Are you trying to be obtuse? His point was that if any of these objects are really really large then on the surface they look like a plane at almost any point.
Right. And if you look at a bumble bee it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated wasp.
There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the latter. All that can be inferred from looking at a bumble bee is that it's a bumble bee. Anything else must be proven.
I don't know where to begin with this cloth eared form of reasoning.
Looking at a bumble bee, we assume the observer has criteria for identifying a bumble bee. Likewise there will be similar criteria for identifying a wasp. (Thorax size and shape, head size and shape etc)
Um...
And if you look at a wasp it's possible that it's really just an oddly mutated bumble bee.
There's no evidence what-so-ever to suggest the latter. All that can be inferred from looking at a wasp is that it's a wasp. Anything else must be proven.
How does this strenthen your argument for the shape of the earth?