Scripture says the moon is brightest light in the night sky.  This is true.
Scripture says that the sun is the brightest light during the day.  This is true.

Just because you can see the moon during the day, doesn't mean a) the sun isn't the brightest during the day, and b) doesn't mean the moon isn't the brightest during the night.

Nowhere in scripture does it say the moon won't be seen during the day.  It only says the sun will "rule the day" (i.e. be the brightest).

Ok. I don't disagree with that. Now if the moon is its own light source, why do you think it goes through different light shapes? Every month in a consistent measureable pattern? And is the only thing in the sky that does this?

I wondered about this since I was a kid. It wasn't until I started researching "flat earth" that a light bulb went off.
There is NO WAY the moon is a spherical ball that produces no light.

A sphere sitting on a flat surface only makes contact with ONE POINT of that sphere. Everything else is various distances away from the surface.

The same with light. There is no way the closest POINT of the moon wouldn't be brighter, and everything going away from that point (in all directions) wouldn't be LESS bright. In short, the Moon should always look 3D if it's a 3D sphere. The only way it could be uniformly lit, is if it somehow produced its own light.

Again, this isn't about TRUSTING various characters and personalities such as Eric Dubay, David Weiss, or Austin Witsit. They could end in disgrace tomorrow, yet the things they pointed out, the truths they spread, the memes they created, would still persist. Because the truth has an intrinsic strength. Truth resonates with reality. It rings true. It makes sense.

It would be interesting to see these same pictures taken when the background is completely dark.  I think it would give a different perspective and a more realistic one at that.

It should be extremely easy to calculate the moon's altitude if it really is as close to the earth as flat earthers say. All you need is two people in two different locations that are a known distance apart to simultaneously measure the angle that the moon is above the horizon.

In this diagram, an observer in New York and LA would each measure the angles, which would be theta 1 and theta 2. Using the law of sines, one could calculate the length of the other two sides of the triangle, and then use simple trigonometry to calculate the length of the dotted line, i.e. the actual altitude of the moon.

Not sure what the results for the moon were, but this was done for the sun, which was calculated with this method (if I recall) to be about 3,200 miles away and roughly 30 miles in diameter.  Of course, the measurement is valid based on the assumption of FE, which is precisely what's being disputed.

This is a corollary to the problem with Eratosthenes' "proof".  It's only valid based on the assumption of a spherical earth with and a sun that's very far away and very large.  If the sun were closer and smaller, you could see the exact same outcome.  So it's really not proof of anything but a circular argument, where you assume that which you're allegedly proving.