Y'know... I came to the FE with a VERY open mind. After 100+ hours of looking into it, not only did I see that NASA conceived of the psyop to distract Us from considering other reasons They lie and fake things (like hiding the secret space program, maybe?) but I made these observations:
First, the north-centric model (Dubay, et al) is flat wrong - it would have the stars in the "south" whipping by at a fair clip in nearly straight lines, with different stars seen from different southern points. But the stars in the south circle around a point (no major star there) mirroring the behavior of those in the north, always due south from wherever One can see it (anywhere in the southern hemisphere). See: watch?v=dsz6yKDrCHM if You think those southern stars are projected into the sky.
Second, on a flat plain, when going upward, once You get above things that block the view, You would see all You can see. Going up further will show no more. But when We go upwards, We see more and more of the planet, exactly like One would going up from the surface of a ball.
Third, the flat earth "movement" is RIFE with disingenuous arguments - ignoring scale, gravity, optics, friction, refraction, AND misstating distances to "prove" flatness. WHY does the truth need even ONE disingenuous argument?
Fourth, though the flat earth proponents have said that if You get a stronger instrument, it will bring ships back into view that sank, hull to crows nest, at the horizon, I have watched ships sink with binoculars and then switched to a fairly powerful telescope - and nope. It does NOT bring them back into view. Once sunk, They cannot be seen, and so... There are People out there LYING to prove the flat earth. WHY would the truth need even ONE lie?
Fifth, the fact that, for aeons, sailors have been calculating latitude in the northern hemisphere by the position of Polaris, with a direct correlation between latitude and degrees above the horizon, proves a globe. This ONLY works on a globe. When Polaris is at the horizon (something that cannot happen on a pancake), One is at the equator (0º), when it is 45º up from the horizon, One is at the 45th parallel...
Sixth, on a globe, eclipses can be predicted, the movements of the planets can be predicted, the seasons explained, the zodiacal progression, the phases of the moon, and other things the flat idea has nothing to offer for.
As for some of the disingenuous arguments for the pancake... I'll give You four. I have seen People pouring water on a ball to "prove" water doesn't "stick to a ball," ignoring the planet-sized gravity well immediately adjacent pulling the water OFF the ball. I have seen People spinning balls on the floor to "prove" a ball will not keep spinning, ignoring the friction of the ball on the floor. I have seen People point to a glass of water saying, "Look! It's FLAT!" As if, at that small a fraction of a single degree of arc (4" is 0.00009% of 1º of arc), We would see the hump in the middle a few MOLECULES high by eyeballing the glass. And They use curvature calculations to determine "how far below the horizon" something should be, when line-of-sight calculations are what should be used.
So. The FE needs disingenuous arguments and lies - and has NO model that explains what We see. The globe needs NONE of those arguments - and has a model that explains what We see perfectly, simply, and elegantly. Which model has the highest probability of being correct?
Good job of evading My points. Typical of the weak with nothing behind Their words. Other tools the weak use are rudeness, insult, false accusations, and ad hominem. I do recommend avoiding such behavior lest You be seen as weak with nothing to say...
You're just proving his points Lasse. 1. Your video proves that the FE guy who made it is disingenuous, as he said, and 2. Your video actually proves that the Earth is round.
1
The guy who made that video must have watched the original source material (he even gives it up as a source in the title and description). There, everyone can see that they use a fish-eye lens and that the Earth appears round whenever the horizon is at the centre like below. (The full playlist of the original material can be found here)
So why would he, on purpose, cheery pick the part of the video where the horizon is below the centre of the frame and thus distorted the way he wants it to be? (PS, if you use a ruler at different points in the video you linked, you can even spot a slight upwards curve, proving its distortion). This just goes to show what @amaterasusolar said, that the people who make these videos are disingenuous and dishonest. Or just desperate to believe what they want to believe.
2
Now that we know the video is shot with a fish-eye lens (which is normaI for high altitude footage) we can take that into account when looking at the image. If you really care about the truth, then you'll do some research into how fish-eye lenses work. Long story short: The centre of a picture taken with such a lens remains mostly the same. The lower parts at the centre concave more down, while the upper centre parts concave more up. If the Earth was indeed round, we would therefore expect it to appear flat when the horizon is slightly below the centre. Oh wait, it is EXACTLY that in your video! Your video displays the Earth just how we would expect it to be if curvature did exist.
So let's take a screen shot of when the horizon actually is at the centre:
There you go!
Please find me ONE video where the ENTIRE flight is captured where it shows no curvature also when the horizon is at the CENTRE of the image. Only then will you have any form of evidence to back your claim.
It long ago became clear to me that seemingly intelligent people (able to spell 'cat', 'dog', and 'run') that propound FE are either trolls, or disinfo agents.
The mendacity and disingenuity is so glaringly obvious that such folks cannot be incapable of knowing they are doing it.
It is so easy to prove that the Earth is a globe that FE cannot be other than an amusing diversion for trolls. All you need is a stick and a sunny day.