So the pictures show about 3 feet missing ("A"?) 

Maybe, maybe not, as there appears to be vertical compression of the entire image (probably due to atmospheric factors), but 3 feet could be ANYthing, including some choppy waves that day.

You guys don't even try.  It's pathetic and why I've stopped wasting my time on you people.

See the pictures taken by FEs where up to 11 miles out there's absolutely nothing missing from the bottom, or the photographs (by none FEs, certified by agencies) of a lighthouse that rises 150 feet above sea level from 230+ miles away, where it should be hidden but miles of curvature by nevertheless remains fully visible.

This is utterly pathetic to behold.

What is the name of the lighthouse and who took the picture?  Trying to find it, but had no luck.  All I have found is the above vague reference in different CathInfo posts.

the globe Earth is not as controversial as some posters are trying to make it out to be IMO.

I agree that the theory of globe earth is not contoversial. Why is that so?

This is where we disagree. I think the reason the globe earth heliocentric theory is not controversial is that we have all been brainwashed since early childhood to believe that there two theories are fact.

You and the vast majority of the population, who (like all of us) have been taught from childhood that those who reject the theories of globe earth and heliocentricism are crackpots. Also taught from childhood is the notion that these  theories are scientific fact.

In reality, science is based on observation and (as we see here on CI in microcosm) both sides (or all three sides if we include geocentricism) produce observations to support their respective theories.

Fauchi lied when he said "the science is settled" just as he lied when he said "I AM science." Run away from anyone who puts forth the lie that "the science is settled." In science, nothing is settled until the hypothesis or theory is proven. This has not been done with the theories of globe earth, flat earth, heliocentricism or geocentricism. The theory with the best proof may be geocentricism, not due to provable scientific fact, but due to the overwhelming proof that the theory of heliocentricism is well-docuмented as occult and anti-God.

I do recall being uncomfortable with the thought of living on the side of a ball when the concept was first introduced to me, and I couldn't quite buy it on one level, but over time I overcame the initial hesitation through the forced indoctrination.  My wife also said she felt the same way.  Similarly, when sitting still and closing your eyes, everything appears very still, and the though that we're flying through space at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour seems preposterous on the face of it ... except, again, we decided to believe it after the indoctrination.  I think it's precisely because the indoctrination was so forced contrary to our common sense perceptions that it's so difficult for people to unwind it.  It did great violence to our instincts.

Your post inspired random questions.

Why do tectonic plates shift if the earth is stagnant?  What causes volcanos to push through the ground?  I guess to me I can imagine a ball being squished and such things happening, bur not a pancake. 

 I don't know about how fast things are moving in space.  I do think the Earth (globe) is spinning and the sun and planets move around the earth (geocentric).  I think some force keeps us and the water on the planet, but I don't know how that works.  

I am fine with people believing what they want.  I am not fine with people calling me brainwashed, or not trying, or throwing any negative statement at me and claiming it's obvious,  when it is not.

What I do know is that this discussion, though interesting, actually has no bearing on whether I am trying to be a good Catholic or not.

Prayers for everyone reading this.

The earth is not a pancake, but the land is.  Volcanos and earthquakes happen due to changes in the earth's core, which is far, far below the flat land mass.

Pax, please explain how the Sun is not seen at all times on all places of your Earth model.

Crepuscular rays support that idea, kind of like a street light at night.

Crepuscular rays support that idea, kind of like a street light at night.

Take that spotlight and use a diameter of 32 miles.  Put it 3000 miles in the air aboce the earth and calculate what diameter is covered by the light off that spotlight.  I am not in a place where I can do the math right now, so I will try to show the answer hopefully by tomorrow.

Crepuscular rays are actually parallel, it is just perspective.

  Your guys' view of the value of perspective changes a lot.  Sometimes you say "trust your eyeballs" and other times you say (because Science told you) "perspective is wrong".

  Your guys' view of the value of perspective changes a lot.  Sometimes you say "trust your eyeballs" and other times you say (because Science told you) "perspective is wrong".

Then you need to explain anti crepuscular rays. The short video below explains why you are mistaken:

https://youtu.be/cTPLqbl-HGY?si=ycN74fvPmJdizbAc