The FAQ is a jumbled mess as I've already said and it doesn't address those issues brought up in that thread. I could continue debate on that thread, but last I checked there wasn't a satisfactory reply. Also, the wxr balloon, you still didn't answer my question. Would you accept THAT evidence? Let's see how far your denial really goes...
I wouldn't accept it myself, because many of the variables which can affect visibility are independent of the camera and difficult to identify. There's only so much you can do.
As for the FAQ,
Also, just thinking, but if the earth was flat and the sun always above us, wouldn't that make sunset impossible? I read on another thread here someone posted but saw no response or rebuttal from the FEers. Been sittin there a while too.
Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect.
There's more in the actual FAQ, as well as links to further reading about day/night cycles. Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.
Cool. So now you want us to reject the aether as the apparent cause of the sun's rising and setting (See Rushy's post, for example.) and embrace "perspective". Didn't someone use the word "jumble" lately to describe the FE FAQ?
Oh, and by the way, the FAQ's gif is obviously wrong. It shows the Sun over the Equator, so it does not match the reality that everywhere, but the poles, get equal periods of light and dark on that day. I guess that's just more jumble, huh?
This means that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof to force us to prove that this man didn't say he saw the curvature of the earth, when in reality the burden of proof is upon you to prove that he did.
Do tell where I made that claim? I really thought that Vaux made the first (and unsupported) claim that pilot admit that they can't see the curvature. Why would you consider that claim my burden to "disprove"?