Most of the discussions resolve around the next step of whether FE/RE is possible. NASA's possible fakery is already part of the premise of the discussion and is typically conceded as possible even by RE'ers here to allow for further discussion.
Well of course it's
possible, in the same way that it's possible that kangaroos don't exist (
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19185.msg261502#msg261502)
Pretty much anything is possible, the relevant question is whether it's
plausible. To determine that you need to think through the consequences if that were so. Because NASA are not just making vague claims, the building of the ISS involved multiple nations, you can literally see it from the ground and you don't need particularly expensive optics to make out its shape. And as has been posted elsewhere you can even try and contact it yourself as some radio hams have done.
There's lots to investigate here. The Shuttle was demonstrably a thing - I saw a launch myself one time I happened to be in holiday in Florida at the right time. Where did it go? There'd surely be some evidence if they were just landing somewhere. And how would they take off again to land at the time and place where the mission was supposed to end? Shuttles didn't have the ability to take off like a plane would.
I've seen pictures of the shuttle docked with the ISS taken from the ground.
And of course it's not just NASA who have launch capability. Multiple other nations do as do some private enterprises now.
Then you have stuff like GPS and Satelllite TV. These things demonstrably work and I have noticed on work trips in countries nearer the equator that the dishes are at a far steeper angle than they are here. This makes sense in the context of a geostationary satellite above the equator. The only way GPS can works - you have conceded it can accurately tell you your coordinates - is if it knows where those coordinates are in relation to other coordinates. So it must know how far apart those places are, which implies our maps are accurate. And that's a real problem for FE because it's simply not possible to plot those known distances accurately on a flat plane - this is why there is no working FE map.
Then you've got weather satellites and has been pointed out you can cross reference that data with other data - or just by taking your own observations locally. You don't have to take their word for the accuracy of the data, simply look out of your window.
The reality of the Round Earth should be irrefutable through mountains of functional evidence and not just at the whims of whether space agencies are possibly faking data or not. If you leave things as "possible" and argue through incredulity, then it remains "possible" that you are wrong.
But, again, you can do this with anything, like the existence of kangaroos. Space exploration is pretty much the killer blow for FE, which is why you have to dismiss it all as fake, but there is plenty of other evidence. But you operate in the sceptical context selectively depending on whether the evidence you're looking at fits your worldview. Evidence which does not is scrutinised to within an inch of it's life, you hold it up to a level of proof which nothing can ever satisfy. Evidence which you think backs up FE is readily and unquestioningly accepted. A good example is the emergency landings book. It was trivial to look at one of the examples in that book and show that the route he supposed from San Francisco to Dubai was completely wrong:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19222.msg261564#msg261564Look at the actual flight path and a diversion to Moscow makes perfect sense. You didn't even reply to that post.
If you're doing this as a thought experiment or in the spirit of a debating society then I guess it's an interesting exercise, but beyond that I question the mindset of someone who does some tests of their own, gets results which doesn't fit with their understanding of a globe earth and concludes that they have discovered something that would overturn millennia of science rather than conclude that they either made a mistake or they don't understand the globe model as well as they thought they did.
When it comes to this thread there is lots you could check, there's lots of data you could cross reference against other data. Just saying "it could all be fake" is a lazy cop out.