Aside from the obvious point already made (that the "smaller" scale of the horizon showing curvature of the earth), your statement is literally not true. Frequently in fact, we have in the course of human history lacked the technology to view things at "smaller" scales.

Beyond that, a straightforward way of perhaps recognizing that this particular point of yours isn't very strong:

Think about a slight but constant curve drawn on a piece of paper, something like this:



Now, cover up all but a very very small part of it with your hands.

Note that it looks like a straight line.

The surface of the water that reflects your face is just like that, except zoomed way way way way way farther in so it's even more approximate to a straight line.

I'm sure that if you ever took calculus you've by this point disavowed it as garbage, but this is the same as approximating (hyper locally) a curve with its tangent line.

This was debunked pages ago. Our eyes can only see so far. Unless cameras can zoom along the earth's curvature... which i thought was too incredibly big anyways?

You guys have a conflict here... You're saying that you can SEE THINGS DISAPPEAR WITH YOUR OWN EYES ERGO BALL, while at the SAME TIME you say we can't see or measure curvature on a small scale because "COVER UP PART OF THIS CIRCLE"

Right, but we know there is some 6 feet of DNA in each microscopic cell. We can measure and observe things on an incredibly minute scale...

BUT NOT CURVATURE? i wonder why.

BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY

Solar Eclipse in FE model, WAY easier to comprehend, no reverse motion, no "umbra" pseudo-scientific jargon necessary.

Eyes ergo ball...

Moo,
How come if I stand in the same exact spot, at the same exact time of day, my shadow can be different lengths and form at different angles depending on the time of year?

EDIT: Moo,

Why reference YouTube? Of all of the places you might collect information from, why lean so heavily on a source that (by design) is mostly unfiltered content, submitted by anybody, and open to everybody?

I suspect it's laziness combined with a need for a passive, easy-to-absorb format for learning, but if there's a good reason I'm overlooking I'd be interested to know what it is.

[X] Confirmation Bias

Sorry about that, I meant to address Moo directly. And with FE in particular I would guess that this wasn't something he brought to the table initially, but something he stumbled on and was persuaded into which later led to having a bias to confirm. Purely guessing it was YT but either way would like to know what his take is.

May have mentioned earlier but I know a real-life flat-Earther. Can't vouch for how legit people are ITT but the person in question is the real deal.

Missed this one.

This shows the eclipse being a complete black out. Not a point (like what actually happens).

Earth spinning in two different directions. That's pretty funny. The magic that's involved in making that happen...

Bigot's trolling is so weak now. I'm so sad. This thread used to be great.

Debunk harder, globers... You can't just hand wave all the evidence in this thread and then talk about confirmation bias on our side.

Okay...

The globe looks like it's spinning the opposite way because it's looked at upside down from the previous shot.

Hold a spinning basketball in front of you. Now turn your head upside down. It's not a magical basketball.

You have no model. If you did, you'd be able to predict the when and where of the next eclipse.

All you need to debunk yourself is some powerful binoculars or a rifle scope.

That moment when you realize the giants and titans of an earlier time actually existed and were turned to stone.

Bigot is running out of material.

Flat-Earth-YooHooToobz-Hard-Proof-Vid availability has flattened obv.

All the questions have been answered, you guys are still trying to explain how water curves. 'gravity' lol

The fossilized pics and videos are undeniable.

I can't remember anything about giants at all, nevermind them turning to stone, in the Bible. Are you just mixing fairy tales at random now? Seems inconsistent since you've used the Bible as "proof" for the earth being flat.

How will the discussion ever end if your response to a logical, proven, testable, simple explanation is dismissed with 'gravity' lol.

owster, you give me those quotes where I point to biblical flat earth proof