My thanks to members of Farsight whom have been turning my attention in this direction. I used to really resent flat earth theory, and think they're just an iconic failure in humanity's ability to reason. And if that's the case, then I have fallen in amongst that deluded crowd. My humble apologies for my past, Flat earthers. To those that challenge the theories: your skepticism is warranted. Test the theories yourself, publish them, and you will help the movement anyway. A couple facts to chew on.
See if you can find this on flight logs-
*Auckland to Lima stops in Los Angeles
*Sydney to Lima stops in Los Angeles
*Johannesberg to Wellington stops in Doha
*Sydney to Mexico City stops in Los Angeles
*NZ to Lima stops in Los Angeles
*Auckland to Mexico City stops in Los Angeles
*Argentina to India stops in Amsterdam
All of these flights on a globe make a long inefficient path in almost opposite directions. But on a flat earth map are near straight lines.
Furthermore the NikonP1000 is doing for Flat Earthers what the GH6 is doing for Farsight. It zooms in at a distance that you can no longer explain the curvature of the Earth when the objects at its greatest distance are not showing any downward curve. Point them at the stars and you will soon see watery waves washing over the light as though we're under some watery firmament. This theory doesn't match up with our modern space programs but it sure matches up with piles and piles of ancient books and sacred text.
If you want something a little more tangible, just look at the rocket launches and their flight paths. There is virtually nothing that shows an unbroken flight. It either flies up, and then stops recording, or switches to CGI. When the rockets do seem to traverse a little extra far, you see the kind of resistance that happens with water. Famous quotes from NASA: "We lost the technology" and "It's fake because it has to be."
Here's another tangible example of a local manufactured sun. All the real imagery taken from amateur cameras shows the sun to be a smooth sphere, not the big rumbling fireball that astronomers depict. Even take a look on a smoky day. Nothing but smooth circle. The solar light through the clouds is very convex. How could something so far away shine so convex?
In almost all the remote viewings zoomed out there's a curved planetary surface. In all of Courtney's accounts of the planet we're on, he talks about the volatility of it and the thin layer of crust shielding the magma. But I also remember a phrase from Bill which basically went "Nothing we're taught is true." and he went on about it, with how twisted our conventional knowledge is.
Basically I'm at the precipice that something needs to get aggressively debunked.
*Either - the globe model we've been given (and it's not that we can't be on a globe. We could be in a dome of a much bigger sphere, or a space station that happens to be a dome-covered disc when a lot of planets are spherical)
*Or - the flat earth stuff.
I'm happy to entertain either one. I like aggressive debunkers, no matter what angle you're choosing. The "hit and run" skeptics are not real skeptics. They just say some ridiculous piece and run away. But I have no problem with someone telling me "this is why you're an idiot" and staying for the argument.
I don't want to spend a lot of time on this angle, but if I'm going to question everything, this is one of those things.