.
Wikipedia says: the earth is 27 miles wider than it is tall. This would amount to 3 millimeters wider for a ball that is 1 meter in diameter, and is too small to see.
.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to reject the photography of NASA if you want to; proofs that the earth is a globe don't depend on NASA anyway. People have believed the earth is round for thousands of years before NASA existed, including Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, and nearly every educated person in Western civilization since Aristotle.
.
On the contrary, I find it amusing the way flatties use the activities of some corrupt American government organization as an argument about the shape of our planet.

Good post!

All blue marble globe earths are artist's renderings. NASA even says so on the website.

If the moon is lit by reflected sunlight , why is the (docuмented )temperature of moonlight less than sunlight or the surrounding darkness? It emits a direct, much cooler light.
Why do compasses not work past the 60th parallel? Digital navigation does not work either. (This is not true for the North Pole and higher parallels.)

PS the actual horizon line in that picture of the bridge is the one that matters, and it's flat.Why would the earth curve in only one direction? The bridge in perspective fades into the atmospheric horizon and appears curved to the naked eye. it's not actually curved. Even in Globe earth terms the curve  could not be shown so demonstratively as 8" per mile squared and the relatively short span of the  bridge that we are shown would realistically not make an arc from ground level.

Does it really matter?

Yes, it matters tremendously.  The way the western world presently works involves a massive amount of research money being poured into various coffers.  This heavily influences the research that is conducted, the conclusions that are reached, etc.  If a man's own livelihood is connected to such money, it matters a great deal.

Is that supposed to be even remotely clever?

I’m not trying to be clever. Obviously the argument can work either way.

I’m not trying to be clever. Obviously the argument can work either way.

Good, because clever you are not. Obviously the argument cannot and does not work in both directions.

There is only ONE side of this argument that claims to have been to space (and even to the moon), taken photos from space, etc.  Said group claims not only to have taken photos, but also to be constantly taking current photos, and openly admits, albeit on the sly, much of what is put out there for consumption is utterly bogus.  The opposition, if you will, makes no such claims.

It is sad and shocking that you don't see how absurd your question is.

Good, because clever you are not. Obviously the argument cannot and does not work in both directions.

There is only ONE side of this argument that claims to have been to space (and even to the moon), taken photos from space, etc.  Said group claims not only to have taken photos, but also to be constantly taking current photos, and openly admits, albeit on the sly, much of what is put out there for consumption is utterly bogus.  The opposition, if you will, makes no such claims.

It is sad and shocking that you don't see how absurd your question is.

You don’t need to be rude, I’m not your enemy unless you believe that FE is de fide. If you do, I have nothing further to discuss with you. Let me be a bit clearer for you, Jose wrote: “All blue marble globe earths are artist's renderings. NASA even says so on the website.” So I wrote: “Aren’t all flat Earth models artist’s interpretations?” She assumed that I believed that the NASA photographs were real, I obviously don’t. I defused the argument by using the same argument against her.

I do not and did not intend to be rude.  My apologies if you took or take it that way.  I don't think anyone here believes FE is de fide; otherwise, they would just proffer the necessary statement to that effect.

Although I can see why you responded to her as you did, it doesn't alter the fact that the response is not as fitting as you thought and still seem to think -- i.e., such an argument does not, in fact, work equally in both directions.  No biggie.

Apology accepted and thank you.

I was just thinking about the flat earth model this morning and the question that comes to mind is this:
If there is a solid dome surrounding the Earth, that would create a pressure vessel. Pascal's law should then apply (Pressure applied to an enclosed fluid is transmitted undiminished to every portion of the fluid and the walls of the containing vessel. The law also applies to gasses, the difference being that a gas is treated as a compressible fluid). In other words the air pressure should be the same or practically the same regardless of altitude, but we can measure a noticeable difference, some examples: 14.7 PSI at sea level, ~10 PSI at 10,000 ft.
Just thinking aloud, what am I missing?

That's a good question.  With the laws of density, the heavier elements sink, whereas the lighter ones go to the top.  I've seen experiments where fluids of different densities are put into a test-tube (and they're all dyed different colors), and the less dense ones float to the top.  So the difference in pressure likely has to do with the quantities of the different gases out there.  We have more of the heavier elements, such and nitrogen, and those sink toward the bottom, whereas the lighter stuff floats to the top.  But since there's less of the lighter elements, there would be less in the higher reaches of the atmosphere, resulting in less pressure.

On the contrary, if you posit an atmosphere adjacent to a vacuum, it absolutely should get sucked right off the planet.  There's no way that "gravity" suffices to overcome a vacuum.  I can put a straw into a liquid, apply a vacuum with my mouth, and counteract the "force" of "gravity" with a miniscule degree of vacuum compared to the complete vacuum of space.

So I think that density / buoyancy ... combined with whatever it is that gives directionality to the movement is responsible for the increases in air pressure at the lower elevations.