CathInfo.com

I hope your tendencies remain consistent with the Dogmatic Flatearthists on this site.

For both sides, I am trying to take the evidence and examine it on its own.  Just because I dismiss Neil as a biased source doesn't mean I don't look at the things he posts.  It's just very difficult to filter out the core factual content when it's surrounded by 3 or 4 paragraphs of emotional ranting and insults.

I'm considering the picture he posted in the OP to understand what its implications are.

What I don't like is when people ignore something and then post OTHER evidence either unrelated or only tangentially related to it ... without actually addressing the main point.

So, if someone posts a picture which appears to show curvature, then someone else posts a different picture that shows no curvature.  If both pictures are genuine, then there must be an explanation for why one of them isn't proving what the poster claims that it does.

So, for instance, a globe earther will show video of a boat getting lower and then disappearing as it moves away from the observer.  But then flat earthers have shown convincing evidence that this can APPEAR to be the case even when it really isn't ... if you zoom in on the boat with some magnification.  So they have demonstrated that the visual appearance of something sinking beyond the horizon doesn't prove globe earth ... since it can just be an optical phenomenon.  So this is the kind of analysis I'm trying to do ... amid all the emotional noise on either side.

Neil at one point posted video of SpaceX as if it proved globe earth, but then flat earthers provided convincing evidence that the pictures were fake/CGI/something and could not have been genuine.  Does that prove flat earth?  No.  But it showed that that particular piece of evidence from globe earthers was invalid.

Now, on the other side, I've seen pictures taken by objective third parties of mountains that could be seen from WAY TOO FAR AWAY given curvature math.  These were from people who had no interest in disputing globe earth.  I've seen pictures of other objects that would not be visible at the stated distances.  And there's only one explanation from globe earthers ... refraction.  If you're a globe earther, you assume that there MUST have been refraction (because of your premise that the earth is a globe).  If you're a flat earther, you assume that there was NOT refraction involved.  If you're trying to find the truth, then you sit here wondering whether there's a way to prove or disprove refraction.

So the ultimate problem is that, when you've already made up your mind almost dogmatically about something, then you selectively interpret and filter out evidence that seems to oppose your viewpoint.