He said it took him that much to "refute" FE because he admitted that FE had a lot of good arguments.  So I hold this to be a testimony to the fact that FE cannot be dismissed lightly and has some real substance behind it.  If it were merely a laughable kook theory, it certainly wouldn't require 800 pages to deal with.

Yes... Probably the most frustrating thing about wanting to research FE is the deluge of false content put out there and boosted by YouTube, Google, TPTB etc. The real meat of the arguments are purely scientific, being magnetism, nature of plasma, gravity etc. This is one reason I just can't accept at face value any cosmology, the reality of the issue is complex and requires independent observation and thought to come to any conclusions. "Debunking FE Without Science" type content is very unconvincing because the video makers generally aren't scientifically versed enough to make technical arguments. Making prescriptions about reality without technical observation is . I am surprised more people don't sign up here to discuss FE.
 
I am going to watch DL's video later because Sungenis isn't a moron. He held his own fairly well vs the Dimonds and has admitted that factually their position is 100% true but he disagrees with the conclusions they extrapolate. If there was a "Cliff's Notes" version of Sungenis' pro GE arguments I would be very interested, otherwise reading that will have to happen this winter.

I have Sugenis's book on FE, but have yet to read it since it is around 800 pages in length. I'm happy that someone has taken FE seriously in that regard and attempted to respond to the claims. I know after reading Protestant Edward Hendrie's book that he notes Sugenis' tends to be dismissive of arguments against refraction and the evidence offered by long-distance photography. So I'll have to dig into Sugenis' book to see why he was so dismissive.

Thanks for mentioning Sungenis' 736 page book.  It can be accessed at http://flatearthflatwrong.com/product/flat-earth-flat-wrong/ and for as little as $10 can be obtained in PDF with color pictures.  Without the pictures which are actually very helpful to understanding much of what is being discussed, I imagine it would be around a 600 page book.  Sungenis, to his surprise, soon realized that the subject is not so simple as some would make it out to be and he wanted to be as thorough as reasonably possible in examining all the major contentions in favor of FE.  He freely admits that many of the FE arguments are highly sophisticated and therefore should not be taken lightly, but rather examined with all due respect and seriousness.

100%
The turning point for me was flying from New York to London and we took the Artic Route. Whaaat? That made me take a closer look.

Here is Eric Dubay:

If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.


44) If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.


45) On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.


46) On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.


47) On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.


48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.

p.s. After reading Eric Dubay's book, I attempted to book a flight from the tip of South Africa to the tip of South America, I learned that all such flights stop to refuel in Europe or UAE. This makes no sense at all on a globe map, but makes perfect sense on a flat earth map.

Amazing!

https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze

p.s. After reading Eric Dubay's book, I attempted to book a flight from the tip of South Africa to the tip of South America, I learned that all such flights stop to refuel in Europe or UAE. This makes no sense at all on a globe map, but makes perfect sense on a flat earth map.

A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?

If so, a commercial airline has to have enough passengers to make the flight profitable. Are there enough people that travel from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, for example, to make a direct flight viable? Or do they need to fly to a major hub, such as London, in order to have enough passengers to make it pay?
For example: all the commercial flights from my local airport fly to a metro hub. There's a larger town that I drive to semi-regularly about 150 miles away. If I wanted to fly there via commercial airline , I would have to fly to the metro hub (~250 miles), then change planes to fly 160 miles to get to that town. It's simply the economic factors that determine that.

Now if a person hired a charter to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and was taken via London, that would be very compelling.

A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?

If so, a commercial airline has to have enough passengers to make the flight profitable. Are there enough people that travel from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, for example, to make a direct flight viable, or do they need to fly to a major hub such as London in order to have enough passengers to make it pay?
For example, all the commercial flights from my local airport fly to a metro hub. There's a larger town that I drive to semi-regularly about 150 miles away. If I wanted to fly there via commercial airline , I would have to fly to the metro hub (~250 miles), then change planes to fly 160 miles to get to that town. It's simply the economic factors that determine that.

Now if a person hired a charter to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and was taken via London, that would be very compelling.

There would certainly be SOME flights taking that direct route.  If you could fill a plane with people from one place to another, it would not only save on fuel, but it would be a major competitive advantage vs. other carriers in terms of the convenience and the time of travel.  Based on the number of flights, there would certainly be a business case for at least one direct flight.  This pattern of flights is just too darn consistent to be based on economics.

So, I recall when I was a child and took a few flights over a couple years between Cleveland and Hungary (direct flight always with a full plane).  We always flew over Gander Air Force Base in Newfoundland.  After checking out a globe map, I asked my dad why that was, since that did seem to be really out of the way vs. a direct line.  He told me that regulations required that passenger planes always remain within a certain distance of land.  Not sure if he heard that somewhere, but I have since learned that this was entirely untrue.  While this route is not as bad as the Southern Hemisphere routes, if you plot a direct line between Cleveland and Hungary on a flat earth map, it's dead on a straight line between the two.

EDIT:  So I looked it up and it still show on a map as taking that route.  Again, not extremely pronounced, since there's much less of a difference in the Northern Hemisphere.  But still ... why?  Why would you take this curved route when you could just make a straight line ... and save some time and some fuel?

https://tinyurl.com/mr3vpcas

Put this on an FE map and it's a straight line.

A question that occurs to me: are you looking only at commercial flights?

If so, a commercial airline has to have enough passengers to make the flight profitable. Are there enough people that travel from Johannesburg to Sao Paolo, for example, to make a direct flight viable? Or do they need to fly to a major hub, such as London, in order to have enough passengers to make it pay?
For example: all the commercial flights from my local airport fly to a metro hub. There's a larger town that I drive to semi-regularly about 150 miles away. If I wanted to fly there via commercial airline , I would have to fly to the metro hub (~250 miles), then change planes to fly 160 miles to get to that town. It's simply the economic factors that determine that.

Now if a person hired a charter to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and was taken via London, that would be very compelling.

Yes, airlines use the hub and spoke model to keep flights full and profitable and some connections will seem out of the way for this reason.

Yet, there are numerous emergency landings of flights which show they are flying wayyyyy off course.

19min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/UBWpV5S8iFOY/

Like others are mentioning, this is what I noticed when we flew from Los Angeles to London and went over the arctic and many other flights that went over the Norther Arctic which made no sense at all until I saw the flat earth map.

Here is a site where you can buy a ticket to fly over Antarctica:

https://firstclass.com.au/tour/qantas-antarctica-fights/

And reasons why most planes don't fly over it:

https://askcaptainlim.com/do-planes-ever-fly-over-antarctica/