What IS certain and a complete dealbreaker for the mainstream paradigm (globe earth, moving earth) is NASA being caught in lies hundreds of times.
Personally, I've never seen any convincing evidence that NASA has been caught lying about its
findings "hundreds" of times. As there are purportedly so many lies, could you list half a dozen
that you think proves the claim?
And being able to see WAY TO FAR for a globe earth to be our reality.
I'm not sure I understand this; can you please clarify it?
Also, water seeks its own level. Water doesn't ever bulge anywhere, on a macro OR micro scale. It is always flat and level.
Not so, as is easily observed in a test tube of water. Nowhere in these two tubes is the
surface of the water "flat".
![](https://study.com/cimages/multimages/16/convex_concave.jpg)
Spinning balls tend to SHAKE OFF water, not hold it fast.
That's simply because the centrifugal forces on the molecules of water are greater then the
gravitational attraction from the ball, which is minuscule—to
effectively non-existent.
And how can "gravity" keep a death grip on millions of tons of water on the bottom of the globe, yet it will let a helium balloon "go", no problem.
The force of gravity that attracts water molecules to the CoG of the Earth, is exactly what
prevents you from flying off into space. And if you don't understand why a helium-filled balloon
rises, then maybe you should be reading some stuff on a few basic physics site.
Hint: a litre of air has a mass of around 1 gram, whilst a litre of helium has a mass of 0.1785g.
Why does gravity SOMETIMES hold things fast like a death grip, and other times cause things
to orbit it? It seems to me, you can't have it both ways.
Gravity does not hold you in a "death grip". Can you not jump up off the ground? Have you never
noticed birds easily resisting gravity? Elevators in buildings resist gravity hundreds of time every day.
And satellites maintain their orbits by balancing two factors: their velocity (the speed it takes to travel
in a straight line) and the gravitational pull that Earth has on them.
Those are some of the most convincing arguments for FE I can think of right now -- but there are others.
Sorry, but no. None of those things are arguments supporting the flat earth theory. Rather they're
arguments attempting to discredit round earth theory. And they're not even good, science-based
arguments of yours; they're simply guesses based on the misinterpretation of what we see around us.