9121

Flat Earth Community / Re: Infiltrating the Conspiracy

« on: March 13, 2016, 05:53:00 AM »

The funny thing is about those two images is that if you look at the cloud formations carefully when the moon's shadow is near Australia you can see that the two images are actually depicting the same eclipse.

Why is it that the clouds are moving in one animation and not moving in the other, if it is of the same event?

9122

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: March 13, 2016, 05:43:32 AM »

That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

Why in the world would a modern surveyor be concerned with the empty assertions of someone made 160 years ago?

If he wanted to attack the authority on Flat Earth Theory, he would. I doubt anyone here really cares if he attacks some random poorly informed Youtube video author from that other society.

9123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 13, 2016, 04:41:24 AM »

It was a wager for money. The experiment is invalid for that reason alone. End of story.

9124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 13, 2016, 01:53:50 AM »

There is so much controversy over the "Bedford Canal" experiment and the fuss afterward that basing a whole movement on that is surely building on quicksand!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment
Rowbotham repeated his experiments several times over the years but his claims received little attention until, in 1870, a supporter by the name of John Hampden offered a wager that he could show, by repeating Rowbotham's experiment, that the earth was flat. The noted naturalist and qualified surveyor Alfred Russel Wallace accepted the wager. Wallace, by virtue of his surveyor's training and knowledge of physics, avoided the errors of the preceding experiments and won the bet. The crucial step was to set a sight line 13 feet (4 m) above the water, and thereby avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction. Despite Hampden initially refusing to accept the demonstration, Wallace was awarded the bet by the referee, editor of The Field sports magazine. Hampden subsequently published a pamphlet alleging that Wallace had cheated and sued for his money. Several protracted court cases ensued, with the result that Hampden was imprisoned for threatening to kill Wallace and for libel. The same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet and required that Wallace return the money to Hampden./quote]

Yes Hampden "won" the money, but with a reputation in shatters!

Look you have "a snowflakes chance in hell" of any wide acceptance till you have a model with:
an accurate map that can be used for find distances and directions accurately,
a model that can explain observed phenomena, sunrises, sunset etc.

Wallace and Hampden made a wager for a very large amount, equivalent to a year's worth of pay at that time. The results and controversies of that wager are invalid for that reason alone. It makes sense that either man would be untruthful if a year's wager was on the line. Wallace was a struggling author, and we can't put it past him to cheat over something that would ruin him.

9125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 13, 2016, 01:46:08 AM »

Sure to your eyes the earth looks flat, but when I look around with open eyes I see numerous things that simply do fit with that conclusion.
Everything from the sun and moon staying the same size all the time they are visible to the sun rising in the East (here and I gather EVERYWHERE) at the equinoxes - you might check it out on 7 days time - I see it rises almost in the east here now.

So I what do I see with my own etes:

Lets see about that.

• The Earth looks flat and the horizon looks flat - it does, simply because the earth is huge![1]

This is actually a case of you disbelieving your own eyes.

• On a clear day looking out to sea the sky-horizon interface is a sharp line (it is only about 5 km away!). On a flat earth it would have to fade into the distance with no distinct boundary.

I see things get squished into the distance until they are so small that I can't see it anymore, creating a line. Nothing about that is incompatible with a Flat Earth. The same is seen on computer games.

• The sun appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.

No one sees this. We see the sun intersect with the horizon. No one sees it go "behind" it.

• The sun stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - actually it sometimes seems a bit little larger at sunrise and sunset.

If you saw the sun get larger at sunset then that is evidence that the sun is undergoing an enlarging illusion of some sort.

• The sun always appears to be a disk, though sometimes a bit distorted at sunrise and sunset.

The sun is a globe in Flat Earth Theory. I am not sure what you are getting at.

• The sun always rises due east and sets due west on each equinox - here, and I am told it happens all over the earth.

I highly doubt you saw what happened from every point on the earth on equinox.

• Likewise the moon appears to rise from behind the horizon and appears to set behind the horizon.

No one saw this.

• The moon stays the same size as it arcs up and over the sky - it sometimes seems a bit bigger at moonrise and moonset.

Again, admitting to an enlargement illusion.

• The moon always appears to show the same face wherever it is in the sky. (And from wherever we observe it - though we have to travel for this observation).

That's not actually true, the moon does shift a little (although admittedly not as much as it would according to classic perspective on an FE.. but we say that classic perspective theory is wrong, anyway).

In fact, over time, the moon shifts so much that it was possible to make a map of the back side of the moon decades before NASA claimed to have sent space ships to look there.

• The full moon always appears to be a circle, though sometimes a bit distorted at moonrise and moonset.

The moon is a globe in Flat Earth Theory.

9126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 13, 2016, 12:48:32 AM »

  Don't be ridiculous! Of course the earth is concave.   

You just have to look in  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment:

Other experiments
On 25 July 1896, Ulysses Grant Morrow, a newspaper editor, conducted a similar experiment on the Old Illinois Drainage Canal, Summit, Illinois. Unlike Rowbotham, he was seeking to demonstrate that the surface of the earth was curved: when he too found that his target marker, 18 inches (46 cm) above water level and five miles (8.0 km) distant, was clearly visible he concluded that the Earth's surface was concavely curved, in line with the expectations of his sponsors, the Koreshan Unity society. The findings were dismissed by critics as the result of atmospheric refraction.

  Now, who could doubt that?   

I know talking to you (of the 2 <= π <= 4 fame) is useless, but in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction it does point out that"

Whenever possible, astronomers will schedule their observations around the time of culmination of an object when it is highest in the sky. Likewise sailors will never shoot a star which is not at least 20° or more above the horizon. If observations close to the horizon cannot be avoided, it is possible to equip a telescope with control systems to compensate for the shift caused by the refraction. If the dispersion is a problem too, (in case of broadband high-resolution observations) atmospheric refraction correctors can be employed as well (made from pairs of rotating glass prisms). But as the amount of atmospheric refraction is a function of the temperature gradient, the temperature, pressure, and humidity (the amount of water vapour is especially important at mid-infrared wavelengths) the amount of effort needed for a successful compensation can be prohibitive. Surveyors, on the other hand, will often schedule their observations in the afternoon when the magnitude of refraction is minimum.
Atmospheric refraction becomes more severe when there are strong temperature gradients, and refraction is not uniform when the atmosphere is inhomogeneous, as when there is turbulence in the air. This is the cause of twinkling of the stars and various deformations of the shape of the sun at sunset and sunrise.

Well, the results of Rowbotham's experiments don't necessarily rule out concavity, but they do rule out convexity.

By the way, Rowbohtam does address atmospheric refraction in Earth Not a Globe.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za14.htm

Many have urged that refraction would account for much of the elevation of objects seen at the distance of several miles. Indeed, attempts have been made to show that the large flag at the end of six miles of the Bedford Canal (Experiment 1, fig. 2, p. 13) has been brought into the line of sight entirely by refraction. That the line of sight was not a right line, but curved over the convex surface of the water; and the well-known appearance of an object in a basin of water, has been referred to in illustration. A very little reflection, however, will show that the cases are not parallel; for instance, if the object (a shilling or other coin) is placed in a basin without water there is no refraction. Being surrounded with atmospheric air only, and the observer being in the same medium, there is no bending or refraction of the eye line. Nor would there be any refraction if the object and the observer were both surrounded with water. Refraction can only exist when the medium surrounding the observer is different to that in which the object is placed. As long as the shilling in the basin is surrounded with air, and the observer is in the same air, there is no refraction; but whilst the observer remains in the air, and the shilling is placed in water, refraction exists. This illustration does not apply to the experiments made on the Bedford Canal, because the flag and the boats were in the same medium as the observer--both were in the air. To make the cases parallel, the flag or the boat should have been in the water, and the observer in the air; as it was not so, the illustration fails.

There is no doubt, however, that it is possible for the atmosphere to have different temperature and density at two stations six miles apart; and some degree of refraction would thence result; but on several occasions the following steps were taken to ascertain whether any such differences existed. Two barometers, two thermometers, and two hygrometers, were obtained, each two being of the same make, and reading exactly alike. On a given day, at twelve o'clock, all the instruments were carefully examined, and both of each kind were found to stand at the same point or figure: the two, barometers showed the same density; the two thermometers the same temperature; and the two hygrometers the same degree of moisture in the air. One of each kind was then taken to the opposite station, and at three o'clock each instrument was carefully examined, and the readings recorded, and the observation to the flag, &c., then immediately taken. In a short time afterwards the two sets of observers met each other about midway on the northern bank of the canal, when the notes were compared, and found to be precisely alike--the temperature, density, and moisture of the air did not differ at the two stations at the time the experiment with the telescope and flag-staff was made. Hence it was concluded that refraction had not played any part in the observation, and could not be allowed for, nor permitted to influence, in any way whatever, the general result.

9127

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 13, 2016, 12:41:54 AM »

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.  We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth.  We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator.  We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect.  We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round.  We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day.  We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program.  We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides.  We have centuries of proof.  You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.

None of that is really basic or obvious.

The bit about the satellites is probably the most obvious, but I still have yet to hear an explanation from you for why there are two high tides each day.

How are they obviously space ships in orbit around a globe?

9128

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 12, 2016, 10:20:24 PM »

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

Nice try, but the burden of proof is on you.  We can look up and see satellites as they go around the earth.  We can measure the difference in gravity between the poles and the equator.  We can measure and explain the Coriolis Effect.  We have seismographs all over the world, with results that can only be explained if it was round.  We get new pictures of the earth from space every single day.  We can calculate the distance to the moon using reflectors placed there during the Apollo program.  We know the strength of gravity from the moon and the sun, and we can use it to explain the tides.  We have centuries of proof.  You're the one suggesting that we throw that all away because the earth looks flat when you stand on it.

None of that is really basic or obvious.

9129

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 12, 2016, 06:03:26 PM »

He mentioned lake Ontario during the video.

There is no curvature whatsoever across a distance of 55 km over lake Ontario:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80842#msg80842

One photo with insufficient context does not constitute evidence.

What about all the photos that do show skyscrapers with up to 50% of their height obscured?  Or this photo from Niagara-on-the-Lake where you cannot see the Rogers Centre at all:

Rama, like Sandokan said, we need to know the altitude of the observer. If you get close to the sea then the bulges of the ocean build up in the distance and get in the way, providing a small area above eye level, no matter how small, where bodies can shrink behind, much like holding a dime out in front of you and obscuring an elephant in the distance. Samuel Birley Rowbotham spoke about this in Earth Not a Globe. That's why the experiment is done on canals and lakes in the book.

9130

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality

« on: March 12, 2016, 05:59:47 PM »

Here are my comments I made in another thread about the video in the OP:

That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

9131

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Perception

« on: March 12, 2016, 05:57:28 PM »

Hoppy has a point.  I imagine the typical REer isn't convinced something is wrong until the doctor has confirmed it for him with more evidence that something is wrong than the fact that his senses are telling him that he's in horrible pain and showing him that his arm is bent horribly wrong.  After all our senses lie to us all the time and simply can't be trusted. 

On the contrary, we REers have no reason to distrust the establishment, and we understand that our perception rarely conflicts with reality, but hardly ever shows the whole story from our scale.  Why would you FEers believe the doctor?  He's pointing out that your arm is obviously broken, but he could be trying to get your money for his own purposes, and is probably indoctrinated by the government.   

We FEers have no reason to distrust the establishment either.  I'm not sure where you're going with this.  I don't know how many times REers have told me I'm foolish to believe the Earth is flat just because I perceive it to be flat.  If pressed they often go to great lengths to demonstrate to me that my senses are always lying to me and can never be trusted.  They pull out obvious optical illusions, sets of boxes and vases that look like people and cars that appear to be going uphill while in neutral and all kinds of wacky shit.  I find it a wonder that REers are able to believe anything at all, considering that our senses are really our only way of interacting with the world around us, yet they seem to be believe they can't be trusted for anything.

I don't see where "the establishment" has anything to do with it.  In fact, as I've explained previously, medicine is one of the rare arts that puts practical zeteticism into use on a consistent basis and if anything its practitioners' adherence to a discipline so strongly anti-NASA suggests that they are more friend than foe.  I'm really just not sure I agree that NASA is part of "the establishment".  Their influence has weakened a great deal over the years.  Maybe at one time... but honestly, they are more like a novelty at this point than anything else (like a "Weird Al" song, or fake dog poo), and even at that they have gotten stale.

So medicine is the only or one of the very few professions that proceeds by inquiry?

You would have us believe that NASA simply crammed a cylinder full of explosive stuff, threw a couple of guys on top of it and aimed it at the moon hoping for the best?

And you would have us believe that NASA photographed a rock that looks exactly like a rodent on the surface of mars?

9132

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should anyone believe the earth is flat?

« on: March 12, 2016, 05:52:12 PM »

You denigrate RE believers because we stand on what scientists using the scientific method have provided.

Why have FE believers not been able to muster a collection of evidence based upon the zetetic method which is incontrovertible and refutes evidence provided through the scientific method?

It's not our place to have to defend the basic and obvious, its your place to refute it.

9133

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Surveyors" answers to the curvature!

« on: March 12, 2016, 05:49:02 PM »

That person in the video needs to refute Earth Not a Globe, the authority on the subject, not some random youtuber. The author mentions Spherical Excess as a proof of the earth's rotundity, but has not refuted the Earth Not a Globe chapter on the topic.

9134

Flat Earth Community / Re: Infiltrating the Conspiracy

« on: March 12, 2016, 02:54:56 AM »

A bit of a sensationalist headline, I admit. But, I received my notice that in a few short months I will be heading to NASA's Ames Research Center for approximately a week. I don't want to go into too many details regarding what the trip is all about, but I will be sure to post any relevant bits of information pertaining to earth's shape here.

I do hope you bring home pictures of the acres and acres of painters making all those fake images to form the basis of these (almost) real-time weather images we get.
I sure you will find someone to explain how all those quantum computers can then the apparently correct cloud patterns to those thousands of images.
You know stuff like this that anyone can download on request (the eclipse only comes if you are lucky)!

Speaking of images of the earth from the DISCOVR satellite, perhaps junkr should ask about the first full image of the earth published from DISCOVR which showed the word SEX spelled out in the clouds.

9135

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 09, 2016, 04:18:36 PM »

The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science.  Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it.  Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence?  Or that the field itself is a scam?  I am not sure what you are getting at.

I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.

https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/peter.clarke/offprints/Spatar_etal-2015-pp.pdf

https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/

http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Pubs/TechnicalReports.html

http://gpi.savba.sk/GPIweb/ogg/ikohut/WEBCD/Slovak-National-Report-to-IUGG_2011-2014.pdf

http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications.php

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/65

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research-topics/geodesy-and-lithospheric-deformation

http://www.mred.tuc.gr/home/mertikas/geodesy.html

Just a sample of published papers some do involve the magnetic field and a lot do not.

Most by themselves do not prove a round Earth but collectively they put the puzzle together. 

There is plenty of observations spanning over 2,000 years that do not involve the magnetic field.

Then there is this, which is also is part of the geodesy field:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=91680;topic=4717.60;last_msg=91681

This seems like something you could do to me.  The equipment is not too cost prohibitive and it will allow you to make accurate measurements.  If you can prove the methodology flawed or conduct a survey with the methodology clearly and precisely given not measuring a curve then you got something. 

Edit: Just wanted to add since I did not think about satellites you will need to look for research conducted pre-satellite era.  Since in most cases the latest tech will be utilized to collect data. As I pointed out there is plenty to find before the 1950's and NASA.

None of those links are really about showing that the earth is a globe. It's mostly "we have this data and here is how we can piece it together and tell us something interesting about the magnetic field/gravity/whatever on a globe earth".

The problem you are going to have looking at current research is no one is looking to try to find out the shape of the Earth.  The closest you are going to get is just more precise measurements of the Earth. If you are expecting someone to say,"We just proved the Earth is spherical again!", I think you maybe waiting a long time.  My guess some cataclysm would need to take place that destroys all the knowledge gained by humanity about the shape of the Earth.

Current science is building upon the foundation already built and proven by consistently making accurate predictions.

FE proponents are the ones that are going to need to step up and start making accurate and reliable predictions based on a FE model.  Since currently I do not think anyone involved in mainstream science is out to prove the shape of the Earth.

I will repeat myself.  If you start collectively looking at the information in the links I provided it starts to make a picture of the world we live in.  None by themselves will prove the shape of the Earth.

If none of the research is about showing that the earth is curved, or that the earth is a globe, then what good is it to us?

I could take some data of the most abundant minerals on each continent and make a visualization with a Flat Earth map, but that would do nothing to show that the earth is flat.

9136

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 09, 2016, 03:44:57 AM »

The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science.  Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it.  Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence?  Or that the field itself is a scam?  I am not sure what you are getting at.

I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.

https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/peter.clarke/offprints/Spatar_etal-2015-pp.pdf

https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/geodesy/2015/08/14/two-papers-on-ocean-tide-loading/

http://www2.unb.ca/gge/Pubs/TechnicalReports.html

http://gpi.savba.sk/GPIweb/ogg/ikohut/WEBCD/Slovak-National-Report-to-IUGG_2011-2014.pdf

http://geodesy.unr.edu/publications.php

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/65

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research-topics/geodesy-and-lithospheric-deformation

http://www.mred.tuc.gr/home/mertikas/geodesy.html

Just a sample of published papers some do involve the magnetic field and a lot do not.

Most by themselves do not prove a round Earth but collectively they put the puzzle together. 

There is plenty of observations spanning over 2,000 years that do not involve the magnetic field.

Then there is this, which is also is part of the geodesy field:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;quote=91680;topic=4717.60;last_msg=91681

This seems like something you could do to me.  The equipment is not too cost prohibitive and it will allow you to make accurate measurements.  If you can prove the methodology flawed or conduct a survey with the methodology clearly and precisely given not measuring a curve then you got something. 

Edit: Just wanted to add since I did not think about satellites you will need to look for research conducted pre-satellite era.  Since in most cases the latest tech will be utilized to collect data. As I pointed out there is plenty to find before the 1950's and NASA.

None of those links are really about showing that the earth is a globe. It's mostly "we have this data and here is how we can piece it together and tell us something interesting about the magnetic field/gravity/whatever on a globe earth".

9137

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 08, 2016, 07:20:28 AM »

The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science.  Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it.  Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence?  Or that the field itself is a scam?  I am not sure what you are getting at.

I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can assume x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.

That is all they say? It seems exceedingly unlikely that you were thorough.  Geodesy studies the Earth's magnetic and gravitational fields as well as the physical shape of the Earth.  Perhaps you did not look in the right place?

With very little effort I found an introduction to an oxford journal mentioning GPS satellites are used to measure the dimensions of the earth.

Well, it mentions satellites, so it's out the window from the get-go.

But for future reference, for any such cryptic academic analysis, you would also have to explain why the data couldn't be used on a Flat Earth and can only suggest a round one.

9138

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 08, 2016, 07:01:00 AM »

The answer is that there are entire journals devoted to the science.  Have you looked at any of them? Their evidence is presented in the exact place you would expect to find it.  Are you trying to imply that geodesy has no evidence?  Or that the field itself is a scam?  I am not sure what you are getting at.

I've looked at them. They say stuff like "if we take these magnetic field readings from the US, Europa and Asia, we can conclude x about the globe's magnetic field". None of it is actually about demonstrating that the earth is a globe.

9139

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 08, 2016, 06:59:05 AM »

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.

You always say "When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped".
Would you please give some credible evidence that this really happens! I have NEVER seen any.
I have seen small boats not yet to the horizon, that seem to have disappeared simply because of size that have been restored by a telephoto lens, but NEVER seen any evidence of a ship clearly over the horizon "brought back".

Maybe something of this type with the ship clearly over the horizon being "brought back" from say where it is 30 sec in.

Please don't try with little boats that are clearly no even to the horizon!

How close is the camera to the surface of the sea?

9140

Flat Earth Community / Re: Reversal of Burden of Proof

« on: March 08, 2016, 06:52:42 AM »

The evidence that the earth is a globe is certainly unsatisfactory. When sinking ships are brought up here we bring up reports of ships being restored by looking at them through telescopes and the matter is dropped, when NASA is brought up we bring up all of the questionable and fraudulent stuff they do. There really isn't much real evidence in favor of a globe earth.

What about the branch of earth science known as geodesy?

All I can say on that  is every time you bring it up we ask what evidence geodesy has and the answer is silence.