What ever you see "overhead" (plane or satellite) is not seeing it "orbit" a globed earth. By that the I mean seeing something, yourself, "orbit" is impossible.
Yet you claim that it is visible evidence that convinces you (flat-earthers) that the Earth is stationary and that the whole universe revolves around it once a day.
A video you posted had the guy who said that long distance shooters had to adjust for the rotation of the earth, the Coriolis effect, that you said was incorrect.
Long distance shooters do have to adjust for it, it's the explanation as to why that isn't correct. It isn't that the bullet suddenly loses the momentum it already had by virtue of having been in motion along with the surface of the Earth. It's a common misunderstanding of the Coriolis effect. It has to do with the preservation of momentum (angular), not the magical loss of it. In either case, the Coriolos effect is absolute proof positive that the Earth is spinning (i.e. not stationary).
The video about the curve over oceans I have countered with video that shows otherwise. Let everyone see both and decide for themselves.
Your video shows cherry-picked examples of atmospheric lensing whereas the one I posted explains why cherry picking is irrational and demonstrates such by showing counter-examples. In other words, the videos you posted present arguments that are dependent upon a phenomenon that often isn't present and that would have to be present every single time for the argument to be valid.
That you think flat earth is debunked and globe earth is actual arguments is your opinion.
No, it isn't. That's the equivalent of you suggesting that my thinking that 2 + 2 = 4 is a matter of opinion.
The arguments have either been debunked or they haven't - no opinions are necessary.
As for the videos you've presented making arguments predicated on atmospheric lensing. The counter-examples showing very clear images of ships disappearing over the horizon from the bottom up without the atmospheric lensing seen in your videos
REFUTE the argument made in the videos you posted by proving the major premise of the video's argument false.
What else does it mean for an argument to be refuted? What more could be done to refute it? Nothing! The argument is either refuted or it's unfalsifiable. In either case, clinging to it is irrational.
The last video I posted directly refutes many of the arguments flat earthers make and does so in several different ways. There are two other videos in that three part series that refute several more arguments. And I do mean that the arguments have been rationally
REFUTED. Clinging to them after watching that video is a matter of belief, not science and not intellectual honesty.
From the earth and from commercial flights everyone experiences and sees a flat stationary earth with straight horizon lines and level oceans. We are being lead to believe it is just the opposite, a spinning globe.
--Dave
It isn't just the opposite. What you see is not in contradiction to a large spherical Earth.
It simply a matter of scale. It works in both directions.
The fact that you can't see germs doesn't mean they don't exist. You have no more reason to believe in atoms, molecules, and bacteria than you have to believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Why do you accept the one and not the other?
In fact, that question can be asked about anything that you haven't discovered to be true by your own personal investigation. Your objections to a round Earth are based on a premise that undermines your ability to know or understand much of anything. Society as a whole can progress to higher and higher feats of discovery and accomplishment because each successive generation is not required to independently verify the knowledge of previous generations. We are all allowed to stand on the shoulders of giants. It's called multiple source, independent verification. All investigation is predicated on it. 2 Corinthians 13:1
Clete
