Can we just send a camera attached to a parachute + hot air balloon and just see the shape of the earth like that.

There's video from the highest-ever-altitude amateur balloon which shows not only that the horizon remains flat but also shows "hot spots" from the sun on top of the clouds that should not be there if the sun are a giant body 93 million miles from earth.

In fact, if you study the history of science, from the rejection of geocentrism to evolution, the Big Bang, etc. ... it was entirely driven by an atheistic agenda.  So I think it's exactly the opposite of what you say.

So it's good to entertain a decent leeriness against modern science. But why against St. Thomas or Aristotle? (Or Walter van der Kamp?)

So it's good to entertain a decent leeriness against modern science. But why against St. Thomas or Aristotle? (Or Walter van der Kamp?)

Just because one generally finds Aristotle reliable doesn't mean he was infallible.  One of his proofs for flat earth was in fact ships disappearing bottom up, but then he didn't have a telescope or a Nikon P900 camera.  Eratosthenes' experiment was badly flawed.  Not only was he unaware of the possibility of refraction, but he had to make certain assumptions about the distance between the sun and the earth, etc.  As for St. Thomas, I'm unfamiliar with what he wrote specifically about the earth, but science wasn't really his primary focus anyway.  So simply disagreeing with Aristotle or St. Thomas on one point or another is not the same thing as holding them suspect.

ALL THINGS modern science (probably since the Renaissance) are to be held suspect.  Heliocentrists and Evolutionists expose themselves in their own writings as being dead set on working God out of consideration in science, some of them admitting that they don't even care if their theories are true.

More recently, you've had things like Airy's Failure and then Michelson-Morley seem to prove that the earth is stationary.  But rather than accept that as a possiblity, they ruled it out on philosophical grounds.  Sungenis quotes many scientists who indicate that the results were rejected primarily on philosophical grounds.  So they invented Lorentz contraction to simply explain it away, even though there was never any scientific proof for it.  They take it as the unimpeachable premise for all their math the notion that the earth must be moving.  Einstein was a manufactured mythical persona who plagiarized most of his ideas but was pumped up by the establishment to legendary proportions in order to create an argument from "authority", etc.  Tesla rejected relativity and believed in the ether.

There's been a nefarious agenda at work in science for the past several hundred years, and I don't take anything they say at face value.

It's a simple fact that there are dozens upon dozens of experiments out there ....

Why don't you provide a clear reference to just ONE of these "dozens and dozens" of "experiments" so we could review it?

Going at the speed the travel, they would constantly have to correct for the curvature ever few minutes to avoid inadvertently increasing altitude as the surface falls beneath them.

It is your assertion that "they would constantly have to correct for the curvature..."  No, that's not how flight works.

There are so many videos demonstarting that we can "see too far" ... but one could argue they were faked ... except there are photographs taken by disinterested third parties who aren't Flat Earthers per se, such as this one.

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=554945265254988

The person who made that video is part of "Globebusters", and the photo he's talking about seems to have been made by a flat earther, so not exactly "disinterested".

You reject NASA images as faked and photoshops, including images from the 60s and 70s, well before photoshop and digital image editing. Yet you claim a picture of an out-of-focus blob is evidence?

That strikes me a little ... inconsistent.

I was skeptical at first myself, but the more I dug and the more I dug, the more that the start realization hit me about how much we've been lied to, about everything.

Well, I also think you've been lied to.

In the globe earth model, earth is just another planet among many, even though it is obvious that it is special in that it can support life.
It is far more obvious, with the FE model, that God created the Earth for humans, and that He did so with great care and love for us.

We choose a model because of evidence, right? Because it corresponds to reality?
Not because we may think it would be convenient for apologetics.

engineering of railroads.  Can you please explain to us why railroads aren't build using the curvature of the earth, as was quoted by that engineer? 

The "curvature of the earth" is not a grade up or down. It's the same "level" if it's at the same distance from the (gravitational) center of the earth.

Grades up and down are due to change of terrain, such as hills and valleys.

The "curvature of the earth" is not a grade up or down. It's the same "level" if it's at the same distance from the (gravitational) center of the earth.

Stanley, your explanation does not address the engineer's concern.  Read again, below.



If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities.  If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. 

All navigators, pilots, snipers and civil engineers and  use a flat earth model as a basis
for what they do.
The Panama Canal would be a mile underwater if they calculated in the curvature of the earth. (8 " per mile squared)
Snipers do not calculate in the Coriolis effect either

All navigators, pilots, snipers and civil engineers and  use a flat earth model as a basis
for what they do.
The Panama Canal would be a mile underwater if they calculated in the curvature of the earth. (8 " per mile squared)
Snipers do not calculate in the Coriolis effect either

Yes, and one could go on for hours about all the evidence that favors the notion that we live on a flat, stationary plane.