Where is the first proof?



http://www.smarterthanthat.com/astronomy/top-10-ways-to-know-the-earth-is-not-flat/

I find most of these unconvincing.

There is a discussion here which suggests that refraction should not be dismissed so easily: https://www.metabunk.org/earth-curvature-refraction-experiments-debunking-flat-concave-earth.t6042/

They are all scratching their heads and grasping at straws. Nothing here to debunk the flat earth. Everyone can go home.

can you explain then in your own words, precisely what is it that cannot be dismissed so easily?

I got the impression from the discussion that refraction is more common than Ladislaus suggested.  There were also some other ideas that I thought he might find interesting.  For example, they were talking about concave earth models as well as flat earth.

Mr Garrison finds concave earth interesting but not Biblical flat earth. 

It's mostly poor approximations and taking every case where there's an uncertainty as favorably as possible for the result you want. I've broken down a couple of these in previous posts and shown that they are entirely in line with what you expect with the assumed rate of curvature of the earth. I can do this particular one if you want.

Edit: noticed after posting that there's several different videos in the original post. Pick one, post the youtube video or whatever here, and I'll run the numbers.

There is no curvature to the earth at all.

The rate of curvature is a very important thing to consider. I have yet to see the globe-earthers explain it.

To reiterate: As is stated in the O.P, if a round earth is about 25,000 miles in circuмference at its widest point, then there need to be a fixed rate at which it curves, which has been determined to be 8 inches per mile squared. This means that after the first mile it drops by 8 inches, the second mile 32 inches, and the third mile six feet, etc., until there's a 1.8 miles of a drop at 120 miles distant.

Do the globe-earthers dispute this? I would like to see them explain it, if they disagree.

The O.P. photo of the island is 20 miles distant from mainland California. Given the fixed rate of curvature, the island should not be visible. But it is visible. How do globe-earthers explain that?

We've all probably seen Islands from a mainland that aren't supposed to be visible, given the rate of curvature.

When my sons and I stayed at a farm B&B on the little Island of Berneray, just off the Island of North Uist in Scotland, we could see the Island of St. Kilda from the beach on Berneray. St. Kilda is about 48 to 50 miles away from Berneray. We shouldn't have been able to see St. Kilda at all, given the supposed rate of curvature on a "globe" earth. It just wouldn't be possible. Yet we could see it.

Meg,

You and kiwiboy (as gtbe) were there last year (24 April 2017) on ABLF3 when I debunked that video mentioned in the OP.  Both you and kiwiboy simply ignored my reply and changed the argument to "scripture says so, the ancients said so, etc..".

Why are you asking now for someone to explain all this to you again? Is it going to make any difference the second time around, or will you ask the same questions again this time next year?

I am more than happy to answer these and any other questions you may have, but I have the impression that I'm simply wasting my time.

When you ask these flat/globe earth question on a Catholic forum, and you find that nobody answers, then there are two possible reasons for this:

1. Nobody knows the answer, which btw still does not prove that the answer doesn't exist, or that your opinion is correct. You know the saying "in the land of the blind the one-eyed is king"?

2. Nobody is interested in answering you (for whatever reason, but probably because they know it won't make any difference).

I'll let you choose which of the two categories people on CathInfo fall into, but as for myself, I consider myself in number 2, although recently I have become interested in answering a few of these arguments, for the simple reason that I believe this flat earth nonsense is reflecting very poorly on the Resistance. So, for the sake of keeping the Resistance a little respectable, I am happy to answer your questions once more.

Give a me a few days and I will put together a detailed reply to the video mentioned in the OP.