Lots of very compelling evidence here.  You just need to ignore the one absurd section about how the Church and the Jesuits are behind globe earth theory.  There's lots of evidence here that I haven't seen elsewhere before and it's very compelling.  I was especially struck by the video of the sun from a higher altitude showing it shrinking to a tiny dot BEFORE it sinks below the horizon; that simply can't be explained by the globe earth model.  You can see that from about 56:58 - 57:25 in the video.  Then there were the guys who sailed across lake Michigan towards Chicago, keeping the camera on it the entire time and proving that the sight of the city from 40+ miles out was NOT a mirage nor some kind of refraction.

Lots of very compelling evidence here.  You just need to ignore the one absurd section about how the Church and the Jesuits are behind globe earth theory.  There's lots of evidence here that I haven't seen elsewhere before and it's very compelling.  

.
Uh, no. Not a shred of "compelling evidence." No evidence whatsoever, actually, "compelling" or not.
.
So why do you ignore the attack on the Church? Not important? The Jesuits are evil, of course. That was in the days of their holy founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola, who the video authors no doubt abhor for being somehow evil too. Get a clue!
.

I was especially struck by the video of the sun from a higher altitude showing it shrinking to a tiny dot BEFORE it sinks below the horizon; that simply can't be explained by the globe earth model.  You can see that from about 56:58 - 57:25 in the video.

.
Welcome back to Ladislaus the Chicken, who continues nonetheless to run from the questions! True to your nickname?
.
Minute 57 of the video, which you find "compelling," shows the same effect posted for your assessment (which you did not reply to), namely, what happens when you don't use a solar filter. This footage at min. 57 is showing the sun setting without use of a solar filter. The author doesn't like the fact that solar filters block out the sun glare (glare makes the sun appear larger when it's not), giving you the accurate size of the sun high in the sky, which is the same diameter as what it has while setting.
.
Without using a solar filter here, the sun appears large when high in the sky, and as it descends to the horizon where there is more of earth's atmosphere to block its intensity (acting as a solar filter) it then appears smaller. However, when a solar filter is used, the same diameter sun is seen all across the sky.
.
But Ladislaus never misses the chance to be "compelled" by fakery! No way! How "compelling" would you find an honest video made with a solar filter in place covering the camera lens? Hmm?
.
Flat-earthers say the moon and sun follow the same pattern over the "flat" earth, so the moon should be showing the same size reduction that they claim the sun does. But it doesn't. The moon sets in the west keeping the same appearance it had as it crossed the sky. Sometimes it appears LARGER as it sets, but that's due to some occasional conditions, which are not always that way.
.
Furthermore, you STILL have not explained why you can't make the sun come "back" after it has appeared to set in the west.
.
You still think that a boat's hull can be made to come "back" after disappearing in the distance (like this video says in min. 1:06:00 as they show the Chicago skyline half-covered by water -- and can't manage to make the bottom half of the buildings come "back" using a zoom lens! -- but doesn't show any evidence to back up their boat hull claim), but you have failed to show how that works in fact. All anyone can come up with is enlarged images of a far-away vessel, but as the vessel gradually disappears from the bottom upwards, no amount of magnification can make the vessel appear as it had been before it started to vanish behind the earth's curvature.
.
This video is a 29-part litany of falsehood. Each part is labeled "Proof" of this or that, but not one shred of evidence is provided, anywhere. It's all a pack of lies. Amazing anyone would pay attention! A fool is born every minute, I guess.
.
Found in the comments section below it on its YouTube page, are summaries of the hundreds of the video's erroneous statements.
.

Then there were the guys who sailed across lake Michigan towards Chicago, keeping the camera on it the entire time and proving that the sight of the city from 40+ miles out was NOT a mirage nor some kind of refraction.

.
Now you're going to mix videos? What, the 29 sections of this one aren't enough for you? What guys?
.
Would those be "the guys" who made such a big deal of using a drone to take pictures of Chicago from out over the lake and then couldn't get the drone to download its memory stick? Those losers?

.
Mr. Chicken has lost his touch.

Excellent video!

I liked the part about very little life in the south.

Because the sun is too far.

Certainly the most compelling evidence in favor of flat earth is how we can see things from much father away than curvature math would allow.  And the typical response is that it's a mirage or it's refraction.  That's why I haven't been able to be 100% sure of flat earth.  But the one guy had his video trained on Chicago for 40 miles out across Lake Michigan and kept it in view the entire time, positively ruling out refraction/mirage.  Now, unless he completely faked the experience, that kind of thing is compelling evidence.  I found the longer video to which this referred briefly.

Minute 57 of the video, which you find "compelling," shows the same effect posted for your assessment (which you did not reply to), namely, what happens when you don't use a solar filter. This footage at min. 57 is showing the sun setting without use of a solar filter. The author doesn't like the fact that solar filters block out the sun glare (glare makes the sun appear larger when it's not), giving you the accurate size of the sun high in the sky, which is the same diameter as what it has while setting.

Despite the fact that you are acting like a baby here, I will not let that judgment of mine ignore what you just wrote here.  Unlike yourself, I am capable of remaining objective.  I will take this point under consideration and will investigate further.

By the way, Neil, I'm not afraid of anyone on a forum, much less the likes of you.  I simply find it incredibly distasteful to deal with an emotional trainwreck like yourself.  None of your rant is worth dignifying with a response, much less to take the time to do it.  I'll look for a more credible and objective proponent of globe earth when seeking resolution on this issue.

.
No, the problem you're having is you can't answer the questions.
So you run and hide behind excuses, while you hurl ad hominems to see what sticks. 
You can't stand up to the heat, so it's best you get out of the kitchen.
.
Prove me wrong by showing how you can make the sun come "back" AFTER it sets.
If you find it so "compelling" that a zoom lens (you say) brings a ship "back" from over the horizon, then do it with the sun! 
.
I'll check back in a month. 
Or, I'll check to find no answer from Mr. "I'm very good at shredding bad arguments to pieces" Ladislaus.
.

Neil , shouldn't you be outside measuring the angle of the moon or something??