I never ever trust an anti Catholic’s writings. He’s most likely reporting a falsehood in order to make the Church look bad in the eyes of modern man. Although I agree with him on GE, I would never trust him as a source.

I understand that.  Is there some way to verify it?

Here's some information on the censoring of Copernicus' book.  From what it says here, that author was telling the truth.  

Perhaps the most influential opponent of the Copernican theory was , a Catholic priest. Ingoli wrote a January 1616 essay to Galileo presenting more than twenty arguments against the Copernican theory.^[119] Though "it is not certain, it is probable that he [Ingoli] was commissioned by the Inquisition to write an expert opinion on the controversy",^[120] (after the Congregation of the Index's decree against Copernicanism on 5 March 1616, Ingoli was officially appointed its consultant).^[120] Galileo himself was of the opinion that the essay played an important role in the rejection of the theory by church authorities, writing in a later letter to Ingoli that he was concerned that people thought the theory was rejected because Ingoli was right.^[119] Ingoli presented five physical arguments against the theory, thirteen mathematical arguments (plus a separate discussion of the sizes of stars), and four theological arguments. The physical and mathematical arguments were of uneven quality, but many of them came directly from the writings of Tycho Brahe, and Ingoli repeatedly cited Brahe, the leading astronomer of the era. These included arguments about the effect of a moving earth on the trajectory of projectiles, and about parallax and Brahe's argument that the Copernican theory required that stars be absurdly large.^[121] Two of Ingoli's theological issues with the Copernican theory were "common Catholic beliefs not directly traceable to Scripture: the doctrine that hell is located at the center of Earth and is most distant from heaven; and the explicit assertion that Earth is motionless in a hymn sung on Tuesdays as part of the Liturgy of the Hours of the Divine Office prayers regularly recited by priests."^[122] Ingoli cited Robert Bellarmine in regards to both of these arguments, and may have been trying to convey to Galileo a sense of Bellarmine's opinion.^[123] Ingoli also cited Genesis 1:14 where God places "lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night." Ingoli did not think the central location of the sun in the Copernican theory was compatible with it being described as one of the lights placed in the firmament.^[122] Like previous commentators Ingoli also pointed to the passages about the Battle of Gibeon. He dismissed arguments that they should be taken metaphorically, saying "Replies which assert that Scripture speaks according to our mode of understanding are not satisfactory: both because in explaining the Sacred Writings the rule is always to preserve the literal sense, when it is possible, as it is in this case; and also because all the [Church] Fathers unanimously take this passage to mean that the sun which was truly moving stopped at Joshua's request. An interpretation which is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers is condemned by the Council of Trent, Session IV, in the decree on the edition and use of the Sacred Books. Furthermore, although the Council speaks about matters of faith and morals, nevertheless it cannot be denied that the Holy Fathers would be displeased with an interpretation of Sacred Scriptures which is contrary to their common agreement."^[122] However, Ingoli closed the essay by suggesting Galileo respond primarily to the better of his physical and mathematical arguments rather than to his theological arguments, writing "Let it be your choice to respond to this either entirely of in part—clearly at least to the mathematical and physical arguments, and not to all even of these, but to the more weighty ones."^[124] When Galileo wrote a letter in reply to Ingoli years later, he in fact only addressed the mathematical and physical arguments.^[124]
In March 1616, in connection with the Galileo affair, the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds of ensuring that Copernicanism, which it described as a "false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture," would not "creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth."^[125] The corrections consisted largely of removing or altering wording that the spoke of heliocentrism as a fact, rather than a hypothesis.^[126] The corrections were made based largely on work by Ingoli.^[120]

https://everipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Ingoli/

Yes, that is right and it is very obvious when we look at how the subject was taught at the (Church sponsored) universities.  I have found an English translation of De Sphaera Mundi, the most widespread and influential textbook from its writing in 1230 for hundreds of years onward.  This work represents the long-held scientific consensus in Christendom that Galileo was arguing against.  http://esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm

Here is the section on the shape of the earth: 

THE EARTH A SPHERE. -- That the earth, too, is round is shown thus. The signs and stars do not rise and set the same for all men everywhere but rise and set sooner for those in the east than for those in the west; and of this there is no other cause than the bulge of the earth. Moreover, celestial phenomena evidence that they rise sooner for Orientals than for westerners. For one and the same eclipse of the moon which appears to us in the first hour of the night appears to Orientals about the third hour of the night, which proves that they had night and sunset before we did, of which setting the bulge of the earth is the cause.
FURTHER PROOFS OF THIS. -- That the earth also has a bulge from north to south and vice versa is shown thus: To those living toward the north, certain stars are always visible, namely, those near the North Pole, while others which are near the South Pole are always concealed from them. If, then, anyone should proceed from the north southward, he might go so far that the stars which formerly were always visible to him now would tend toward their setting. And the farther south he went, the more they would be moved toward their setting. Again, that same man now could see stars which formerly had always been hidden from him. And the reverse would happen to anyone going from the south northward. The cause of this is simply the bulge of the earth. Again, if the earth were flat from east to west, the stars would rise as soon for westerners as for Orientals. which is false. Also, if the earth were flat from north to south and vice versa, the stars which were always visible to anyone would continue to be so wherever he went, which is false. But it seems flat to human sight because it is so extensive.
SURFACE OF THE SEA SPHERICAL. -- That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. For all other impediments are excluded, such as clouds and rising vapors.
Also, since water is a homogeneous body, the whole will act the same as its parts. But parts of water, as happens in the case of little drops and dew on herbs, naturally seek a round shape. Therefore, the whole, of which they are parts, will do so.

This was what virtually all educated Catholics believed in the centuries before Galileo. He left the sphericity of the earth uncontested while arguing with other points that were commonly believed. 
 

This is such a sad statement about "educated Catholics".   


This further explains why the view from the top of the mast is further than the view from the bottom of the mast:

CONVERGENCE AND VANISHING POINT EXPLAINED
4min 31sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/U2cHQBBwGFpj/



Science is testable, repeatable and observable.

So if a drop of water is the same shape as a body of water,

because "the whole will act the same as its parts"

then are there examples of small bodies of water in the shape of a sphere?

I've never seen one myself. :/



























No bulging water:

Frozen Lake Proves Water Doesn't Curve







This is a water level tool.  The ancients used this tech to level large buildings.  It's just as accurate as a laser.  Why?  Because water is always level.  Always.  Everywhere.  All the time.  Never bulges.




The water level at each end of the tube will be at the same elevation, whether the two ends are adjacent or far apart, so a line between them will be horizontal at its midpoint and a shed base, building foundation or similar structure laid out using several such lines will be "horizontal" within building tolerances on any scale over which use of a water level is practicable.[1] Water levels have been used for many years. The water level is lower-tech than the laser level, but it can be more accurate over long distances, and works without a sightline, such as around corners. 

In geodesy and surveying, the use of a water level device extended over long distances (sometimes, kilometers) is termed hydrostatic levelling, after the principles of hydrostatic equilibrium and levelling.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_level_%28device%29








Why do the stars in the southern hemisphere rotate in the opposite direction of the northern hemisphere?


This gives a possible explanation:

36min
https://www.bitchute.com/video/IpgsAe26OM3l/

There are a number of like experiments on the internet all showing measurements based on earth curve calculators.  What I've seen so far is that the earth curve calculators have a 100% Failure Rate.  I'm finding it more difficult to refute the flat earth model because these experiments have been repeated numerous times and have produced the same result - nothing is obscured by any curve.