I am not a strong round Earther myself but I am curious as to what flat Earthers have to say about the Miraculous Medal and Infant of Prague.

Typically, the Salvator Mundi image of Christ is shown with an orb as a representation of His dominion over creation. But, this doesn't prove anything about the shape of the earth, and it isn't intended to. Later works, such as the Immaculate Conception image you have there, depict the earth itself as a sphere. Which is merely an artist's interpretation of the world being at Mary's feet or the earth as God's footstool.

It doesn't prove anything, really, as these images are not dogmatic pronouncements themselves on the shape of the earth. The Church has made no such pronouncements, only that geocentrism is true.

And that's a reason to use the crap ideas of one Eric Dubay to say that the Reichsinsignien of the 1000 year Holy Roman Empire, starting on 25th Dec 800 with the coronation of Kaiser Karl, and ending with the capitulation of the last Kaiser on 25th Dec 1800 when the troops of Napoleon were close to Vienna, were a false representation of reality?

In fact the earth is shaped like a globe, but we live on a flat surface within it.  There’s a firmament dome over the top and the bottom part is what’s beneath with the earth, where hell is.  All the ancient conceptions of the earth look like that.

We do not live on a globe, but rather IN a globe.

We do not live on a globe, but rather IN a globe.

Right.  Globe earth + flat land.   No contradiction. 

Right.  Globe earth + flat land.  No contradiction.

Take a look at this image and you'll see that the definitions of the structure of our world are within the orb Our Lord holds. The upper bar representing the solid Firmament, and the equilateral bar that of the solid earth.

And that's a reason to use the crap ideas of one Eric Dubay...

Did you go to high school with him and he was the stud QB and you were the dork with acne?  Did he kill your cat, steal your wife or girlfriend?  You would do better to leave him out of these discussions and focus on cold, hard facts.

I did watch a bit of Eric Dubay doc that made an interesting point.  If the Earth is a globe spinning at a thousand miles an hour, why wouldn't a westward-bound aircraft, whose destination is more or less exactly parallel, just rise up in the air and stay stationary until the destination arrived to them?  Aircraft would be designed to take someone straight up in the air, and just wait for the Earth to rotate to bring Denver to them.  It takes 3 Hours to fly to Denver (lat. 39.73) from Indianapolis (lat 39.76), which is just over 1,000 miles away.  Going straight up and waiting for the Earth to rotate would just take 1 hour.

Ah, but this is explained by the magic of "gravity".  This amazing force drags the plane and the entire atmosphere around the globe as if it were attached by an iron rod even when it's 30,000 feet up.  But, then, of course, the small flap of a butterfly's wings can allow it to move westward with no more difficulty than it moves eastward.  If gravity were that powerful a force that it dragged things around at 1,000 MPH, then in order for this butterfly to move westward, that should prove to be more difficult than what a salmon has to do swimming upstream.  But there's no difference in exertion whether it's floating east or floating west.  In fact, it has no sense of direction based on any difference in the required exertion.  Then there are flights from North going SouthWest.  Not only does the plane have to fly south, it has to counteract this iron-grip pull of the earth toward East.  Or if a plane were to fly from the North Pole to the equator due south, at the North Pole, the earth is only rotating in at an extremely slow pace.  But then as it flew south, the speed of the movement of the surface underneath would increase, and the angular momentum of the plane and the exertion required to counteract the force would have to constantly increase.  Does a pilot have to increase the engine throttle as he moves south and the pull of gravity causes it to move eastward at an ever-faster pace?

It's utterly absurd.

Now, technically, this speaks more to a stationary earth than a flat earth per se.

Michelson-Morley and Airy's Failure also proved that the planet is not rotating but rather that the stars revolve around it.