'll show him how these are done. This is a wide angle lens, a.k.a. a fisheye lens, which, like airlane windows are just curved glass. I'm sure my opponent remember airplane windows from our last debate. Evidence is shown by looking at the solar panel that just so happens to be curved nearly identically to the horizon. We all know solar panels aren't round, don't we? My opponent abandons proving the shape of the earth and goes on about how the ISS must be really because we can see it with a telescope. In actuality, you don't even need a telescope to see it. I have a few issues with this. The ISS is suppposed to be 250 miles away. A 757 flies about 7 miles altitude. We can't see the details of a 747 at this altitude. They are not very different in size. Multiply the distance airplanes fly by 35. The iss would be impossible to see. There's definitely something up there, but to say there are prople up there, obiting the earth is a bit farfetched, especially when you consider The ISS is alledgedly orbiting in a region above the earth called the thermosphere. The tempuratures in this region range from about 500° C (932° F) to 2,000° C(3,632° F) or higher. Unless the ISS is made from lead, it should be an orbiting glob of molten metal. Rebuttal: Ways to see for yourself: Shadows and SticksMy opponent actually links a video to the rebuttal of this claim in his argument. Errortosthenes assumed that the sun was 93,000,000 miles away. This is a false assumption. V-sauce says that if the sun were much closer than the alledged 93,000,000 miles, the same results can be achieved. Crespicular rays proves to anyone that it is close. He then restates the same argument. Rebuttal Stargazing On A Round Earth:My opponent claims that we should be able to see all the star constellation if we were on a flat earth. He seems to have no understanding of perspective. Objects overhead are high. as they move away frm us they appear to drop. Just as the railroad tracks appear to move into one another, the tops of the telephone poles appear to get lower. eventually the pole blends in with the horizon. The same thing happens with the stars. In the next round, I'll handle my opponents rebuttals. https://www.nasa.gov...; http://thecoincidencetheorist.com...