As for the:
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.htmlThis is too much to reply on. But I'll take some.
A lot of these issues are categorizable. Some arguments fall in multiple categories. Here are some examples of categories:
A) There is no curvature visible (1, 2, 6, 10 ...)
B) Water is not spilled across the curvatur of the earth. It just goes from high to low, as expected on a flats surface (3,4,5,6, ...)
C) Constructions do not take the curvature of the earth into account (7,8,9,10,11,12,...)
D) a light/object was placed at very large distance and was still seen from very far away (13, 14, ...)
E) Experiments related to starlight: (16, 17).
F) Flight routes (43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48)
G) You should not be able to see wales from the coast of Ilse of man, if the earth was curved (67)
Just to take some examples... I don't have time to reply to everything.
Just to reply to these examples:
A) See
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64300.msg1712223#msg1712223B) The water is attracted "downward". Which is "towards the center of the earth". Which makes the water follow a curved path. We don't notice, because we are also attracted to that same point. The "lowest point" is always the point that is nearest to the center of the earth. So water always flows from high (large radius) to low (small radius).
C) Constructions are usually too small to take the curvature of the earth into account. Even the Suez canal consists of multiple constructions, which are individually very small relative to the size of the earth.
Large constructions, like railroads, do follow the curvature of the earth. You don't notice that, because the curvature is very slight. The ones who build it also don't notice that, as they receive coordinates from designers, who use projected systems, that already take the curvature into account.
I recently made a simple calculation that could tile the Dutch "rijksdriehoekstelsel" into squares of 2km x 2km. At that size, I measured the maximum error was 80 cm, relative to a round earth. So constructors of the largest bridges in the world do have to deal with very slight lenght differences due to the curvature. And they do. However, that is hardly noticable, as these bridges are usually made of components of, say, 20 meters long. That means that every component needs to be (for example) 19.99 meters long, in stead of 20 meters, to account for the curvature of the earth.
With the Nord Stream pipeline for example, the designers had to use (and convert between) 3 coordinate systems: WGS84 UTM33, UTM34 and UTM35. Thanks to conversion techniques, constructors don't notice these curvatures. They just follow the coordinates handed to them by the designers.
D) Well, that's easilly falsified, as we see ships disappearing behind the horizon. Just place a light on top of a ship mast, and measure again. I don't know what these scientists saw a couple of centuries ago, but it wasn't that light.
E) This is a completely different subject.
F) Let's take some examples "THESE ROUTES DO NOT EXIST!" (related to some routes across Antarctica). Usually routes don't exist because there are not enough people using them. There are routes from Sidney to Santiago (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route) for example. Depending on the wind these routes pass Antarctica.
Also, there ARE direct flights from Johannesburg to Buenos Aires. (
http://www.southafrica.to/transport/Airlines/cheap-flights-from-South-Africa/Argentina/flights-to-Argentina.php#Johannesburg)
The indirect routes are sometimes very far off. But that also has to do with how many people use these lines. If you would travel from Den Helder to Leeuwarden by train, you would have to travel through Amsterdam. That is ridicules. But there is simply not enough economical benefit to make a line from Den Helder to Leeuwarden directly. The same applies for flight routes.
The fact that there are direct lines falsify the FE claims of all the direct lines that are not used.
G) this one is just an example to show bad calculation. With the distance of 60 miles (96 km), if you stand on a hill that is 170 meter high, you could see another hill of 170 meter at the other side. If you stand on the ground, you could see a hill of 700 meter high on the other side.