The following quotes are from 100 proofs the Earth is not a Globe
1. The aeronaut can see for himself that Earth is a Plane. The appearance presented to him, even at the highest elevation he has ever attained, is that of a concave surface - this being exactly what is to be expected of a surface that is truly level, since it is the nature of level surfaces to appear to rise to a level with the eye of the observer. This is ocular demonstration and proof that Earth is not a globe.
This is not true, in certain high flying military jets, the Earth's curvature is actually very visible.
2. Whenever experiments have been tried on the surface of standing water, this surface has always been found to be level. If the Earth were a globe, the surface of all standing water would be convex. This is an experimental proof that Earth is not a globe.
This is ridiculous, it is true to a certain extent but Earth's curvature is so very slight, you cannot see this convexity in such a small area of water. If you were able to look at an entire sea (from a source FEer's wouldn't say are in on the conspiracy) you would be able to sell said convexity.
3. Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.
They don't need to account for it though the Earth is curved because as I have said, the curvature is slight, and the tracks flexibility will keep it to the ground, a much larger factor would be hills, even in the flatest of areas.
4. There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet - notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's "convexity." It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe.
Excuse me I doubt this is even true, and it doesn't support flat Earth either. It makes no sence for either.
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.
This one is simply untrue, astronomers do not argue that you shouldn't be able to see it. And even if they do, perhaps you are seein the light, which will reflect far out into the ocean, and not the lighthouse itself.
5. The lights which are exhibited in lighthouses are seen by navigators at distances at which, according to the scale of the supposed "curvature" given by astronomers, they ought to be many hundreds of feet, in some cases, down below the line of sight! For instance: the light at Cape Hatteras is seen at such a distance (40 miles) that, according. to theory, it ought to be nine-hundred feet higher above the level of the sea than it absolutely is, in order to be visible! This is a conclusive proof that there is no "curvature," on the surface of the sea - "the level of the sea,"- ridiculous though it is to be under the necessity of proving it at all: but it is, nevertheless, a conclusive proof that the Earth is not a globe.
True, but this is simply because maps are generally more detailed and globes are generally harder to read due to their curvature.
P.S. To Tom, inkább anyád a csalánba húgyozott volna, minthogy téged a világra szart. Look it up it is in Hungarian.
P.P.S. I won't lie the ones in the first ten I did not include just didn't seem to make sense no matter what viewpoint I looked at it from, so don't say that the others must proove it.