Hmmm, makes too much sense to me!!

Top Flat Earth Proofs May 2016 by GLOBEBUSTERS

Top Flat Earth Proofs May 2016 by GLOBEBUSTERS

Interesting.  Though, I noted that they are making a fairly common mistake concerning edge velocity.  They are assuming that the forces working on a round object and a spherical object are the same.  Assuming that the base materials strength is equal, a spherical object can withstand several orders of magnitude worth of stress more then an object that is simply in a circular configuration. Materials strength seems to be completely ignored for their first example proof.  As for feeling the speed at which the planet is moving...That is entirely dependent on the opposed forces in operation.  So if you are moving at 40 mph, and then change to a stop, if this change happens over the course of 1 second you'd certainly feel it.  However, if it happened over the course of 5 minutes, you wouldn't notice a thing.  He keeps stressing that there is only 1 factor involved in all of this, and that is more then a little nieve.   

Top Flat Earth Proofs May 2016 by GLOBEBUSTERS

Each little point is easy to rebuff, but to go through it all is too much of a marathon effort.

Top Flat Earth Proofs May 2016 by GLOBEBUSTERS

If there's something sphere, and it don't look good, who you gonna call, GLOBEBUSTERS, da na na na na na, nananananana.

Top Flat Earth Proofs May 2016 by GLOBEBUSTERS

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Hey everyone, look what someone somewhere said.

Can someone sum up the points of this video?

Can someone sum up the points of this video?

Basically,
1.  The earth is too large to be a spinning spheroid without destroying itself.

2. Lack of observable curvature from an unassisted human viewing range is proof that there is no curvature.

Those seemed to be their primary points, though they jumped around through several minor points.  Like there apparently was some issue with the method they wanted to use for determining observable curvature and the more widely used geodesic method. 

The issues are that they seem to only consider the elements that support their view point, and ignore all the others.  Like I explained up above.

Can someone sum up the points of this video?

Someone too lazy to make their own points, IMO!


(edit)

This sounds like I am calling you lazy, doesn't it? I am not calling you lazy 

Well, I do confess being lazy most times 
But for me to watch a 3 hour video, this video needs to be interesting. The first 5 minutes did not convince me