The earth is an oblate spheroid

"Regardless of who and what produced these images, the point stands. Images can be faked. This leaves doubt. My opponent, in order to provide irrefutable evidence that we live on a spinning ball, must do so beyond all doubt. Since Photoshop and its cousins exist, this should be a clearcut case that the doubt has been sufficiently cast, and the resolution has been negated. My opponent may be gullible enough to believe every image he sees on his TV or PC, but I'd like to believe that most of us aren't that gullible."Incorrect, To provide an irrefufable evidence, I must so so beyind your ability to reefute my argument.Irrefutable: "impossible to prove wrong:" as in "an irrefutable argument" [2]Con has not proven my argument wrong. Con has laid out the infintismally small possibiluity that my argument is wrong - if every single instance of all photos of earth showing it's spherical shape have been faked due to some gigantic worldwide conspiracy. This is irrelevent as it does not refute my argument by proving it wrong and the idea that all evidence has been faked is so unlikely that it is basically irrelevent.I've got to say I'm disappointed. From their attitude I had hoped Con was going to put forward some solid reasoning behind why the earth couldn't be spherical. I have no diea what that argument would be, but I was interested in finding out. Instead Con has resorted to scraping the bottom of the barrel.The reason doubts don't really matter is because it's possible to have doubts about pretty much anything. If the required metric is "Does any amount of doubt exist no matter how small" then you can just fabricate absurd - but technicalyl possible - reasons for anything. You can argue that pigs have wings and fly because maybe we're all in the matrix! You can argue that giant space turtles exist because how can we 100% definieteively prove that we're not a giant space turtle dreaming it's a man? All absurd, but also not things that can be disproven so technically they create an infintesmal amount of doubts. That this is the only argument Con stoops to is really disappointing. I had been hoping to be pressed and perhaps needs to whip out extra arguments about how a spherical earth meets Popperial standards of falsifiability, how it matches what we would expect from natural laws, how independent tests show it to be correct etc."I should not provide anything, since I've nothing to prove. Let alone why "space organizations" would lie about the shape of the earth. I'd guess unless they did provide images for the gullible, they would lose funding of almost $18billion per year. That's about $50 million per day. Stargate cost just $55million in 1994. I can present images and videos of a 200 foot gorilla kidnapping white chicks and climbing buildings, but that is proof only that I've presented pictures and videos of king kong."If you are going to present no arguments to refute my cargument, you just make it easier for me.You're also begging the question here. Your argument about why the earth isn't spherical already assumes the earth isn't spherical. Not only that but it doesn't make much sense to me. I'm pretty sure that a space organisation showing pictures of a non-spherical earth would get asses of money.Lastly all evidence can be faked or incorrect. Eye witness testimoney, scientific studies, even our own personal experience can be wrong or fabricated. We deceide if something constitutes valid proof based on the context and it's credibility, e.g. a scientific study that references a load of sources which don't appear iin any database of scholarly literature and is written by someone whose who has a PHD from a university that doesn't seem to exist is probably fake. "B-b-b-b-but it could be fake" isn't an argument because anything could theoretically be fake, what matters is providing an actual reason to believe it is.So are photos of a spherical earth analogoous to a lone person with no credentials or expertise taking a picture of a 200ft tall gorilla - a type of creature it would be bizarre if we hadn't already discovered if it did exist and which seems to defy all notions of physical laws (e.g. animals can't get that big)?No, it's masses of photos taken by an array of professional experts which all substantiate each other and which match the evidence we would expect based on natural laws and via the use of technology which would only work if those natural laws and the shape of the earth are correct. The only "King Kong" style claims that are happening are your conspiracy theories about all evidence of the moon being faked."That doesn't make them any more infalliable, this is a strawman."That's not what a strawman means. You use a strawman if someone misrepresents your argument, not just if you think their argument is incorrect.[2]You also don't seem to have understood the point. You tried to make the point of how photos of a spherical earth can be faked, but your example relies on a spherical earth being real and pictures of it having been taken by Nasa for use as the source image.. "My opponent appears to pur much trust in these "professional experts" to profess to him something that can never be personally validated. This is the equivalent of a preacher saying that God exists and pointing at the Bible as evidence. NASA has professed that imagery they produce is Photoshop on multiple accounts. They've presumably had several thousand satellites in orbit around the earth at varying heights since the birth of NASA, but even the iPhone "blue marble" from 2012 is confessed created, and nearly every one before that."I'm not sure what the scare quotes are meant to represent. Apparently for someone unknown reason Con doesn't think that people who work in the field of astromony (e.g. professionals) and will have all relevant trainign and qualifications (e.g. experts) are professional experts. Anyway, on to the main point. Con argues that the photos aren't personally validated, presumably meaning me personally going into space and seeing the earth is spherical. That isn't relevant because that kind of personal validation isn't required. We don't need to personally visit Italy to accept that Italy exists and photos of Italy are real. Again, it's dependent on context and Con merely falls into making absurd analogies that don't connect to the topic under discussion."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."You seem to be posting proof that people have taken pictures of a spherical earth, as that still admits the earth is spherical and real pictures have been taken. Thanks for thatI'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to make, it's very vague. If you're trying to cast doubt on the specific images I chosee, your interview is in 2012 and the satellite I referenced was launched in 2015 so your info is out of date. [3]If you're trying to create some vague insiuation due to the gap, this is just because for a long while there was no need for long distance space flight after the Apollo missions finished. Satellites were launched into low earth orbit where they were close enough that they would only get partial images of a hemisphere - whcih still show the earth is spherical. For instance you can lifestream from the international space station but you only get a partial view of a hemisphere: hhttp://www.ustream.tv...Even the so called satellite that took the images my opponent offers has produced questionable results.Someone once saw a shape in a clould. Shocking.[4][1] http://dictionary.cambridge.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...