Is YouTube the key to survival?

Due to the total lack of any scientific evidence to support their beliefs, discredited Victorian experiments aside, the flat earth community have a real problem in providing evidence to support their beliefs. With every scientific journal publishing articles every week that contradict their beliefs they have little option but to resort to relying on various YouTube crackpots to provide something they can cling onto.

The question is "Without YouTube can flat earth beliefs survive the daily onslaught"?

Due to the total lack of any scientific evidence to support their beliefs, discredited Victorian experiments aside, the flat earth community have a real problem in providing evidence to support their beliefs. With every scientific journal publishing articles every week that contradict their beliefs they have little option but to resort to relying on various YouTube crackpots to provide something they can cling onto.

The question is "Without YouTube can flat earth beliefs survive the daily onslaught"?

I label these flat earth YouTube videos as from the High Priests in the Temple of the neo-Flat Earth is Religion.
The ignorance of some of the producers if there videos is apalling, either that or they being totally deceitful.

It seems to be where so many flat earthed get their indoctrination.

Due to the total lack of any scientific evidence to support their beliefs, discredited Victorian experiments aside, the flat earth community have a real problem in providing evidence to support their beliefs. With every scientific journal publishing articles every week that contradict their beliefs they have little option but to resort to relying on various YouTube crackpots to provide something they can cling onto.

The question is "Without YouTube can flat earth beliefs survive the daily onslaught"?

FE needs something like black matter and black energy to explain stuff.
You people seem to eat that shit up like desert.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 15, 2017, 03:02:30 AM

Due to the total lack of any scientific evidence to support their beliefs, discredited Victorian experiments aside, the flat earth community have a real problem in providing evidence to support their beliefs. With every scientific journal publishing articles every week that contradict their beliefs they have little option but to resort to relying on various YouTube crackpots to provide something they can cling onto.

The question is "Without YouTube can flat earth beliefs survive the daily onslaught"?

FE needs something like black matter and black energy to explain stuff.
You people seem to eat that shit up like desert.

Who are 'you people'?

And when it comes to shit eating the FE are the masters as that's all that's ever on the FE menu.

Who are 'you people'?

And when it comes to shit eating the FE are the masters as that's all that's ever on the FE menu.

Going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess "you people" roughly translates to "angry, know-it-all rounders"

Modern scientific journals that you like to point to say 95+% of the universe is undetectable because reasons. That's a problem.

I think I understood that post, but correct me if I'm wrong b-dubya.

And when it comes to shit eating the FE are the masters as that's all that's ever on the FE menu.

Perhaps you should find another restaurant.

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

And you calculated absolutely NONE of this yourself. 

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

And you calculated absolutely NONE of this yourself.

..and you perfected open-heart surgery yourself?

Did you design the computing apparatus you just posted that from?

 The facts still stand.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 15, 2017, 07:30:37 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

And you calculated absolutely NONE of this yourself.

..and you perfected open-heart surgery yourself?

Did you design the computing apparatus you just posted that from?

 The facts still stand.

Do you think you are the only one who has internet access?
Regurgitating stuff you clicked on is AWESOME.

Seriously, you're the first.   

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:44:33 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on July 15, 2017, 07:30:37 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

And you calculated absolutely NONE of this yourself.

..and you perfected open-heart surgery yourself?

Did you design the computing apparatus you just posted that from?

 The facts still stand.

Do you think you are the only one who has internet access?
Regurgitating stuff you clicked on is AWESOME.

Seriously, you're the first.

I learned all this cool stuff long before the internet.

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

Now you are just lying. 

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:29:34 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

Now you are just lying.

I am lying? I just say what I see... and I see pictures which are perfectly round, and I am not the only one seeing it.

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 15, 2017, 08:48:57 AM

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:29:34 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

Now you are just lying.

I am lying? I just say what I see... and I see pictures which are perfectly round, and I am not the only one seeing it.

You should get out your micrometer...

Actually, the difference between equatorial and polar radius is only about 50 kilometers, if I recall correctly. (don't quote me on that).

You certainly wouldn't see that in a photograph.

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 15, 2017, 03:42:28 AM

Who are 'you people'?

And when it comes to shit eating the FE are the masters as that's all that's ever on the FE menu.

Going out on a limb here, but I'm going to guess "you people" roughly translates to "angry, know-it-all rounders"

Modern scientific journals that you like to point to say 95+% of the universe is undetectable because reasons. That's a problem.

I think I understood that post, but correct me if I'm wrong b-dubya.

Why do people who don't subscribe to flat earth belief automatically have to be both, 'know it all' and 'angry'?  its just one of you cheap and silly knee-jerk jibes that mean nothing.

There are lots of things that are unknown and the nature of what makes up the missing stuff of the universe, if it is in fact missing, is just one of them. Not knowing stuff is not a problem while making shit up like all flat earthen do sure is. But trying to imply that science by not knowing everything casts doubt on what it does know, the shape of the earth for example, is an argument beyond silly.
Its like saying because I'm not sure about my way around Rome, I'm no good at finding my way around my home city!

Why do people who don't subscribe to flat earth belief automatically have to be both, 'know it all' and 'angry'?

I ask that question all the time. 

Why do people who don't subscribe to flat earth belief automatically have to be both, 'know it all' and 'angry'?  its just one of you cheap and silly knee-jerk jibes that mean nothing.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a subset?

Negative numbers exist. Not all numbers are negative.

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:57:56 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 15, 2017, 08:48:57 AM

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:29:34 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

Now you are just lying.

I am lying? I just say what I see... and I see pictures which are perfectly round, and I am not the only one seeing it.

You should get out your micrometer...

Actually, the difference between equatorial and polar radius is only about 50 kilometers, if I recall correctly. (don't quote me on that).

You certainly wouldn't see that in a photograph.

Of course you can see it, but you can see stars billions light years away, you know how the universe formed, you know the mass of the planets, but an accurate picture of the earth it's more difficult to see.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

You mean your eyes can't detect that few pixels difference out of a thousand to notice Earth is actually ever so slightly not a circle?

Here is a question for you: In this picture, is the light blue region the circle, or is the dark blue region the edge of the circle?


And if you took away that circle could you really tell the other one wasn't?

Or would you prefer for me to get into the technical details of your screen being physically incapable of showing an actual circle?
This is because it is made of pixels, which are roughly square. So at best you get a bunch of squares which approximates the shape of a circle.

I am lying? I just say what I see... and I see pictures which are perfectly round, and I am not the only one seeing it.

Yes, you are lying.
You aren't saying what you see, you are saying what you perceive and exaggerating your abilities.

You see a shape. It looks roughly circular, so you accept that it is a circle, and then exaggerate claiming it is a perfect circle. I suspect you never even bothered checking.

I have. Every time I did it was a little too fat to be a perfect circle.

If you think there is a picture of Earth, showing it to be a perfect circle, provide it.

Of course you can see it, but you can see stars billions light years away, you know how the universe formed, you know the mass of the planets, but an accurate picture of the earth it's more difficult to see.

You see those stars billions of light years away typically by using tools because your eyes aren't good enough.

What makes you think your eyes are good enough to see the slight imperfection of Earth?

As someone else pointed out, the difference is quite small.
Here are the actual numbers, the equatorial radius is 6378.1 km.
The polar radius is 6356.8 km.
That is a difference of 21.3 km (so him saying the difference was 50 km was likely the diameter).
Now that sounds like a lot, but you are comparing it to the radius of Earth.

What this means is that the equatorial radius is 1.003 times the polar radius. That is a difference of 0.3%.
Are you really going to lie to everyone and claim that you can tell that tiny difference just by looking at a picture?

How about we use some more modern tools to analyse the claim shall we?

First, so may pictures, which one should I choose?
How about the latest off EPIC?
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2017/07/14/png/epic_1b_20170714010437_02.png

Well, that sure does seem like a circle. But I'm not a god so I can't tell that accurately. It might be a circle, it might be slightly oblate or prolate or something else.
So I will measure the actual size, by drawing a line next to it in paint, zooming it to make sure it matches the edge and seeing how long that line is.

(Also note that you aren't quite getting the polar radius in this one as it isn't the equinox).
Well, vertically, Earth is 1518 pixels high, give or take a pixel or 2. (It isn't a perfectly sharp image).
That means (if that was the polar radius) it would be 1523 pixels wide.
Guess what?
It is 1524 pixels wide.

This certainly matches that expected for Earth, but is no where near accurate enough to be a direct measurement of the oblateness of Earth.
However it is accurate enough to show it is NOT a perfect circle.

Your turn.

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:29:34 AM

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

You mean your eyes can't detect that few pixels difference out of a thousand to notice Earth is actually ever so slightly not a circle?

Here is a question for you: In this picture, is the light blue region the circle, or is the dark blue region the edge of the circle?


And if you took away that circle could you really tell the other one wasn't?

Or would you prefer for me to get into the technical details of your screen being physically incapable of showing an actual circle?
This is because it is made of pixels, which are roughly square. So at best you get a bunch of squares which approximates the shape of a circle.

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:57:56 AM

I am lying? I just say what I see... and I see pictures which are perfectly round, and I am not the only one seeing it.

Yes, you are lying.
You aren't saying what you see, you are saying what you perceive and exaggerating your abilities.

You see a shape. It looks roughly circular, so you accept that it is a circle, and then exaggerate claiming it is a perfect circle. I suspect you never even bothered checking.

I have. Every time I did it was a little too fat to be a perfect circle.

If you think there is a picture of Earth, showing it to be a perfect circle, provide it.

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 01:46:33 PM

Of course you can see it, but you can see stars billions light years away, you know how the universe formed, you know the mass of the planets, but an accurate picture of the earth it's more difficult to see.

You see those stars billions of light years away typically by using tools because your eyes aren't good enough.

What makes you think your eyes are good enough to see the slight imperfection of Earth?

As someone else pointed out, the difference is quite small.
Here are the actual numbers, the equatorial radius is 6378.1 km.
The polar radius is 6356.8 km.
That is a difference of 21.3 km (so him saying the difference was 50 km was likely the diameter).
Now that sounds like a lot, but you are comparing it to the radius of Earth.

What this means is that the equatorial radius is 1.003 times the polar radius. That is a difference of 0.3%.
Are you really going to lie to everyone and claim that you can tell that tiny difference just by looking at a picture?

How about we use some more modern tools to analyse the claim shall we?

First, so may pictures, which one should I choose?
How about the latest off EPIC?
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/natural/2017/07/14/png/epic_1b_20170714010437_02.png

Well, that sure does seem like a circle. But I'm not a god so I can't tell that accurately. It might be a circle, it might be slightly oblate or prolate or something else.
So I will measure the actual size, by drawing a line next to it in paint, zooming it to make sure it matches the edge and seeing how long that line is.

(Also note that you aren't quite getting the polar radius in this one as it isn't the equinox).
Well, vertically, Earth is 1518 pixels high, give or take a pixel or 2. (It isn't a perfectly sharp image).
That means (if that was the polar radius) it would be 1523 pixels wide.
Guess what?
It is 1524 pixels wide.

This certainly matches that expected for Earth, but is no where near accurate enough to be a direct measurement of the oblateness of Earth.
However it is accurate enough to show it is NOT a perfect circle.

Your turn.

I did check what others are saying about those pictures, I have watched videos where people were demonstrating that those pictures were created in photoshop.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/ 
and that is just one site. There is so much information out there and maybe you can verify all of them, but I can't, I'm not a scientist.

I do not make any claims. I said from the beginning that I'm not a mathematician or physicist.

I did check what others are saying about those pictures, I have watched videos where people were demonstrating that those pictures were created in photoshop.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/ 
and that is just one site. There is so much information out there and maybe you can verify all of them, but I can't, I'm not a scientist.

I do not make any claims. I said from the beginning that I'm not a mathematician or physicist.

Yes, you do make claims, even if you are just repeating the claims of others.

You made the claim that Earth is perfectly spherical and indicated that there were pictures which showed that.

Now you are repeating the same BS claims that all photos of Earth are faked.

There is one particular series which was to provide a model of Earth which you could view from any position and any direction.
It is only that and some other ones like that, and the pictures produced from it which were done in photoshop.

This was because they were taking photos from low Earth orbit which wouldn't be able to capture all of Earth, and because they wanted a map of ALL of Earth, something which requires stitching photos together.

Yes, people have "demonstrated" that these were likely made in Photoshop or the like. But they didn't need to.
If people actually bothered to check, they would have seen that NASA explained how they made it from the start.

This doesn't magically mean all the photos are faked or photo-shopped.

See, this is another example of you not questioning and instead just rejecting anything which doesn't fit your delusions using whatever excuse you can.
You happily accept the claim it was faked and try to apply it to all of them.


Now then, are you going to admit your claim was wrong and that Earth isn't a perfect sphere, nor do people claim it is or present it as one in actual photos of Earth?

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 15, 2017, 08:48:57 AM

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:29:34 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

Now you are just lying.

I am lying? I just say what I see... and I see pictures which are perfectly round, and I am not the only one seeing it.

Yes, you claimed, incorrectly that the Earth was not an oblate spheroid and inferred that N.A.S.A. says the same thing (you didn't come out and say it, but the "Check nasa website" infers that N.A.S.A. agrees with your claim.  Again, just because you do not understand something, doesn't make it impossible.  The amount of difference is a very small percentage of the whole.  This is what is claimed, has always been claimed, even the gross oversimplification that the celebrity astrophysicists like to use has always been explained, if questioned, as a very small percentage. 
This is just as dishonest as your water only boils if it's hot BS.   

Please take the time to read up on straw man fallacy, argument from personal incredulity, false equivalence fallacy, and just the fallacy arguments in general.  They are failed arguments from the onset.  Stop using them, you are not Fox News or MSNBC.

One thing that flat earthers will never understand is that only pictures of earth from a satellite like DSCOVR is far enough away to get the whole of the earth in the frame, and even then we do not see 50% of the earth, but slightly less than 50% due to the fact that the DSCOVR lens opening is not quite the same radius than that of the earth, so small portions at the edges will be missing! Try to establish how many pixels wide the picture would need to be to notice the difference in radius at the Equator of 3963 miles to that at the Poles of 3955 miles. for all intents and purposes, the earth would look completely spherical!
From pictures taken by closer satellites, you do not see the full earth, you just see to the horizon as per the earth curve calculator in all directions, that is a perfect circle to the horizons if you have a wide enough lens, otherwise composite images are required! An example, from the ISS at 245 miles high, the horizon is 1415 miles away, so you would only see approximately a quarter of the one side of the earth facing you if you could take a wide angled photo. At an orbit of 1000 miles high, you would see about half of the side of the earth facing you. At 5000 miles away, you would see two thirds of the side of the earth facing you. All of these would be exactly round looking, as you can see the same distance to all horizons!
So shut up about NASA's perfectly round images, as none of you have a clue what you are talking about!

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:57:56 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. on July 15, 2017, 08:48:57 AM

Quote from: Aries on July 15, 2017, 08:29:34 AM

Quote from: Here to laugh at you on July 15, 2017, 07:14:31 AM

Regardless of speculation concerning phenomena hundreds of light years outside our solar system, you simply cannot deny the mountainous evidence describing our local environment.

The Earth is oblate spherical in shape,
The Earth rotates around an axis tilted at 23.4 degrees, completing one rotation every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds.
The Earth orbits the Sun, completing one orbit every 365.2425 days.

These are undisputed facts, aside from a very small minority of crack pot conspiracy whack-jobs.

No it's not oblate spheroid it's perfectly round. Check nasa website. There is no oblate there, but I know the answer, it can't be seen as oblate right?

Now you are just lying.

I am lying? I just say what I see... and I see pictures which are perfectly round, and I am not the only one seeing it.

Yes, you claimed, incorrectly that the Earth was not an oblate spheroid and inferred that N.A.S.A. says the same thing (you didn't come out and say it, but the "Check nasa website" infers that N.A.S.A. agrees with your claim.  Again, just because you do not understand something, doesn't make it impossible.  The amount of difference is a very small percentage of the whole.  This is what is claimed, has always been claimed, even the gross oversimplification that the celebrity astrophysicists like to use has always been explained, if questioned, as a very small percentage. 
This is just as dishonest as your water only boils if it's hot BS.   

Please take the time to read up on straw man fallacy, argument from personal incredulity, false equivalence fallacy, and just the fallacy arguments in general.  They are failed arguments from the onset.  Stop using them, you are not Fox News or MSNBC.

"Again, just because you do not understand something, doesn't make it impossible.  "

actually, that is the ENTIRE FE argument in one sentence.

Oh, bullwinkie, Don't even compare Flat Earth shit and Round Earth shit. These are completely different pieces of shit. The FE shit is so obvious. There are tons of evidences. Sure, you need dark energy and dark matter to explain why on big-scaled objects formation like galaxies. But this is different from pathetic "look out of your window"

And, BTW effects of dark matter are observed as gravitational lensing, so it's not just a guess or a cheat. Unlike in FET everything is cheating.

As of OP, I think without YT they would be far less popular. But still existing. The problem with YT FET videos is that when uneducated person watches them he/she can eventually believe. Take my grandma for example she believes everything published on Internet!!

I truly believe that FET is very harmful. Because of those vulnerable people out there. This can effect their lives. And I'm strongly against FET/FES activity.

And, BTW effects of dark matter are observed as gravitational lensing, so it's not just a guess or a cheat. Unlike in FET everything is cheating.

I disagree to some extent.
We assume gravity acts the way we think, even on very large scales.
We noticed something which doesn't match, and then invented dark matter to explain away the problem.

The bigger issue is that dark matter is quite irrelevant to the shape of Earth.
It only starts to be an issue when you get to things the size of galaxies.
It isn't needed to show Earth is round or that the solar system works.

jackBlack,

Good point on irrelevance of DM to earth shape.

If I got it right we observed that some mass missing to make galaxies formation possible and gravitational lensing provided further support for that hypothesis. Am I wrong here?

Oh, Bullwinkle, Don't even compare Flat Earth shit and Round Earth shit. . . .
. . . And, BTW effects of dark matter are observed as gravitational lensing, so it's not just a guess or a cheat.

So, nothing is like it should be and you get to claim black matter and black energy to solve the problem?

I call shenanigans.   

jackBlack,

Good point on irrelevance of DM to earth shape.

If I got it right we observed that some mass missing to make galaxies formation possible and gravitational lensing provided further support for that hypothesis. Am I wrong here?

We observed galaxy rotation curves (i.e. a plot of rotational speed of the star vs distance from centre) which didn't match our calculations based upon luminous matter (primarily stars and nebulae).
A way to correct this was to add dark matter to the outside of the galaxies.
This wouldn't affect the inner stars, but would effect the outer stars the further out you got allowing the calculated galaxy rotation curve to match the observed ones.

We later backed this up by observing galaxy mergers and noting the location of luminous matter and the gravitational lensing which would include dark matter.