Ok then, what is "proof positive?" There are photographs ("clearly faked"), mathematical proofs ("just a bunch of numbers"), experiments ("we got experiments too, y'know"), visual observations ("got a convenient explanation that makes no sense"), airline flights ("faked"), and about 500 years of knowledge ("brainwashing"). Whenever anyone offers proof (or at least pretty convincing evidence) of the earth's spherical nature, someone comes back with some kind of retort on the caliber of cartoon science, for all that I can tell. I've yet to see one argument for FE that isn't groundless, random, or just plain laughable. If you're going to be a maverick in the world of established science you do have the burden of proof and I've yet to see a thing except for an experiment which even I (who have little basis in science) can tell is quite too small a sample. Say the earth were flat, just for the sake of argument. You really should be able to see that sheet's hem at more than six miles, no? Why not attempt to replicate it out in Kansas or Nevada? "Because I don't live there," one might say. Ohhhh. . .yes, serious scientists allllways let such small things as proximity stymie their findings. Hell, artists who have no money at all find ways to travel to new locations to inspire themselves, why is it that people with "something to prove" can't be bothered?