Take this to 120,000 feet to demonstrate (based on math) what you SHOULD see.

Whatever the Latin is, none of the fathers spoke like NASA, about gravity, curvature, outer space, being able to set foot on other heavenly bodies, etc.

Scripture did speak of a Firmament though, with windows through which water could inundate the Earth. Now we have to pick -- do we believe Scripture and God, or NASA and the atheistic world of liars?

And you can't show "older" pictures and paintings depicting a traditional Globe Earth as proof of anything. WE WERE ALL DECEIVED. The holy, the wicked, and everyone in between. There's a good chance +Lefebvre, maybe St. Pius X, etc. believed the earth was a globe, because that's what was commonly, universally taught AND BELIEVED and few had any way to know better. Before the Internet, where was one supposed to get that truth/knowledge? Considering most people have a Duty of State that ISN'T that of a scientist. Few people have the time, training, and resources to fly high-altitude balloons or investigate for themselves. And Nikon P90 cameras have only existed in recent years. Without modern Youtube channels, I wouldn't have learned this stuff myself.

But this simulation is good, because it's based on curvature math.  It demonstrates what the curvature SHOULD look like at those altitudes and puts the lie to Neil de Grasse Tyson's claim that at 128,000 feet there should be no visible curvature.  They would have jumped all over "Red Bull" as "proof of globe" in former times, but with those 120,000 foot amateur balloons not equipped with the wide-angle lenses, they needed to explain it away and claim you can't see curvature at 120K feet.  But we still have Globers who otherwise are follower of the gurus like Tyson claiming that you can see curvature at sea level when boats disappear bottom up over the horizon.

These contradictions expose them.  There are still Globers who, despite what Tyson said, use the wide-angle-lens-induced curvature of Red Bull as evidence for Globe.  But they're OK with whatever contradictions people out there hold, so long as they don't believe the earth is flat.

I'm surprised nobody commented on the video of the paramotor guy.  In his video you can see curvature and he only went to 17,500 feet.  I'm not a NASA-Globist but how can that be reconciled?

The Knowledge of the Sphericity of the Earth during the Earlier Middle Ages by Fr Francis S. Betten SJ.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25012070?seq=1

This booklet discusses the incident of the antipodes, people on the other side of the Earth beyond the reach of the Church. It makes reference to St Augustine.
In the Saint's book THE CITY OF GOD, he writes:

'They have no authority for it [Antipodes], but only conjecture that such a thing may be, because the Earth hangs within the orbits of heaven, and each part of the world is above and below alike, [only a globe has an above and a below alike], and thence they gather that the other hemisphere cannot lack inhabitants. Now they consider not that although it be globous as ours is, yet it may be all covered with sea, and if it be bare, yet it follows not that it is inhabited, seeing that the scriptures never makes mention of any such thing.

Since this subject started I have seen a FLAT-EARTH become a GLOBAL FLAT-EARTH. Thus any reference to a global Earth is now a Flat global Earth. Now I am very capable of reading what St Augustine said and as I pointed out above:

'because the Earth hangs within the orbits of heaven, and each part of the world is above and below alike, [only a BALL Earth has an above and a below alike]' A flat Earth only has an above and not a below.

Augustine debunks the idea that on a Ball Earth, there cannot be people beyond the Church's reach living on a ball Earth.