What pictures or videos do FE'ers consider credible.

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

Shouldn't it though?

Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

What is it you expect to see on the moon since nobody has been there?

Ive just read through the entirety of this thread since I last posted here, and I'd like to thank EarthIsASpaceship for providing numerous examples of fallacies of logic, ignorance of basic geophysics and astrophysics, and a plethora of "factoids" that illustrate precisely why the flat earth fraternity has so much difficulty accepting the proven realities of an oblate spheroid earth geometry, and the actualisation of human space travel.

EarthIsASpaceship bases his entire argument on his allegation that every photographic image posted by round earthers (which to most rational people prove unequivocally that the planet is spherical and man has landed on the moon) is bogus or manipulated, or fails to truly represent what it claims to.

At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task.  In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.

Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat.  Unquestionably and irrefutably.

And for that reason alone, his views on geophysics are likely to be totally at odds with the entire scientific community and the vast majority of the planet's lay population.  The only other people in agreement with his beliefs will be the other 299 flat earthers that accept this bizarre theory themselves.
 

I sure love the way your write. I wish a had that talent. Well said!

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

So your mind is so singularly closed that you absolutely refuse to even consider any new or more convincing evidence placed before you?  You make up your mind relying purely on your "senses" and never alter it regardless?  And even worse, you completely dismiss any further evidence as being intrinsically bogus, simply because your mind is made up?

What a sad, shallow, uninteresting life you must lead in this age of scientific advancement, when major and exciting new discoveries are being made almost literally every day.

Are you not the slightest bit concerned that you share exactly the same planetary theories as those of some pseudo-scientific nonentity who lectured the gullible hoi-polloi in sideshow tents 150 years ago?  If not, you should be.
 

Explain to me how the astronauts on the moon can have their solar shield up on their helmet.  I need hard evidence.

What kind of "hard evidence" do you expect to get on an internet forum?  Would it do any good to point out that the manned lunar missions occurred when the sun was low in the lunar sky so as not to get the full intensity of the sun?  Do you you need reminding that the human eye has a neat little feature called an iris which can grow or shrink to allow more or less light into the eye?  Do you realize that sunlight is highly directional and if the astronaut is not directly facing the sun, then he can get away with having the sun shield up for a while?  Have you, or anyone you know, ever gone blind by taking off sunglasses on a bright sunny day?  Why should it be any different on the moon?

Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".

I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.

Quote from: Starman on March 29, 2014, 12:26:41 PM

Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".

I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.

ELINT: I don't see anything in your video to suggest that it's not a real panorama, and it's starkly beautiful, thank you for sharing it. I'm sure some people have mistakenly accused it of being fraudulent, but I can't see how or why someone should fake this landscape, especially considering the plethora of photos like this available online, on TV, in books and magazines.

However, the issue lies not in the authenticity of your video, but it's perspective - the images we are discussing are images taken hundreds of miles above the earth's surface, and in the case of the lunar orbit pictures, hundreds of thousands of miles. Your video isn't shot from a position where you can make any definitive statements about the earth's curvature because the curvature is so slight from ground level, what it can say is that it is possible the earth is flat, but otherwise, you can't say anything else with it.

And let me qualify my statement that the panorama can tell us it is possible the earth is flat - in measurement, there are always degrees of precision to be concerned with, and if your precision is too low, you will not be able to resolve differences between different measurements. An example from my profession is this: if I'm testing a new drug for toxicity on a petri dish of cells and the dose of the drug I give these cells kills 10% of them, this would be a big problem. But, if the device I use to automatically count the number of live cells in a dish can only count within an accuracy of 10,000 cells and I started out within only 50,000 cells in the dish with the drug killing 10% (5,000) of the cells, the machine will very likely report that I had the same number of cells as I started with, but it would be inappropriate to conclude that no cells died! Even though it is possible that no cells died based of this measurement. If I increased my sample size to 200,000 cells, then the machine can give me a more accurate readout of the drug's toxicity (which would have killed 20,000 cells this time). By increasing the sample size of my experiment, I can increase the accuracy of my measurements; the same thing applies to viewing the curvature of the earth. The video you posted can only show a very tiny fraction of the curvature of the earth, far too small to be detected; but by capturing images from much further away from the surface, we can see more of the earth's surface, giving us the precision needed to measure its curvature.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on April 17, 2014, 04:47:13 PM

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

So your mind is so singularly closed that you absolutely refuse to even consider any new or more convincing evidence placed before you?  You make up your mind relying purely on your "senses" and never alter it regardless?  And even worse, you completely dismiss any further evidence as being intrinsically bogus, simply because your mind is made up?

What a sad, shallow, uninteresting life you must lead in this age of scientific advancement, when major and exciting new discoveries are being made almost literally every day.

Are you not the slightest bit concerned that you share exactly the same planetary theories as those of some pseudo-scientific nonentity who lectured the gullible hoi-polloi in sideshow tents 150 years ago?  If not, you should be.

Kind of like how nothing can change Kem Ham's mind... Really sad...

Quote from: Starman on March 29, 2014, 12:26:41 PM

Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".

I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.

*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...

Quote from: Starman on March 29, 2014, 12:26:41 PM

Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".

I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.

*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...
[/quote]

Donk3y: I have to disagree with you, the panorama video can't prove anything one way or another, see my post above.

Quote from: ELINT on April 17, 2014, 11:21:40 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 29, 2014, 12:26:41 PM

Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".

I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.

*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...

Donk3y: I have to disagree with you, the panorama video can't prove anything one way or another, see my post above.
[/quote]

Well, take a look at minute ~2:22, you can see that there aren't hills everywhere, and you can see the horizon at sea level. You can also notice that the light isn't gradually going dimmer towards the horizon, so logically the horizon is the point of curvature where you cannot see further. If the earth were flat, apart form the light being gradually dimmer towards the horizon, and getting gradually darker towards the horizon, you would have to see further still.

Quote from: TheodorusOfSamos on April 18, 2014, 06:39:35 AM

Quote from: ELINT on April 17, 2014, 11:21:40 PM

Quote from: Starman on March 29, 2014, 12:26:41 PM

Most RE'ers have no problem evaluation pictures or videos of different information as having value or creditability. Now the FE'ers seem to have a strong conspiracy attitude or all pictures are videos are fake or Photoshopped. I will not mention names but some will deny "ALL" pictures or videos. To these people at what point are they reasonable or just denialists. Here is a stating point and my question:"Scepti did the July 7 2005 London Bombing happen".

I've posted a video of the flat Earth and been told ' it's not real'. Salt Lake Uyuni ~The place of most close to heaven~ on Vimeo The reflection is from a thin layer of water over the salt FLAT.

*facepalm* that "lake" proves the earth round not flat...

Donk3y: I have to disagree with you, the panorama video can't prove anything one way or another, see my post above.

Well, take a look at minute ~2:22, you can see that there aren't hills everywhere, and you can see the horizon at sea level. You can also notice that the light isn't gradually going dimmer towards the horizon, so logically the horizon is the point of curvature where you cannot see further. If the earth were flat, apart form the light being gradually dimmer towards the horizon, and getting gradually darker towards the horizon, you would have to see further still.
[/quote]
[/quote]

What I mean is that if we stay within the confines of ELINT's post, that the panorama can show a flat earth surface and straight horizon, then there isn't enough precision in the measurement to accurately assess the straightens/curvature of the horizon. But I do see what you mean, I just didn't want to get off on a different debate.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on April 17, 2014, 04:47:13 PM

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

Shouldn't it though?

Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?

No because they look fake.  No amount of logical explanation is going to change what my senses perceive.  Just like seeing a man walk on the moon on tv is not going to change your mind about a man walking on the moon.  I believe what I interpret as real and what is not real.  And so do you.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 17, 2014, 05:19:53 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on April 17, 2014, 04:47:13 PM

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

Shouldn't it though?

Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?

No because they look fake.  No amount of logical explanation is going to change what my senses perceive.  Just like seeing a man walk on the moon on tv is not going to change your mind about a man walking on the moon.  I believe what I interpret as real and what is not real.  And so do you.

But if your senses are shown to be mistaken, shouldn't your logic take over?

Saying you trust ONLY your senses and not your reason and intellect is to say you reject reality.

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 17, 2014, 05:19:53 PM

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on April 17, 2014, 04:47:13 PM

Well Theo, I cannot argue with any of that.  It looks as though all I have is my senses and although our senses aren't always trustworthy, we can sure agree they are important and practical.  I'd hate to lose any of mine!  I'm still not convinced the images are real but it really makes no difference one way or the other what I think.

Shouldn't it though?

Shouldn't you have an open enough mind to change what you think based on new information?

No because they look fake.  No amount of logical explanation is going to change what my senses perceive.  Just like seeing a man walk on the moon on tv is not going to change your mind about a man walking on the moon.  I believe what I interpret as real and what is not real.  And so do you.

You have to go past the TV videos. Think of all the thousands of people involved in the 10 year project. You can't conceive in your mind the possibility it is true. Think of the progress of cars, airplanes, ships, trains, computers, and medicine and you stop at space science. Why do you do that?

At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task.  In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.

Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat.  Unquestionably and irrefutably.

Leave it to you to summarize a person's entire personality in a few paragraphs.  You analyze people like you're so perfect and almighty.  Get over yourself man.  Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth.  The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus.  I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules.  That is exactly the case in this situation.  Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS.  That's not enough.  You lose.

Why should it be any different on the moon?

Uh, no atmosphere to filter out the radiation. 

But if your senses are shown to be mistaken, shouldn't your logic take over?

Saying you trust ONLY your senses and not your reason and intellect is to say you reject reality.

My senses have not been shown to be mistaken in this case.  For you to accept what you see on tv is not reality.  It's as if you don't even acknowledge the possibility of deceit. Considering what was going on in our world/gvt. in the 60s, it's naïve to think there wasn't any deceit going on.  Just because the majority of people are fooled by something does not mean something is real.  It means the majority of people are fools.

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 17, 2014, 07:30:23 PM

At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task.  In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.

Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat.  Unquestionably and irrefutably.

Leave it to you to summarize a person's entire personality in a few paragraphs.  You analyze people like you're so perfect and almighty.  Get over yourself man.  Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth.  The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus.  I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules.  That is exactly the case in this situation.  Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS.  That's not enough.  You lose.

Why do you not understand space travel or satellites? You have seen advanced is cars, airplanes, ships and why not space science? What is the problem you have with that?

Quote from: Socratic Amusement on April 18, 2014, 07:17:26 AM

But if your senses are shown to be mistaken, shouldn't your logic take over?

Saying you trust ONLY your senses and not your reason and intellect is to say you reject reality.

My senses have not been shown to be mistaken in this case.  For you to accept what you see on tv is not reality.  It's as if you don't even acknowledge the possibility of deceit. Considering what was going on in our world/gvt. in the 60s, it's naïve to think there wasn't any deceit going on.  Just because the majority of people are fooled by something does not mean something is real.  It means the majority of people are fools.

I do acknowledge a possibility of deceit, and I always have.

But, as I have said already, there have been five decades of people rabidly try and failing to debunk the Apollo missions, and they have all failed. And there is a mountain of third party evidence to confirm the original claim.

In the real world, we call that having met the burden of proof.

Quote from: ausGeoff on April 17, 2014, 07:30:23 PM

At the same time, he's unable to provide one piece of evidence at all to support his opposing claims about these images, other than simply saying digital image manipulation is a now-common and simple task.  In many ways, EarthIsASpaceship is one of your classic conspiracy theorists (which of course he'll undoubtedly deny—as they all do!) who for some perverse reason known only to themselves refuse to accept the most logical reason that there's absolutely no advantage to be gained by scientists the world over "pretending" to have carried out all these astrophysical experiments over the last forty years.

Of course the most confounding factor is that EarthIsASpaceship sincerely believes that the earth is flat.  Unquestionably and irrefutably.

Leave it to you to summarize a person's entire personality in a few paragraphs.  You analyze people like you're so perfect and almighty.  Get over yourself man.  Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth.  The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus.  I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules.  That is exactly the case in this situation.  Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS.  That's not enough.  You lose.

This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...

This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...

You're the retard.  You can't comment even once without a personal attack.  BTW electrons don't exist.  Only the lines of force. Look it up.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 18, 2014, 07:54:18 AM

This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...

You're the retard.  You can't comment even once without a personal attack.  BTW electrons don't exist.  Only the lines of force. Look it up.

Stick your tongue on a 9 volt battery and you will feel it.

Quote from: Donk3y on April 18, 2014, 07:54:18 AM

This is THE MOST flat out stupid type of reasoning I have EVER heard...
By this retarded logic, electrons, protons, neutrons, and even atoms don't exist...
DNA also doesn't exist since only a few people ever got to see a full DNA molecule...

You're the retard.  You can't comment even once without a personal attack.  BTW electrons don't exist.  Only the lines of force. Look it up.

It wasn't a personal attack, it was an attack on your illogical rationalization, like the following:
"BTW electrons don't exist.  Only the lines of force. Look it up."
Yet again, this is ONE OF THE STUPIDEST THINGS SOMEBODY EVER WROTE! I swear you have some kind of innate talent!

Wanna know how a personal attack looks like? Read the part in green...

Let's all stop with the personal attacks or the bam hammer will start swinging. 

Like I've said before, for all intents and purposes THE EARTH LOOKS FLAT from a human's perspective on Earth.

Like most flat earthers, you place far too much stead on what the human eye can perceive and how that perception is interpreted.  You may know that the Greek architects and stonemasons deliberately inbuilt a permanent positive camber into all the beams spanning the columns in their temples.  It was to deceive the observer into thinking the beam was horizontal, as any long straight beam LOOKS to be "sagging" to the average human eye.  So... what "looks" to be and what "is" can be two totally different things.

The majority of mankind has never, and will never, see the Earth from hundreds of miles in space so your so called evidence is bogus.

I'm assuming that you, personally, have never seen a bacterium, or a photon, or an oxygen molecule, but you're more than happy to accept their existence.  Why the double standard?  To claim that because one cannot physically see something and therefore its existence is "bogus" is very childlike reasoning.  (And less than what I would've expected from you as an argument.)

I say if a certain percentage of people haven't actually experienced something, then the majority rules.

This is such a nonsensical argument I can't believe you've posted it!  I've never sky-dived, but people who have told me they reached terminal velocity before opening their parachutes.  As one of the majority who've never sky-dived, I'd be a fool to claim that they were lying.  With you logic though, I'd be correct and they'd be wrong LOL.

That is exactly the case in this situation.  Only 530 (or so) people have been to space out of BILLIONS.  That's not enough.  You lose.

Oh dear. Only 300 (or so) people belive the earth is flat out of BILLIONS.  That's not enough.  I win.  By 230 people.

Sorry.

First of all, you do not know how many people think the Earth is flat.  You're just counting the members of the FES.  I'm not a member and I think it's flat.  And you're excluding people who's opinions aren't even known.

Second of all, you should take your own advice when considering what you perceive with your eyes.  That ship on the horizon may appear to "go down" on the horizon but it could be an illusion.   And in fact, it is because there is another explanation for it.

As far as experience, the reason I accept things to be true is because of the numerous people who have also experienced it, even if I haven't.  Only a very few have been to the moon.  The odds are not in their favor.  In other words, they have not EARNED the trust.  I'm sorry, that's just how I see it.  Now as far as the comment I made about the astronauts, I need to clarify something....I think it's quite possible they actually believe they are in space, even though they are still on Earth.  I don't think the ISS is really what it's portrayed to be.  I've discussed that on another thread so I'm not going to get into it again.

First of all, you do not know how many people think the Earth is flat.  You're just counting the members of the FES.  I'm not a member and I think it's flat.  And you're excluding people who's opinions aren't even known.

Second of all, you should take your own advice when considering what you perceive with your eyes.  That ship on the horizon may appear to "go down" on the horizon but it could be an illusion.   And in fact, it is because there is another explanation for it.

As far as experience, the reason I accept things to be true is because of the numerous people who have also experienced it, even if I haven't.  Only a very few have been to the moon.  The odds are not in their favor.  In other words, they have not EARNED the trust.  I'm sorry, that's just how I see it.  Now as far as the comment I made about the astronauts, I need to clarify something....I think it's quite possible they actually believe they are in space, even though they are still on Earth.  I don't think the ISS is really what it's portrayed to be.  I've discussed that on another thread so I'm not going to get into it again.

Does this mean there is another explanation for the sun setting across the world and satellite TV?

First of all, you do not know how many people think the Earth is flat.  You're just counting the members of the FES.  I'm not a member and I think it's flat.  And you're excluding people who's opinions aren't even known.

I agree wholeheartedly;  I have absolutely no idea of how many people believe the earth is flat.  Therefore, can you please give me your estimate.

Second of all, you should take your own advice when considering what you perceive with your eyes.  That ship on the horizon may appear to "go down" on the horizon but it could be an illusion.   And in fact, it is because there is another explanation for it.

You're correct of course.  The "sinking ship" phenomenon could be an optical illusion.  But it's been proven by replicable geophysical theorems about the planet, and simple high-school geometry not to be.  The practical observations of the ship match precisely with the proposed predictions made by mathematical theory—considering the earth to be spherical. 

There's far too many proven optical theories dismissed by flat earthers as simply "illusions", and which in reality is an all-too-easy cop-out.

As far as experience, the reason I accept things to be true is because of the numerous people who have also experienced it, even if I haven't.  Only a very few have been to the moon.  The odds are not in their favor.  In other words, they have not EARNED the trust.

So if I'm reading this correctly, you're claiming that every one of those 533 people who've viewed the planet from earth-orbit altitude, and the 12 astronauts who've walked on the moon are all lying?  Bearing in mind that they come from around 20 different countries (with often opposing politico-military leanings)?  For what specific purposes would they be (allegedly) lying about the geometry of the planet?

I'm sorry, that's just how I see it.  Now as far as the comment I made about the astronauts, I need to clarify something....I think it's quite possible they actually believe they are in space [...]

So you have no viable evidence to support this bizarre claim—other than you "think" it's "possible" that they "believe" they're in space?  Doesn't sound too scientific when you read it back does it?  More so when you consider NASA's collection of moon rocks brought back to earth by various missions, and which have totally different chemical compositions to any to rocks found on earth (and thereby refuting in advance any claims made of fraud).

Or do you personally claim that these moon rocks are fraudulent, or were sourced on earth and NASA is lying (again!) about their origins and/or composition?