SC, you are committing logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.
According to
Texas State University, the "fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.
When did I say, "My conclusion is true; there is no evidence against it?" I am discussing a different conclusion all together -- that the presented video is showing verifiable, genuine images of Earth. I am, also, implying that round earth
is the claim. It's an inherently bolder, more extraordinary claim. We have to agree on the initial claim before we can move forward with any further discussion. If we can't agree, that's that.
And if you think I'm misinterpreting or misunderstanding what you're trying to say, please re-explain your thoughts to me. Maybe I'm just an idiot.
If there is a dispute, the burden of proof falls onto the challenger of the status quo from the perspective of any given social narrative.[23] If there is no agreeable and adequate proof of evidence to support a claim, the claim is considered an argument from ignorance.[24]
Where did you copy and paste this part of the definition from?
In this regards, we are the status quo (REer). You are making the claim it is fake. You have no evidence this particular photo is fake. It is therefore an argument from ignorance and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
I disagree. The "social narrative" bit, at least to me, seems a distraction. What if the social narrative was still, as it once was, "Diseases are caused by demons, evil spirits, impurity; the cures are exorcisms, blood-letting, piety?" Those beliefs are utterly, unequivocally wrong. Was it ignorant of those who, way-back when and without much evidence, went against the grain on account of philosophical thought and, frankly, common sense?