This new proof is insanely strong. It's as simple as the "see too far" proof and better still, you can't yell refraction to make it go away.

Easily one of my new go-to proofs.

Right.  "Refraction" can't bail them out here.  I can find no possible explanation for this other than that we do not live on a ball.

Right.  "Refraction" can't bail them out here.  I can find no possible explanation for this other than that we do not live on a ball.

And that's how I approach this subject, something we rarely see from the globe earth proponents, where I deliberately try to poke holes in every argument I see out there.  I probably reject around 50% of the FE videos I see as being invalid or inconclusive.  But what remains after all the bad argument I find insurmountable.

... well, unless you want to entertain the notion that we live on a ball that's at least 10 times larger than they tell us.

But two problems with that.

1. Where's all the extra land? The known land on earth and the current Globe model actually mesh nicely 100%. But from a mathematical perspective, there would be much more land if the earth were actually a 10X larger "ball" than Wikipedia and Science commonly tells us. I couldn't tell you how much more land (I'm bad at math) but I know it would be a lot! And the equation would involve PI.

2. Their whole model would go ka-boom. They have formulas for "gravity" and all that, and if the earth were 10X bigger it would be 10X more massive and gravity would be much greater. Their whole model would fall apart. Everything that hangs together now would no longer hang together. Many equations that work today would no longer work. You can't just have "10X bigger earth globe" and have everything still work fine with it. Quite the contrary. Wouldn't 10X bigger earth ball affect lunar eclipses? What about rotation speed? See what I mean?

The Globe model is like Modernism. Erroneous at the core, but complicated AND it's a complete system of error THAT IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT, in other words it all hangs together. It's built on a foundation of lies, but once you accept the foundation of lies, you can live & swim within that "system" and everything works, more or less. It's a PACKAGE of lies that infects everything, but it does have an explanation (albeit a weak one, in some cases) for everything. Just like the theory of Evolution. Until you look into it and poke holes in it, it SEEMS to explain everything, at least to shallow thinkers.

I just watched the first video and I do see issues with both that neither support or disproove FE or globe. In both videos he's tracking the wrong stars to observe a vertical movement because they are rotating. Unfortunately there is no reference star when flying south but for the NE bound flight he should have picked the polar star. It cannot be seen south of the equator but in the second lapse it's going up. The star he picked (the tip of Draco's tail) to the left of the polar star is rotating from the NW to the W, but also moving slightly up like polaris. That is why it seems that it doesn't change its location when landing in Lisbon. It can be argued that the effect of polaris moving up is due to perspective. That is why I think the movement of the stars is not a good tool to prove or disprove either theory. Regarding the constelation view in google earth, the virtual travel view does not take into consideration the travel time lapse from one point to the other. The sky it shows is froze at the same time in the start and end locations, it only considers the vertical position. That is why it does not rotate.
On a different note I have not seen a FE model that explains why along the equator daylight lasts 12 hrs every day of the year, and why in summer the days are longer as you move towards the north pole but the sun never is at the zenith north of the tropic of cancer.

Imagine you're on top of the globe and look up at the night sky, you see some stars.

Imagine you're now teleported to the other side, you now see different stars.

Now imagine instrad that you didn't teleport but went eastward to the other side, the stars gradually change.

And now look at the footage, what does it show? 2000 miles and stars are still here.

What part isn't clear? Can you imagine a ball and looking from different sides of it and seing different things in the sky? What doesn't compute?

Complete and utter bunk.  You can see about where the pivot point is, toward the left side of the screen / window, precisely where you'd expect to see it if the plane is travelling Northeast, where you can see one star rotating down, and the other to the right of it rotating up.  You can pick out some starts to the right of the one he picked that are neither going up nor down, while those to the left are doing down and those on the right going up ... SLIGHTLY.  And the entire field of stars he was looking it would have rotated off window, with a 30-degree dip in the angle of the plane across the duration of the flight.  That degree of rotation that can be seen is not enough to account for a 30 degree dip in the angle of the plane.  Most of the stars across his entire window BARELY move, moving enough to account only for the change of the plane's direction, altitude, and their rotation ... but inexplicable given the alleged 30 degrees of dip in the plane's nose.  You still clearly have no idea what the video shows.  Watch it again.

I've already explained the mode that explains the duration of daylight.  You must have missed it.  Nice try changing the subject.

North of the equator the pivot star is always Polaris (the one sailors picked in order to determine latitude, all the other ones revolve around it and should not be used as pivot). You can easily identify Polaris in the video at 08:20 min. If you're using your computer keep your cursor there. As the video progresses, Polaris moves upward and at 08:46 min you cannot see it anymore. Also, Cabo Verde islands are at latitude 17.0* and Lisbon at latitude 38.7*, so there's 11.7* difference, meaning that if you are at Lisbon, Polaris will be 11.7* higher over the horizon compared to how you would see it in Cabo Verde. If we use Polaris as a reference for the dip in the plane's nose, we should expect 11.7*, not 30*. Any other star is affected by the "sky rotation" so they cannot be picked as the pivot from the plane perspective. Again, this has nothing to do with flat or globe earth. I'm just pointing out the issues with this guy's explanation. 

I've actually been interacting with Ben (Taboo conspiracy) about this issue and also commented on a refutation attempt by "Bob the Science Guy".  I called out Bob for cheating, where he inexplicably rolled the clock back 4 hours to try to make the star in the same place when it got to his destination after a 4-hour flight.  

No attempts at refutation.  Globers will just ignore it and will hope that it'll just go away if they ignore it long enough.

You ignored my response to this video twice, soon to be a 3rd time. It got posted in one thread, I argued against it, so it got posted in another thread, I copy and pasted my reply there, and now a new thread is made just for the video with claims that nobody's attempting to refute it. How bad willed.