I fail to draw the connection from "NASA faked the moon landing and Challenger mission" to "the Earth is flat".
...
The Anatarctica BS is where the flat earth argument falls apart the quickest. cօռspιʀαcιҽs like these are sure to be discovered at some point with incontrovertible evidence like the moon landing was.

You're not. It's just what some postulate given some of the evidence and the lies of NASA. I lean more FE in the sense that we may live on a flat plane within a spherical globe, like a globus cruciger. But I'm also zany enough to disbelieve "outer space"; I believe Scripture is correct in that there is a solid Firmament above us with waters above that and that the stars are sonoluminescent phenomena. The earth we live in, is the universe itself. There is only Heaven, Earth, and Hell. Scripture also makes several statements that kind of go against GE as well (see meme below)

It's all fun to speculate and investigate, as we should know what we're living on, but, it has very little to do with one's salvation.

But I'm also zany enough to disbelieve "outer space"; I believe Scripture is correct in that there is a solid Firmament above us with waters above that and that the stars are sonoluminescent phenomena. The earth we live in, is the universe itself. There is only Heaven, Earth, and Hell. Scripture also makes several statements that kind of go against GE as well (see meme below)

The problem here is that when you have a vacuum next to a pressurized system (such as our atmosphere), the gas in that pressurized system will move to fill that vacuum unless there is a physical barrier between the two (like a Firmament). Modern science proposes the retarded idea that gravity is strong enough to keep everything, including gases and liquids, affixed to the surface of a ball and prevent it from being instantly pulled into the vacuum; but not strong enough to prevent a helium balloon from defying it. Now, if there's a matter of not gravity, but density and buoyancy, then what we see practically makes more sense as the lighter objects are displaced by the heavier materials.

Therefore, if "space" is an actual thing, then it is most certainly NOT a vacuum, but is filled with an even lighter material, such as ether, which explains how light and heat and other forms of energy are transferred through this supposed vacuum.

Quick video on the problem with the space "vacuum" - 3 mins
https://www.bitchute.com/video/g6yl8mD3RGhG/

Indeed, the problem of the earth's atmosphere being adjacent to the near-infinite vacuum of space (or so we are told) was for me one of the final nails in the coffin of the official narrative about the earth being a ball floating through space (well, rocketing through space at something like 1.3 million miles per hour ... while we feel nothing).

Another incredibly compelling argument for at least a stationary earth is where someone pointed out that if we're revolving around the sun while rotating, depending on whether you're rotating away from or rotating toward the revolution of the earth, there would be an overall change of acceleration ... which would be clearly felt on earth.  Globers claim that we don't feel the motion of the earth because it's at a consistent speed, causing there to be no change of acceleration which would be required to sense the motion.  But that is clearly untrue when you consider that the earth would (in their model) be revolving around the sun, but then depending on the time of day and where you're at, you'd be rotating in the direction of the revolution or else rotating away from it.

Also, for stationary earth, you have Michelson Morley AND Airy's "Failure" ... a term applied to dismiss the results, but Airy proved quite conclusively that the stars move relative to the earth and not the earth relative to the stars.

You see the effect of going from atmosphere to vacuum when watching videos of rockets entering space. It can be seen both from the onboard cameras, and at night from the ground. The rocket exhaust changes suddenly from a narrow stream to a very wide spray.