0. What does The Devil and/or Jesus have to do with anything? Appeal to religion is an immediate rejection by many people, for multiple reasons: A) non-believers will not care what your god has to say, or B) plenty of believers do not think God claims the world to be flat.
1. Bolivian salt flat: wrong, you cannot see "hundreds of miles" across it. It FEELS that way because of the reflection of sky, but it is not true. In the photo below, you can see plenty of horizon with nothing behind it. Look at the geography of the region, however, and you will find land behind that flat. Why can't we see it? Curvature, that's why.
He caps off his point by claiming that we would be able to see huge distances across the oceans too, if not for the waves. Really, waves? Ocean waves are a foot or two few high when there isn't a storm. The Hawaiian Islands are home to thirteen mountain peaks higher than 1600 feet, and the tallest, visited by thousands of camera-toting tourists every year, is over 13,000 feet high. Plenty tall enough to see over those two feet waves and see for hundreds of miles. Heck, there are even telescopes there (for astronomy) which should be able to see the continental US, if the earth were flat. But they can't, because the earth is not flat.
2. Photoshop manipulation of NASA photos: this has been covered to death, it has never been true, and the only people who find this line of argument compelling are people who refuse to acknowledge that photos off the internet are COMPRESSED and contain all manner of digital artifacts not present in the original. Plus, do you really think a guy at NASA in charge of faking moon photos would not know how to remove these supposedly damning artifacts, if they are this easy to find?
3. A "Composite" image is not the same thing as a "Photoshopped" image. And, that isn't the only single-frame (as in "not composite") image of earth from space, but there are only a few. The reason is that the earth is a large object and most satellite imaging is intended to capture small parts of it. This argument is equivalent to a microbiologist saying "There are no such things as mice because I've never seen a microscope photo of an entire mouse." Microscopes are not intended to image entire organisms, and most satellites are not intended to image entire planets.
4. You don't get to claim to have "15 proofs" if you're going to repeat the tired "It IS Photoshop" claim for three of them in a row... And besides, the three photos shown were taken by three different satellites using different imagers (hence the color differences) and from different distances (hence the apparent change in the size of North America)
5. Possible compositing error, which proves nothing because NASA acknowledges up front that most full-disc images of earth are composites. Photoshop claim #4
6. You have to be pretty obsessed with sex, to believe that random cloud formation is truly an intentional upside-down and sideways insertion of the word "sex" in a faked-by-NASA photo. This guy probably believes that Satan talks when you run an LP backwards too. Photoshop claim #5
7. This one has a lot to unpack. The Galileo 25 hours with no cloud movement: the clip was not 25 hours, it was more like ten. Here is a copy of it where they
zoom in on some clouds and they DO move, just slow and subtle. The ending, where he laments that "if only they would point a satellite at something we know is happening on the ground": that is
literally what weather satellites do, 24x7, as they have done since the 1960s. As for using Hubble for this purpose, he is asking a tool built for one kind of imaging to attempt a completely different kind, much like my microscope analogy, and it cannot do it.
8. First, if you're going to claim a story as evidence, you might want to remember the details: you can clearly read on the screen the flight was from TAIWAN, not THE PHILIPPINES. Second, airplanes do not fly across the oceans following lines that are straight on the map projection he used to illustrate it. Third, the airport he used in his illustration, DPS, is neither Taiwan nor Manila, but Bali. Finally, the flight from the TAIWAN to LAX diverted to Alaska because that's the nearest land along the
great circle route. Not because the earth is flat and the plane was passing over Alaska already.
9. The Antarctic Treaty does not forbid you going there. You have to get a permit, and they won't issue one unless you can demonstrate that you have the experience and equipment to safely make it there and back. The guy he mentions, Jarle Andhøy, is an idiot who has
lost crew members down there during unpermitted trips, and caused a lot of trouble and expense to others trying to locate and rescue his sorry ass. So yeah, JARLE isn't allowed to go, he's reckless and gets people killed. Anybody else who wants to follow the rules, there are tourism companies that will take you to Antartica if you have the money.
10. Pure speculation about the purpose of nuclear weapons testing, when no motive beyond "weapons testing" is needed. You don't get to call speculation a "proof"
11. Continued speculation about the same issue in number 10. I'm not allowing you to count it once, so you certainly can't count it twice! With absolutely no claim or evidence that he has any understanding how nuclear devices work or why they should be expected to act just like conventional explosives, he decides that "it looks to me" like the blast was contained by "the dome", even though it all clearly happens well below whatever height he thinks the sun and moon would be. His claim that the operations were named Fishbowl / Dominic to mean "fishbowl (dome) of the Lord" is ludicrous: military code names are given in a way that is intentionally NOT revealing. The Manhattan Project was in Los Alamos, to name the most well known example.
12. First, how does he know what snipers are trained to do? Second,
here is a demonstration showing that bullets ARE in fact subject to Coriolis Effect in flight. Third, a little research reveals that not only do snipers take this into account, but so do hunters, and not by doing complex math but instead through adjustments to their scope based on distance and direction to target.
13. Comparing airplanes to bullets, not convincing. The effect is inches over hundreds of yards, an airplane going for a landing isn't going to notice a Coriolis shift of a couple inches left or right. And his crack about how impossible it is to land on a moving runway: has he never seen Top Gun? Naval aviators hit the moving runway on an aircraft carrier routinely, and it bobs up and down, pitches and rolls and yaws, all while also moving.
14. Flights from New York going east to London do NOT take the same amount of time as the return flight, he's just making shit up now.
15. "I don't understand weather" is not a proof.