Dang, I'm impressed you found a 6 month old thread. Must have spent a long time searching for this, huh?

And you got an upvote already? Gee, that's not suspicious at all. /s

Those videos contain 1) mind-numbing scientific illiteracy, 2) utterly irrational arguments, 3) complete lack of understanding of how NASA creates and publishes space images and other material, and 4) scam artists.

EDIT: Just now figured out that catsfive reposted this thread to the top of GAW. My bad.

Every single pro flat earth argument in that link is based entirely on lies and ignorance.

GPS uses ground based towers? Then how come it works in the middle of the ocean with no line of sight to any tower?

No one has observed satellites? Even amateur astronomers have taken pictures of the ISS crossing the night sky. Some even capture it passing in front of the Moon, showing that it looks exactly how it is pictured in textbooks.

Zero G footage is faked? Please: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M01m3UUgoM

He claims that images of planets look different from ground-based amateur telescopes and recommends a very specific brand of camera. If you have to have a specific brand of camera to prove your theory, then it's not a good theory. Also, the view of planets from sufficiently powerful telescopes looks exactly as they are depicted in images from NASA, save that the latter are sharper and clearer.

He alleges that Foucault pendulums only work because the operator deliberately induces sideways motion, and that they don't rotate in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere. Both of these allegations are patently false. These pendulums consistently precess at the precise rate required for each latitude that they are tested on and in the correct direction in each hemisphere.

EvErYtHiNg FrOm NaSa Is CgI!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rraWKQ4bPhI&t=1s

He asserts that all pilots are taught that the earth is flat, which is a patently false statement that anyone with Google can figure out.

Ditto for his assertion that artillery gunners are taught flat earth. Even back in the Napoleonic Wars artillery cannons had to take both the earth's curvature and the Coriolis effect into account.

[On the ionosphere's effects on radio transmissions] What, the ionosphere doesn't curve during the day?

No, it has different strength and shape due to the fact that the solar wind pushes on it during the day and not at night, because the night side of the earth is facing away from the sun and is shielded by the other half.

The Bible does not describe the firmament as a vaulted dome. Even if it did, the fact that the firmament is objectively not that means that the biblical description is metaphorical or poetic.

Copernicus, Newton, and Rockefeller were all Freemasons in cahoots with each other? That's awfully convenient, everyone the flerfers don't like are satanic Freemasons! And no, Rockefeller did not impose the globe earth model on public education, the globe earth model was organically adopted as the standard because it corresponds to reality. The globe earth model and orbital mechanics existed well before Rockefeller and exist independently of him.

If the sun travels above the earth in a plane parallel to the earth, then it would never ever be observed to set at all. Furthermore, for the portion of the year that the sun is above the equator, it would be closer to the North Pole than the "ice wall", yet its rays light up both. The situation would be equal and reversed for the other half of the year. How do the sun's light rays magically know to travel further in one direction than another?

There is no proof at all that the tides have anything to do with the moon.

Yea, except the fact that the tides wax and wane in sync with the moon's movement relative the surface of the earth. This is yet another exhibit in flerfers discounting evidence that clashes with their theory as nonexistant.

How does the light side of the moon following the sun have anything to do with what shape the earth is?

Because this only works in the orbital mechanics model, not the flat earth one.

The sun and moon are the same size and distance from the earth and the moon sometimes covers the sun.

If they were the same distance from the earth the moon would collide with the sun. The moon must be closer to the earth than the sun for solar eclipses to work, but in the flat earth model this means that we would never see the portion of the moon illuminated by the sun. Furthermore, the moon must also sometime be on the opposite side of the earth relative to the sun while still being visible from earth for lunar eclipses to work. Flerfers are such clowns they contradict themselves and can't keep their model straight!

Civilizations all around the world were able to predict perfectly the eclipses using a flat earth model.

No they weren't, see the contradictions pointed out above. Ancient civilizations knew the earth was round.

Gravity is an unproven theory. No one has ever proven that mass attracts mass.

Then throw yourself off the edge of the Grand Canyon. It's easy to say there's no evidence when you automatically dismiss any evidence presented to you.

Round is not spherical

Everyone seems to know what "round" means in the context of flat earth discussions except flat earthers themselves. They argue semantics because they don't have any real arguments.

There are lunar eclipses when the sun is still up

Those are partial lunar eclipses. And if the earth's shadow isn't causing lunar eclipses, then what else is?

Has this person been to space to see what it (solar eclipses) look like?

Probably not, but NASA has been kind enough to provide plenty of pictures for us. Even a video feed from the ISS showing an eclipse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwNc5aK3dBk

A disk makes a round shadow.

Only when light is cast on it perpendicular to the disk's plane. Any deviation creates an ellipse. Only a sphere can case a round shadow in any arbitrary direction.

Observe this quote from Rudolf Steiner [discrediting the accuracy of orbital mechanics]

A brief google search shows that this guy was a Mason. I thought Masons pushed globe earth and weren't trustworthy?

The stars are not trillions of miles away.

Parallax measurements and red shift beg to differ.

If you are in a large room, when you look up you will see different parts of the ceiling.

But you can still view the whole ceiling at once, and you can still see the center from the edges. This does not explain why one set of constellations is visible from the North, and a completely different set from the South.

Anyone who knows that how a compass works knows that the south pole has nothing to do with it.

Anyone who knows how magnetism works knows that no monopole has ever been observed. Every magnet has both a north and a south pole; that's how magnetic field lines work. Any college or even high-school level physics textbook will depict this.

If the compass points toward the north pole, shouldn't it point through the earth when you are in the southern hemisphere?

1. it's being physically blocked by the casing of the compass, and 2) magnetic field lines do not point straight toward the poles at all times. Again, this person clearly has not cracked a physics textbook in years.

On to answer his own questions:

How can we see Mercury/Venus at night since they are closer to the sun than us?

Because you can't see them at midnight, only in the evening or morning, when the sun is close to but hasn't broken the horizon.

How is it that there are thousands of of photos of stuff from 100 miles plus away?

Show me one, and tell me the exact location and elevation of the camera.

Why does the Moon only illuminate clouds nearby and not the whole hemisphere?

Take a large sheet of paper and hold it up between you and a lightbulb. Note how the portion of paper directly between you and the lightbulb is more brightly lit than the edges. This is called diffusion.

Why do sunbeams not appear parallel?

For the same reason train tracks don't appear parallel.

Boom, I answered all his questions without once referencing refraction, just as he requested.

Anything else?