[6or1/2Dozen]

That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."

And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.

But to claim that something that looks flat is not flat is not the same as claiming that a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast.

That's just plain incorrect.

First, let's clear up the straw man fallacies:
My argument is not "a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast."
My argument is: "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X." This argument does not preclude something from looking like x from actually being x. I never claimed that you couldn't build a replica car and it not be fast.

Second, let's clear up the Inductive fallacy, in this case an over-generalization:
For the assertion of "If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X." with a "for all intents and purposes" to be true then all things that look like, let's say, a square or rectangle would have to be squares or rectangles. Trying to infer the overall shape of a large object from looking at only a small part would certainly increase the difficulty though, wouldn't it? But we don't even need to invoke this sort of argument.

Look at your floor.

What shape does look like? A square or a rectangle?

I'm pretty sure it's not a square or rectangle (measurements would need to be taken to be positive), but when I was a professional tile setter, I never had the pleasure of laying tile in a room that was actually a square or rectangle. They all do sure look square (or rectangular), though, until you start measuring. For the purpose of professionally laying tile, just looking square - just isn't good enough.

Just for fun, I'll demonstrate "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X" works for Color as X:



The interior areas sure do look orange, but they are not orange.

Finally, as to the markings on the door and hood of the car. It looks '36' doesn't means it is '36'. It could actually be a stylized cursive 'ЗБ', someone's initials perhaps. Maybe even cleverly designed to look like the number 36? Probably highly unlikely. Some additional investigation would be required to determine which but still nothing precludes it from simply being '36'. I'm just not comfortable with positively declaring it to be '36' based solely on it's looks.

[Pickel B Gravel]

Very simply put, no one has to address the conspiracy claims in order to demonstrate why the flat earth model is not consistent with reality. Happy to discuss the conspiracy claims in another thread and show you why THEY fall flat for totally different reasons, but right now I want to hash this out and demonstrate the hypothesis in the title:

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

Once we take the time to actually demonstrate why this is, the only response proponents can retreat to is hand-waving about conspiracy.

Mind you, I'm not knocking the conspiratorial elements utterly - certainly there's all kinds of things the elites and the authorities keep hidden from us for one reason or another, however sinister or mundane. All I'm saying is that THIS isn't one of those conspiracies.

As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model. It is only rational to then assume that whichever model we call "true" must therefore not only be logically consistent, but also exhibit few internal contradictions.

As a gesture of good will, I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.

I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation. Happy to debate those claims with you another time, but for the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.

Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.

When have flat earth theorists used conspiracy theories to defend or prove a flat earth? We haven't. We have concluded that there is a conspiracy taking place that fakes space exploration (for whatever reason such as embezzlement). We base that conclusion on the inconsistencies present in NASA photos, etc. This includes such anomalies as lemmings and a flying bird on mars, and obvious Photoshopping of space images.

But this is separate from flat earth in general. Yes, we use it to dismiss the satellite images of earth, but we're not suggesting that anyone is intentionally hiding a flat earth. NASA and other space agencies are simply faking images based on what the public already accepts. Again, we have valid reasons independent of flat earth to believe space exploration is a hoax.

I recommend you refrain from using strawman fallacies here (if that is what you are doing). You're portraying us as crazies, which we most certainly are not. If you're going to make claims that all we have are conspiracy theories, may you please cite a few? Then I suggest you read the tfes wiki

[Macarios]

Neither reply here addresses the issue of curvature.

In other words, there is no measurable curvature found in the State of Kansas, nor Florida, nor Illinois.

Hiding behind denial, eh?

I mentioned before: sextants can be as low as $22 on eBay (or as high as $600 or more, but it is irrelevant).

Measure segment 1852 meters long, mark two verticals at the end of the segment and measure angle between them.
You can use sextant, or theodolite.
You will find angle of ONE ARCMINUTE between them.
The verticals intersect in the center of the Earth.

That way you can measure curve anywhere, including Florida, Kanasa, Illinois, or any other state or country.

1852 meters is defined as one nautical mile because of that one arcminute.
One degree of Earth's curvature is exactly 60 nautical miles.
Easier to convert degrees of position into distances, that's why navigators were using it at sea.

If you are too lazy to learn how to use sextant or theodolite, don't brag about being "zetetic" (investigative).

Anyway, you will see that curvature creates little bulge that limits view.
Climbing higher you can see over the bulge.
If you haven't been to Kansas, go and see.

Same thing you can see by looking at island about 10 miles from shore.
Your view from the beach will be 3 miles and you will just see the top of that hill on the island.
To see more of the hill, you don't need any zoom.
Just climb to 14th floor of nearby hotel (or hill, 130 feet up).
Your view will expand to 14 miles and you will see the whole island all the way down to the water.

You will look over the water bulge from up there.
.

[supaluminus]

When have flat earth theorists used conspiracy theories to defend or prove a flat earth? We haven't. We have concluded that there is a conspiracy taking place that fakes space exploration (for whatever reason such as embezzlement). We base that conclusion on the inconsistencies present in NASA photos, etc. This includes such anomalies as lemmings and a flying bird on mars, and obvious Photoshopping of space images.

But this is separate from flat earth in general. Yes, we use it to dismiss the satellite images of earth, but we're not suggesting that anyone is intentionally hiding a flat earth. NASA and other space agencies are simply faking images based on what the public already accepts. Again, we have valid reasons independent of flat earth to believe space exploration is a hoax.

I recommend you refrain from using strawman fallacies here (if that is what you are doing). You're portraying us as crazies, which we most certainly are not. If you're going to make claims that all we have are conspiracy theories, may you please cite a few? Then I suggest you read the tfes wiki

Well, I think you're half right.

Maybe you haven't done this, and maybe it isn't par for the course here (I'm new), but it has been my experience that flat earthers will inevitably retreat into conspiratorial hand-waving once any scientific "evidence" has been demonstrably shown to be mistaken.

That being said, I'm aware that isn't the same thing as the question you asked, "When have flat earth theorists used conspiracy theories to defend or prove a flat earth?" I understand that proving a flat earth and proving a NASA conspiracy are distinct concepts, and clearly you do as well. Other flat earthers, however, seem to have a hard time separating the two - again, in my personal experience.

Take that anecdotal evidence and dismiss it for what it is, if you like, but I'm not foisting an argument on anyone. Rather, I'm making two basic claims:

1 ) The scientific observations made by flat earthers, once thoroughly and rigorously scrutinized, DOES NOT comport with reality.
2 ) Once this can be demonstrated as true, the only place flat earthers have left to go is either A ) by casting doubt and aspersions on the globe model vis-a-vis conspiracy, or B ) argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Maybe I should have stated that more clearly. If you're saying that the wording in the OP sounds like a straw-man fallacy, I will concede to you and admit fault, apologize, and ask that you forgive the mistake and move on instead to the hypothesis, or at least the claims I outlined here.

I'm not trying to characterize anyone as "crazies" because I don't think there's anything inherently "crazy" about conspiracy theory.

I'm also not making the claim that "all you have" is conspiracy theory. What I meant, rather, was that conspiracy theory is the only avenue one can conceivably take after scientific observation fails to pan out. The only reason I don't highlight argument from ignorance specifically and more prominently is because it seems a bit redundant when juxtaposed by empty claims about conspiracy theory.

You still "have" scientific observation, or the capacity to measure and record such; I'm neither foisting anything upon you nor trying to take your scientific observations away. I'm only claiming that such observations will inevitably fall flat and leave you no option other than to try and cast vague aspersions and doubt on the globe model, based on conspiracy claims, or retreat into argumentum ad ignorantiam more generally - "we don't know enough, therefore we can't say we know anything."

I hope that you see my rebuttal as fair.

[supaluminus]

That was never the question. The argument was, "it looks like X" is not the same as "it is X."

And that's why the argument was so flawed. A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X. You can make arguments about how you'd need to get farther away from the Earth, get a wider sub-section of the image. You could argue that trying to infer the bigger picture from a smaller part is inconclusive. There are many points you can make here.

But to claim that something that looks flat is not flat is not the same as claiming that a car that's been designed to imitate another car doesn't go fast.

6or1/2Dozen already answered this one for me, but I'm going to reiterate what he said in my own words, and I'm going to try to use examples.

There is no such "shape" exception to the statement "'it looks like X' does not mean 'it is X'."

You said:

A shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X.

Your phrasing is very weasely. Can one always know what shape an object is at a glance, or can't they? Is it possible that your eyes can fool you, or can't they? This question should be rhetorical, but in your case, I think we have to make an exception.

We are simply saying that your eyes can fool you. Either you see the sound reasoning in that, or you don't. Either you CAN identify any shape, correctly, at a glance, with no minimum requirements in terms of visual cues or otherwise, or it requires EXACTLY those things first, as both 6 and I have said.

I'mm gonna try and walk you through a few examples that refute your claim that "a shape is, for all intents and purposes, identifiable through appearance. If something looks like shape X, it is indeed of shape X." Ignoring your weasel words - identifiable "for all intents and purposes," it is indeed "of" shape X, etc. - the following examples will demonstrate the principle we're talking about.

Example 1

Assume that we have a three dimensional cube. Orient yourself so that your point of view is centered with one side of the cube and so that you can only see the one side. If we assume that the cube itself cannot move, you cannot distinguish this three-dimensional cube from a two-dimensional square unless...

• You shift your angular perspective in order to see another side/all other sides of the cube.
• You perceive the shadow of the cube cast on another surface. Depending on the angle of the light source, the shadow of the cube will appear distinct from that of a two-dimensional square.

There are conceivably other cues, like depth perception, that could potentially help you distinguish this cube from a square. Those first two cues, however, cover a great deal of ground, as you'll see in the next example as well.

Example 2

Assume that we have a three dimensional sphere. Orient yourself so that your point of view is centered with the sphere. If we assume that the sphere itself cannot move, you cannot distinguish this three-dimensional sphere from a two-dimensional circle unless...

• You shift your angular perspective in order to perceive any depth to the sphere. A circle viewed head on will appear to warp into an ellipse when your angular perspective shifts in this way. A sphere, by contrast, will appear the same regardless of your angular perspective.
• You perceive the shadow of the sphere cast on another surface. Depending on the angle of the light source, the shadow of the sphere will appear distinct from that of a two-dimensional circle.
• You perceive the way a light source moves across the surface of the sphere. The same light source shone on a flat circle will not behave in the same way.[/b]
  

That's just two, dude. I know I expressed them in literal terms, but I think you're smart enough to comprehend WHY, when we look at the statement, "'it looks like X' does not mean 'it is X,'" there is no such exception with respect to shapes. You can ALWAYS be mistaken if there's yet more information, more cues, whatever, to add context to the scenery you perceive with your own two eyeballs.

Please don't make me break out the crayons.

[supaluminus]

As for the grenade analogy, that goes back to invoking conspiracy.

You’re saying the grenade represents your claim that there’s a conspiracy, and the “lighter” and me are therefore dangerous and not to be trusted. This is what you mean, no? Correct me if I’m missing something; I want to communicate effectively and be sure I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not here to fuck with you.

The analogy relates to the observation of the earth.

We look out the window and see that the earth is flat. Therefore the conclusion is that the earth is flat until evidence has been presented otherwise. If you are saying that the earth is actually something else, then the burden is on you to show that.

Evidence has been presented otherwise. You're ignoring and dismissing it.

In the case of your assertion that the flat horizon contradicts the globe earth model, the horizon only appears that way UNTIL you understand the limits of your own perspective as a 6-foot tall bipedal fucked up monkey living on a giant ball.

Again, the observation says that the earth is flat. Your assertion that it might really be a giant ball, it's just that we can't see it, is a rationalization against an empirical observation. The evidence is still that the earth is flat.

I'm just going to assume that we can begin this conversation with your first scientific observation in defense of the flat earth model being "look outside, look at that horizon, it's flat out there," and we can hopefully progress from there. I hope that's okay with you, because so far you seem to be set on keeping us stuck here at the starting line for as long as possible.

First off, and for the last time, I'm not rationalizing anything. You clearly don't know what that word means, nor empiricism, or at the very least you don't care to know them or use them responsibly.

What I'm doing is to remind you of the simple, true, and correct logical principle that "it looks like X to me" does not mean "it is X in reality." That is a horrendously fallacious mistake for anyone to make, and you need to comprehend that if we're going to have a productive dialogue.

Moving on, and more importantly, what I said neither contradicts the flat earth nor proves the globe earth model, it only demonstrates that both observations about the horizon appearing flat are consistent with both models. The point of this exercise was to demonstrate to you that there's an alternative explanation for why the horizon appears flat to you.

The real problems only start cropping up once we start digging deeper than that initial claim about the horizon. When you start asking questions like, "Why can't I see New York from France," or "Why do the bottoms of objects disappear first when traversing beyond the horizon," or "Why does the sun appear to 'sink' into the ocean," that's when the first claim really shows its true colors. Instead of talking about those, we're stuck here over some bullshit.

All my skepticism does is raise a reasonable doubt, Tom. It's really not that complicated. I demonstrated for you the principle - perspective - behind why my doubt is reasonable. It's then up to you to demonstrate your claim to be true "beyond a reasonable doubt." One way you could do that is to explain how you know that your perception of a flat earth is distinguishable from what one would perceive on a globe.

If you can't explain that, then your claim about the horizon neither proves nor disproves either model and is therefore totally useless to determining which model is correct.

If you could say, "No, that's not what you would see on a globe, you would see this," then we could make some progress, but we're not.

You can linger all you like on the horizon claim, but I'm not contesting your claim that it looks flat, I'm contesting your claim that it is flat because it looks flat. Your claim isn't demonstrating how one can know that it is flat because you aren't answering a very simple, and easily understandable question of how you know that what you're seeing can't possibly be anything else. I demonstrated for you how it could be so. Rather than address that demonstration, you sidestepped it completely and instead attempted to shift the burden of proof to me for a claim I never positively made.

It doesn't stand up to scrutiny, it's not consistent with every other observation and measurement we can make, it's not empirical, and I've shown you why and how.

Stop being incompetent or stop pretending to be. I don't care which, just stop wasting everyone's time.

I ask once more, would you care to discuss the flat earth model and how it is or isn't consistent with reality? We can start with your first mention of looking outside, or the objection to the issue of limited perspective on a giant ball. It's really up to you. Submit your best, most compelling evidence, as much as you like, and we'll go through each exhibit one by one.

Well, I submitted something -- that we see that the earth is flat -- and so far your only remark is that it *might* be a giant ball or something. It *might* also be a giant torus. We don't give a hoot about "might". We care only about "is". The fact of the matter is that it is evidence that the earth is flat, and not evidence for any of those other things.

I didn't make a claim about what it might be, is, or anything resembling a positive claim, I only objected to your implied assertion that because it looks flat from our perspective, it can only be flat. I demonstrated, quite saliently, that there is more than one possible hypothesis. I took it a step further and provided you other measurements and observations we can take that support that hypothesis.

What you are doing is off-loading the burden of proof to me before you've even allowed us to fitfully scrutinize your first proof claim about what you can observe at the horizon. Why I did is to make an observation and demonstrate why that observation is empirically consistent. Then you, refusing to even recognize the legitimacy of my rebuttal, attempted to turn this into a confusing game of semantics over who bears the burden of proof at any given moment.

You're bloody well confused, man, and you need to realize that and stop wasting everyone's time. The rest of us would thank you for being honest enough to recognize that for the sake of having a productive conversation. At least, I know I would.

[Pete Svarrior]

Your phrasing is very weasely. Can one always know what shape an object is at a glance, or can't they?

No, it's not. I followed immediately with examples of arguments an honest person could make. Perhaps if you stop trying to warp my words, you'll have an easier time convincing people that you're correct. Between this incident and your previous attempt at framing me as "intellectually dishonest" for making an obvious joke, I'm starting to think that you're not worth my time.

Is it possible that your eyes can fool you, or can't they?

Outside of the cases I've already outlined, it would take a very interesting model of optics. I'd be curious to hear more.

We are simply saying that your eyes can fool you.

Well, then you're going to have to substantiate your claims. And I sincerely hope you're not gonna start posting cheap "optical illusions".

Assume that we have a three dimensional cube. [snip]

Okay, so you're agreeing with one of my examples, except you felt the need to say the same thing in entirely too many words. That's... great.

Assume that we have a three dimensional sphere. [...]

Okay... so now you've restated one of my arguments twice. Where, exactly, are you heading with this?

Do you genuinely not see why statements like "this car looks fast" and "this celestial body looks spherical" are not directly analogous? Do genuinely, honest-to-Bambi, fail to see that there is no causal relationship between engine power and outer chassis appearance? Or do you perhaps deny the relationship between an object's shape and its appearance?

[totallackey]

Proving Kansas is on a curved world is easy.  I am getting sad that one has to repeat the same proofs on each thread.  If the world was flat, the canola farmers in Kansas could easily have their farms on square mile sections of land and it would have been an easy task to split up the state.

Funny, but for the most part they do...

Unlike the older parts of the US or particularly England or France, land was not subject to years of inheritence and strategies to give every landowner access to some trees and a creek and whatnot. 
So when you have advanced survey equipment and new land to divide up, just do it in squares.  However, trying to keep roads and property boundaries north and south creates problems because the earth amount of available land gets smaller as you go north.  Here is a picture east of Clifton Kansas showing how every so often they shift the roads going north and south when the roads and property lines deviate too much from north / south.  There are fewer farms in each row in western north america as you go north.  Same thing happens in Australia when you go south.   

I fixed your post to reflect the real reason why things shorten up...it has nothing to do the size of the Earth or shape of the Earth...

You provided no picture...

[Ratboy]

Proving Kansas is on a curved world is easy.  I am getting sad that one has to repeat the same proofs on each thread.  If the world was flat, the canola farmers in Kansas could easily have their farms on square mile sections of land and it would have been an easy task to split up the state.

Funny, but for the most part they do...

Unlike the older parts of the US or particularly England or France, land was not subject to years of inheritence and strategies to give every landowner access to some trees and a creek and whatnot. 
So when you have advanced survey equipment and new land to divide up, just do it in squares.  However, trying to keep roads and property boundaries north and south creates problems because the earth amount of available land gets smaller as you go north.  Here is a picture east of Clifton Kansas showing how every so often they shift the roads going north and south when the roads and property lines deviate too much from north / south.  There are fewer farms in each row in western north america as you go north.  Same thing happens in Australia when you go south.   

I fixed your post to reflect the real reason why things shorten up...it has nothing to do the size of the Earth or shape of the Earth...

You provided no picture...

When I woke up the next day, I realized that it is not as easy as just looking at farms.  All I did was prove a one pole earth is the wrong model.  For lines of longitude to get closer together going north when north of the equator and closer together going south when south of the equator only proves a two pole world.  I can see the picture when I look at my post.  I will try to post again. I see a map showing the highway 9 east of Clinton Kansas.  You can look at it online using Google Maps. So to prove the earth round, you would actually have to see how much they correct the highways going north and south and whether it fits a round model or flat model.  But since the earth has two poles, and they correct farms the opposite way south of the equator we would need a diamond shaped flat earth.  So who gets to live at the edges of the diamonds and particularly at the edges near the north and south tips?

[totallackey]

When I woke up the next day, I realized that it is not as easy as just looking at farms.  All I did was prove a one pole earth is the wrong model.  For lines of longitude to get closer together going north when north of the equator and closer together going south when south of the equator only proves a two pole world.  I can see the picture when I look at my post.  I will try to post again. I see a map showing the highway 9 east of Clinton Kansas.  You can look at it online using Google Maps. So to prove the earth round, you would actually have to see how much they correct the highways going north and south and whether it fits a round model or flat model.  But since the earth has two poles, and they correct farms the opposite way south of the equator we would need a diamond shaped flat earth.  So who gets to live at the edges of the diamonds and particularly at the edges near the north and south tips?

Can you provide any reference for this so called "farm fixing?"

No one gets to live anywhere near the edge of the flat Earth except scientists camped out on the ice wall. Even then, those scientists take shifts and return to the comforts of full society. I have no clue how far from the real edge the ice wall is but I do not imagine anyone survived too long a trek from its edge along the ocean.

[JohnAdams1145]

Well, it appears that this thread derailed into "this is why your analogy is wrong" instead of addressing the proof with the distances to the North pole (which, to be honest, is absolutely brilliant. I never realized that FE people have pinned themselves to a set of distances just by asserting that latitude/longitude work!). The geometry simply doesn't work. I haven't seen any response to that argument; clearly, Tom Bishop's idea of just saying "the distances are wrong" doesn't work anymore.

And Pete Svarrior, your argument is completely misleading. This isn't about your eyes fooling you; this is about your eyes not having the capability to measure the very slight curvature of the horizon, making it look flat. This is about a very large sphere being describable by a tangent plane at least locally, and the approximation gets better as the sphere gets larger. I suggest you read up on linear approximations. Of course, your eyes do see something quite obvious -- there is a horizon, and the countless GIFs with the partially-obscured buildings (I'm not trying to start a debate about whether those GIFs are valid, because that's been done 3 trillion times before; I'm trying to get you to see that your visual argument doesn't line up because you debate the visual argument of the other side).

[Macarios]

Well, it appears that this thread derailed into "this is why your analogy is wrong" instead of addressing the proof with the distances to the North pole (which, to be honest, is absolutely brilliant. I never realized that FE people have pinned themselves to a set of distances just by asserting that latitude/longitude work!). The geometry simply doesn't work. I haven't seen any response to that argument; clearly, Tom Bishop's idea of just saying "the distances are wrong" doesn't work anymore.

And Pete Svarrior, your argument is completely misleading. This isn't about your eyes fooling you; this is about your eyes not having the capability to measure the very slight curvature of the horizon, making it look flat. This is about a very large sphere being describable by a tangent plane at least locally, and the approximation gets better as the sphere gets larger. I suggest you read up on linear approximations. Of course, your eyes do see something quite obvious -- there is a horizon, and the countless GIFs with the partially-obscured buildings (I'm not trying to start a debate about whether those GIFs are valid, because that's been done 3 trillion times before; I'm trying to get you to see that your visual argument doesn't line up because you debate the visual argument of the other side).

I'm sorry to say it, but I don't see anyone answering here about connection between FE evidence and conspiracy theory.
They are avoiding the subject here, but lot of their "proof" is based on "Globers are creating fake images, videos, space trips, faking antarctica midnight sun, faking Aurora Australis, photoshopping hurricanes for north and south hemisphere, ...", and to do it you need worldwide conspiracy.

You can imagine magnitude of conspiracy when over 50 000 miles of access to Ice Wall is blocked by so many soldiers and battleships, but nobody knows where they come from and where are all those ships built.
You can get the picture when compare those 50 000 miles with length of Western Front in WW1 which was only 440 miles long.

So much money is spent on all that, 98.6% of world population is losing money just to fool the remaining 1.4%, and nobody is complaining?
Meanwhile countries are at war with each other, but the Flatr Earth conspiracy is so important that no country is exposing the conspiracy to those "smartest and most important" 1.4%.

[Ratboy]

Can you provide any reference for this so called "farm fixing?"

No one gets to live anywhere near the edge of the flat Earth except scientists camped out on the ice wall. Even then, those scientists take shifts and return to the comforts of full society. I have no clue how far from the real edge the ice wall is but I do not imagine anyone survived too long a trek from its edge along the ocean.

I was in around grade 10 when our science teacher said "when there are no clouds the sky is bluer in one part and almost white in another.  Which is bluer, the top or the horizon?"
I felt like a fool because I did not know.  There were no windows in this classroom.  The teacher berated us for not noticing the world.  It is totally obvious to anyone who looks.  But I am not sure you could find a reference for that?  It probably does say it somewhere but it would be a hunt since people tend not to write about obvious stuff. 
Anyway I did hunt for a reference about 'farm fixing' and there is the introduction to a textbook that goes into the subject.  It is called "Correction Lines: essays on land, Leopold, and conservation." by Curt Meine, Island Press 2004.  In this introduction they explain that (I did not know this) that Tomas Jefferson actually led the program to divide the land into neat squares with ranges and townships.  To quote the book: "Flat squares cannot be consistently fit onto a spherical globe." For most of North America the correction occurs at regular 24 mile intervals, an example of which is the highway 9 I mentioned 3 times now.

At the weekly Saturday livestock auction, I mentioned to the boys that someone asked if there is a reference for correction lines since they doubted they existed.  They all had a good laugh and then Abner said "doesn't the fool notice it when he hauls his cream to dairy?"  I said that I doubt the guy had cows, but added that he does not believe GPS works.  Then Abner said "He don't still drive his tractor manually? How's he gonna not  wasting too much seed without no GPS control?"  I said the guy is probably a city slicker.
Abner then said "Dang fool city folk, they don't know nothing about nothing living in their towers dreaming up a bunch of bull plop. There hain't no one that would not think the earth hain't flat if they put in a real day's work out here instead of looking at some fancy books and not.  Just look at any county land map the dang fool hain't never seen no correction line" And then the boys all laughed again.

Anyway, the point about who is going to live at the edge of the earth is about a 2 pole flat earth.  It is arrogant to think that things work good in the north with a pole and all and to just let anyone south of the equator be in a wacky world where south has no meaning except 'not north.'  For a flat earth to have the land getting smaller going north and south of the equator and to need two poles, it will be something like a diamond shape - wide at the equator and a point at each pole.  England and the US get to be nicely shaped and everyone else can go to hell with their distorted maps and all.  New Zealand probably does not even exist, they can go to hell without any mammals and birds that lay those big eggs.  That is my point of on a two pole world, who has to live at the edge? There was a false alarm about N.Korea sending a missile to Hawaii today.  This probably means that they are closer together than N.Korea and Los Angeles.  But airfares to Hawaii are cheaper from LA than from England.  So who has to be on the edge?
I vote that Samoa is probably closest to the edge of the world since they were the last place to celebrate the New Millennium since it was the last place the sun visited before setting underneath the earth or whatever it does. To hell with them thinking they live near Kiribati (does such a place even exist) which they cannot since Kiribati was the first place to celebrate the New Millennium.  How could the first place (farthest east place) be close to the last place (farthest west place)? No one important could live there anyway.
That is my point about who has to live on the edge.  Not me.
 

[rabinoz]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

If there is no collusion between (ie a conspiracy) all four of these
American, European, Russian and Japanese space agencies why are these photos not evidence of the Earth being a Globe!

Moon and Earth from EPIC on DSCOVR

MSG-3 captured its first image of the Earth

Russian Satellite Photo around midday in Dec 2015

Himawari-8 20160705120000fd

[supaluminus]

Looking at the world does tell us that the earth is flat.

No, it doesn't. Simply repeating something false doesn't make it true.
Looking at a flat horizon, if you knew absolutely nothing about the world, may lead you to conclude that the earth is flat.

Right. The conclusion is that the earth is flat. So tell us something about the world that shows us otherwise.

If there is no collusion between (ie a conspiracy) all four of these
American, European, Russian and Japanese space agencies why are these photos not evidence of the Earth being a Globe!

Moon and Earth from EPIC on DSCOVR

MSG-3 captured its first image of the Earth

Russian Satellite Photo around midday in Dec 2015

Himawari-8 20160705120000fd

Well, to be fair - and I was the only one who said I would do this - the challenge was to demonstrate this fact without relying on government space agencies, but only independent sources of media like that.

[rabinoz]

Well, to be fair - and I was the only one who said I would do this - the challenge was to demonstrate this fact without relying on government space agencies, but only independent sources of media like that.

So sorry, that's what I get for jumping in bare feet and all - I didn't have boots on.

[KAL_9000]

Well, to be fair - and I was the only one who said I would do this - the challenge was to demonstrate this fact without relying on government space agencies.

That takes five seconds!
Google "SpaceX"!

[supaluminus]

Well, to be fair - and I was the only one who said I would do this - the challenge was to demonstrate this fact without relying on government space agencies.

That takes five seconds!
Google "SpaceX"!

Eh... too easy. Let's assume we're limiting it to... non-corporate independents. At least, that's what I'm going to try.

My point is that you really don't need photographs to demonstrate the globe model and all of astronomy as accurate. It only requires that you understand the maths.

[Pete Svarrior]

That takes five seconds!
Google "SpaceX"!

Yes, relying on NASA's subcontractors is vastly likely to convince people who are skeptical of NASA. Great job!

[KAL_9000]

That takes five seconds!
Google "SpaceX"!

Yes, relying on NASA's subcontractors is vastly likely to convince people who are skeptical of NASA. Great job!

SpaceX is an independent corporate entity. They have a contract with NASA to send cargo to the ISS, but they run completely independently and launch satellites for people who pay to use their rockets.