The earth is a sphere

Very nice so far, I see what you mean by the earth not appearing to be oblate spherical. If the difference is only 4 miles, there's no reason to quibble over that. My question is if it appears to be a perfect sphere, how did they come to this conclusion? And if it is so little a difference, why bother turning sphere into oblate spheroid? Was this measured? Pro has offered a wiki link as a source that says that centripical force causes this bulge at the equator, but it calls for common sense to realize that anything spinning at 1,000 mph will exhibit such centripical force that everything attached to it will be flung wildly into space.(side note. Funny how the astronots needed glass and metal to keep the vacuum of space from sucking out all the air but our atmosphere just kind of sits on the vacuum with no interference). Surely, earth bulges more on one side at a time due to the 18.5 miles per second race track around the sun?( which coincidentally, according to the THEORY of relativity, holds the earth to this insane orbit very delicately, but the earth is said to approach the sun, then somehow, with no opposing force, escapes this massive "gravitational" pull every year, back and forth, saving us from crashing into the sun)Photoshop Did you look at the image at all? You can clearly see it has went from about 1/5 the size of a hemisphere to 1/2? Take a measurement from about where Alaska is on both balls (roughly the same point) to Florida. It's clearly larger. Furthermore how many manners Does it really Take NASA to take a photograph? Point and click? They supposedly did it from the moon with 1960's technology. We supposedly have thousand of satellites going around out there, even some said to be light years away as depicted in the Photo of the milky way(rofl). Supposed pictures and videos(clearly cgi)of faraway planets. Surely someone can take a real, non composite image of our home planet!? There are no videos of the earth rotating. Why not? There should be hundreds if not thousands of them by now, but we only have a handful of photos. They should have the technology and money to put a live cam on the moon with access to all the taxpayers. Not an unreasonable request by any means. I would like to apologize for not providing a lot of resources, as there is not much, it's out there, but I want to both encourage research, and provide common sense logic in this debate. A link to the full "photo" that was Photoshoppedhttp://s24.photobucket.com... So we see letters all the time in clouds? Surely someone has photos to prove this claim, as you provide no sources to this claim, I will assume it false, although I'm sure a random chance of what might seem like a letter might be made from a cloud, but never a full word, or that word. As to the reason, who knows? It is there is all that matters. Maybe the graphics animators were trying to tell those of us with multi-celled brains without blatantly doing so that it was a fake, kinda funny actually, this could be said of any discrepancies with their "photos". As for the satellites, there are said to be thousands, surely some of them would show up, and as for the Photo satellites being lower than the rest, baloney, it's far enough out to get a whole photo of earth, it would catch most of the satellites orbiting earth and most of those going around the backside of the earth, but not one is represented, (no stars either, this is because an amateur astrologer would be able to quickly call the errors.) therefore all photos of the earth from NASA are equally presumed fakes for this reason. My fifth reason I'm showing how NASA Photoshops images of earth, is to prove that they are all Photoshop, if other satellites are further out in space, why not put our trillions of dollars to use and just take a picture? The image Russia released is a joke at best, if they spent the money to get a satellite out and take a picture, at least they could get the color alignment right! Zoom in and look at a cloud, it will look like you were looking at an old 3-d movie without the glasses, and when did all vegetation turn brown? Pure silliness. CircumnavigationDroppedGravity.Could've swore that's exactly what I did, by explaining how density works in reality. I'm trying to figure out what "rigorous tests" were performed to show that the sheer mass of any object can attract other smaller objects, or make an orbit around it. Any sources to this claim? Again, gravity is just a theory. An old one that doesn't make sense unless the earth were a ball, it should be dropped altogether in my opinion.GyroscopesDropped Dipping distances.Sources for lighthouseshttps://archive.org...It's funny you should mention the whole luminous light thing because no one has invented such a powerful light, until Japan did it, and it didn't take a telescope to see it all the way in Chicago.https://m.reddit.com...http://www.dailymail.co.uk... The reason they make lighthouses taller is that the atmosphere at lower altitudes is thicker than higher up, it in no way entails the rotundity of earth. And you saying that we should be able to see forever goes against the LAW of perception. The more distance between the viewer and the viewed, the more the viewed closes in on the horizon. Just as I explained earlier with the train tracks eventually closing in on each other coming to a point. The vanishing point, it's all very basic. Though yes a telescope will allow things to come into view that should be well over the curve of the earth. As shown in this video.https://youtu.be... When NASA put Felix Baumgartner in the sky, the ONLY lens used was a gopro (except at the very first few seconds of the video, when he is inside the craft, and the horizon has flattened out really nice) which, when researched is famous for their fish eye lenses. If the earth was curved this much, we would see an ocean or more than just land, it's as if we can see 1/4 of the earth and its all land! I'm glad you brought this up because at exactly 4:00( again in several places in the video, regardless of altitude) into this video you see the effects of the go Pro cameras bending the shape of the earth in all sorts of zany ways. https://youtu.be...Other examples of fish eye lens effects are used here, pause the video at 3:41 to see a concave earth! https://youtu.be...This video, even though it uses a fish eye lens, proved the earth is flat, I'll let you try to figure out how...https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...Real videos from amateurs who've launched balloons are readily available, which show no curvature at any altitude, and the horizon never drops below eye level.https://youtu.be...https://youtu.be...Stars. The explanation is exactly what I meant it to be, the stars are not trillions of light years away. I will not be discussing the firmament in this debate, as this is a whole different discussion that would require a lot more room, so let's stick to the rules, you can't prove the stars are Very far away with observation or experimentation, so this cannot be used, I will ask you this, if the earth is spinning, orbiting around the sun, and the sun is orbiting around the center of the universe at some speed that is preposterous to say the least, why don't the constellations change? Not even a little bit, we should see a whole new set of stars if the earth were on a different side of the solar system every six months. Also as we approach each side, the stars should appear to move closer together or farther away depending on where they and we are in the universe. They don't, it's flat and there's a dome.Polaris is shown to not move at all by taking a slow exposure photograph of it shown here.