[OBAMA IS A LIZARD]

From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.

So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?

[supaluminus]

From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.

So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?

I personally adopted the term "globe-tard." Seeing as you can still be a "globalist" - think Alex Jones, not Samuel Birley Rowbotham - on a flat earth, irrespective of the actual shape of the earth, it seems like a misnomer to call us "globalists."

I mean, for example. I could be living on a flat earth, but also subscribe to the notion that we should move towards a unified, global society. I'm a flat-tard, but I'm also a "globalist" in that scenario.

Conversely, I could be living on a round earth, but also reject the notion that we should move towards a unified, global society. I reject "globalism," but I'm... a "globalist?"

See what I mean? Anyway. Language is fun.

[Zanz]

I think a Flat Earther would need to see the curve with their own eyes. Its very likely they will say that their helmet/window is lensing the light to make it look round. If so, its impossible to convince a Flat Earther the Earth is Round.

[Kyrie_Irving]

From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.
So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?

The fact that nobody has fallen off

[juner]

From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.
So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?

The fact that nobody has fallen off

Have a few days off to review the rules.

[Triangle Earth]

This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.

[AATW]

This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.

They've got this one covered actually.

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

Almost commendable. It's another "Heads we win, tails you lose" argument from the Flat Earthers

FE: "Look out your window. It looks flat. That's evidence of a flat earth"
RE: "That is just the scale of the earth, you can't perceive the curve at ground level but if you get high enough you can. Look at this photo/video"
FE: "That's from a space agency. FAKE!"
RE: "OK. This one is not fake, this is from some hobbyist who sent up a weather balloon and you can see from the images on the ground there is no lens distortion"
FE: "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light."
RE: "What? You literally just said that the first image was fake! Now you're saying you DO expect to see a curve?"

It's quite hard to argue with people who think like that. Some people sign up here and are genuinely interested in the arguments. Those people probably can be persuaded with logic and reason that FE theory is bunk. To answer your original question though, others are so entrenched that I don't think it matters what you throw at them, they will always find a way to deflect or deny or ignore the things which prove them wrong. If you understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance then you'll see it at work a lot on here.

[Pete Svarrior]

us "Globalists"

I personally adopted the term "globe-tard." Seeing as you can still be a "globalist"

You're looking for globularists. It still carries a negative connotation among some FE'ers, but it's largely regarded as a neutral term.

[SylvanCyborg]

If I could get a on flight high over Antarctica and clearly see the terrain, and know that for sure we are going in a straight line.

If you could take me from point a to point b, directly in a straight line over the south pole that would convince me.

On a globe that's easily done. On a flat earth, those 2 points should be the farthest apart two points on earth.

[douglips]

You can buy a flight on Qantas 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg, it doesn't go over the pole itself, but you can see Antarctica and the travel time contradicts the unipolar flat Earth model.
Here is someone's edited video of such a trip.

[AATW]

If you've got the money you can go to the South Pole itself.

https://www.discover-the-world.co.uk/destinations/antarctica-holidays/south-pole-adventure

[ryjay707]

You can buy a flight on Qantas 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg, it doesn't go over the pole itself, but you can see Antarctica and the travel time contradicts the unipolar flat Earth model.
Here is someone's edited video of such a trip.

But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.

[SylvanCyborg]

But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.

I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.

[Curious Squirrel]

But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.

I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.

The airlines don't fly such a route. Two main reasons, the most important simply being the fact that route isn't a direct route for very much traffic. The second is safety reasons, as if the plane was to go down over Antarctica, it would be quite problematic for both rescue parties and passengers.

I will however go look and see, I thought there were some flights logged and more over the pole, but it's been a while. We have a somewhat surprising amount of foot traffic. But air traffic is minimal.

[douglips]

Aircraft can fly over the pole if they equip with survival gear, I believe.

A chartered flight from Tahiti to Johannesburg would be very close to directly over the pole, and is a simple matter of money away from happening.

[technogeek156]

This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.

They've got this one covered actually.

https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs

Almost commendable. It's another "Heads we win, tails you lose" argument from the Flat Earthers

FE: "Look out your window. It looks flat. That's evidence of a flat earth"
RE: "That is just the scale of the earth, you can't perceive the curve at ground level but if you get high enough you can. Look at this photo/video"
FE: "That's from a space agency. FAKE!"
RE: "OK. This one is not fake, this is from some hobbyist who sent up a weather balloon and you can see from the images on the ground there is no lens distortion"
FE: "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light."
RE: "What? You literally just said that the first image was fake! Now you're saying you DO expect to see a curve?"

It's quite hard to argue with people who think like that. Some people sign up here and are genuinely interested in the arguments. Those people probably can be persuaded with logic and reason that FE theory is bunk. To answer your original question though, others are so entrenched that I don't think it matters what you throw at them, they will always find a way to deflect or deny or ignore the things which prove them wrong. If you understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance then you'll see it at work a lot on here.

I would just like to present the fact that flat-earthers ignored this post.

[Northman77]

But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.

I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.

The airlines don't fly such a route. Two main reasons, the most important simply being the fact that route isn't a direct route for very much traffic. The second is safety reasons, as if the plane was to go down over Antarctica, it would be quite problematic for both rescue parties and passengers.

I will however go look and see, I thought there were some flights logged and more over the pole, but it's been a while. We have a somewhat surprising amount of foot traffic. But air traffic is minimal.

http://www.royalaviationmuseum.com/2596/first-flight-over-antarctica/

[Northman77]

But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.

I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.

The airlines don't fly such a route. Two main reasons, the most important simply being the fact that route isn't a direct route for very much traffic. The second is safety reasons, as if the plane was to go down over Antarctica, it would be quite problematic for both rescue parties and passengers.

I will however go look and see, I thought there were some flights logged and more over the pole, but it's been a while. We have a somewhat surprising amount of foot traffic. But air traffic is minimal.

Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route?wprov=sfti1

[retlaw]

This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.

[Curious Squirrel]

This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.

Not only does your video not have any relevant information, nor explanation, posting a video without even a cursory explanation isn't all that useful. All I see is the spin stopping. Why? Who knows, I don't know the design of the rocket. Maybe the spinning stopped because it finally fired some manner of stabilization once it was out of atmo. It certainly didn't explode or anything similar to what you might expect when hitting an object described as 'the dome'.