1

The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude all amateur balloon rocket plane and drone footage show completely flat horizon over 20-plus miles high only NASA and other government space agencies show curvature and they're fake cgi photos and videos

The Earth is big. Really big. Therefore the curvature is very slight. You can't see it from the ground. You need to be at a high altitude to see it.
You can use this calculator to see how much curvature there is per kilometer: https://earthcurvature.com/ . It also helpfully shows the calculations it uses, which is simple trigonometry.

I think this image really helps to show how slight the curvature is and why it's hard to see it from the ground or on a plane:

It's not true that amateur ballons with cameras don't show curvature. You can find them all over. There's definitely a lot of fish-eye lens footage out there, but there's also plenty of footage that doesn't use a fish-eye lens.

Finally, where is the proof that NASA pictures are fake?

2

The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained so you never have to look down to see it if earth were in fact a globe no matter how large as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer would have to tilt looking down further and further to see you

I mean, that is what happens. The horizon stays fixed and you do have to tilt your head down to see it as you go up. The same would be true for a flat earth, though. The horizon would stay fixed and you would have to tilt your head down to see it as you go up. The only difference is that the horizon would be further away on a flat earth.

What kind of Earth geometry would cause the horizon to always rise to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained? I can't imagine it. Is the author suggesting we live in a simulation?

3

The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level if earth were a giant sphere tilted wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat consistently level surfaces would not exist here but since earth is in fact an extended flat plane this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense

Water does find and maintain its level. They maintain their level with respect to the center of the Earth or more correctly, its center of gravity. That is why there are tides. The Moon-Earth system center of gravity changes as the Moon orbits the Earth (this is also true with the Sun, but in a lesser degree).

It's all about gravity. Without gravity, water would not find and maintain its level. It would just float around in space.

Not related to the whole water thing, because of what I previously mentioned, but one thing that stands:

Why wouldn't flat surfaces exist if the Earth is round? I mean, I can take an orange and make a flat surface on it, by cutting a small part of it. And that part will continue to be flat, even if I throw it.

4

Rivers run down to sea level finding the easiest course north-south-east-west and all other intermediary directions over the earth at the same time if earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill for example the Mississippi in its 3,000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico

I don't know where he got those 11 miles from. This involved a little bit of research. I'll put on my sources at the end. Unlike the author.

The Mississippi River starts at Lake Itasca, which is 450 meters above sea level. It ends at the Gulf of Mexico, which is at sea level. So, it has to descend 450 meters.

If you do use the distance from the center of the Earth, the sea level at Lake Itasca is at 6366 meters and the sea level at the Gulf of Mexico is at 6372 meters. It does mean that the Gulf of Mexico is higher by ~6km. This is due to the fact that the Earth is an obloid, stretched at the equator by its own rotation. The difference here is quite big, because the Mississippi is freaking long.

Anyway, what does this mean? The water IS descending and IS NOT going uphill, if we set the sea level as a reference. What is happening is that the sea level is not constant. It varies depending on where you are. The centrifugal force, caused by the Earth's rotation, is what's causing the difference in sea level.

Good quote I found in the last listed source:

So if you define “uphill” as “a direction that takes you farther from the center of the Earth“, then yes, you could say the Mississippi flows uphill. But that definition only agrees with the normal definition of “against the pull of gravity − centrifugal force” on perfectly spherical non-rotating planets.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Itasca
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Orleans
• https://www.summitpost.org/distance-to-the-center-of-the-earth/849764
• https://sky-lights.org/2019/06/10/qa-the-mississippi-river-flows-uphill/

5

One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot parts of the West African Congo according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball earth would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down this would also be the case for the piranhas Paraguay and other long rivers

Exact same argument as the Mississippi one. That's not another "proof", it's the same argument, repeated with a different example.

6

If earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claimed spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward and easily measurable 8 inches per mile applied by the square of the distance this means along a six-mile channel of standing water the earth would dip six feet on either end from the central peak every time such experiments have been conducted however standing water has proven to be perfectly level

Urgh. Imperial units. Yes, yes, yes and where is the source on those experiments?

7

surveyors engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the earth into their projects canals railways bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature

Untrue.

• https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/how-crossrail-was-affected-by-the-curvature-of-the-earth-24285/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazzano-Narrows_Bridge
  • Towers and cables

8

The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is a hundred miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas when constructed the Earth's supposin curvature was not taken into account it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea level passing through several lakes from one sea to the other with the datum line and the water's surface running perfectly parallel over the hundred miles

9

Engineer W Winkler was published in the earth review regarding the Earth's supposed curvature stating as an engineer of many years standing I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in schoolbooks no engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of much less allowed for this allowance for curvature means this that it is eight inches for the first mile of a canal and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance and miles thus a small navigable canal for boats say 30 miles long will have by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet think of that and then please credit engineers is not being quite such fools nothing of the sort is allowed we no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal than of wasting our time trying to square the circle