Anyway, I discovered a Forbes article purporting to list five "impossible facts which would have to be true if the earth were flat."
By the grace of God, I have learned a fair amount about the flat earth as of late, and so I am (thank God) able to see through the propaganda-disguised-as-rational-arguments which the God-accursed Forbes uses to ridicule those "crazy flat earthers."
The article first, before the previously mentioned "five impossible facts that would have to be true if the earth was flat" are listed, mentions that some have "circumnavigated the globe." What actually has been done is that many sailors have successfully sailed an entire 360 degrees around the flat earth, around the continents, circumnavigating longitude-wise (which works whether the earth is flat or a globe), but no-one has ever sailed 360 degrees around the earth latitude-wise (which would require sailing south of antarctica). No-one has ever sailed south of antarctica.
The article also mentions the Eratosthenes experiment, which is a commonly claimed "proof" of the earth being a sphere. The original experiment merely noted that, at the same time in two different cities, a water-well in one city would have a different shadow cast by the sun inside it than in the other city. But this works on a flat earth perfectly fine, because on a flat earth, shadows, as per the laws of how light travels (A.K.A perspective) cast different shadows depending on the relative locations of the light-source and the object blocking the light -- that's just basic geometry.
Then mentioned is the so-called "Shaqille O'Neal experiment," which basically just amounts to the fact that objects disappear, bottom-first, at the horizon. Yes, that's very true, but that works perfectly fine on a flat earth, because, as anyone who knows basic geometry should be aware, objects, ON A PLANE, obey the laws of perspective. It's been indoctrinated into peoples' minds that the reason you can't see infinitely far in every direction is because of the "curvature of the earth"; but it's actually just perspective (and atmospheric conditions, such as water vapor in the air, also contribute).
Anyway, now I will get to the five things which Forbes claims "would have to be true if the earth were flat."
Number one: It is claimed that, because "the earth's shadow" always appears on the moon completely circular during a lunar eclipse, the earth is flat (as, it is claimed, the sun should cast the shadow of a plane instead of a circle onto the moon sometimes). This claim is astonishing, because it pre-assumes that a lunar eclipse is the sun casting the earth's shadow onto the moon (and that the sun goes "under" the flat earth, as if it "orbitted" it like it is claimed on the globe model); that's the begging the question fallacy, as it pre-assumes an aspect of the globe model without reason. The actual cause of a lunar eclipse is not the earth's shadow (ha!), because the sun is always at exactly the same altitude above the earth, never going below it. This also involves the reification of the globe model to actual reality, as if the globe model's "explanation" for lunar eclipses is the ONLY possible one. But, whereas I make no claim to a particular model for lunar eclipses, the globe model actually fails, because lunar eclipses have occured many times before while the sun is visible, meaning it's NOT actually always 180 degrees opposite the moon. This disproves the idea that the sun is casting earth's shadow onto the moon.
Number two: The article claims that the seasons must be the same across the entire flat earth, not with differing seasons between the northern and southern tropics. That's because it uses the begging the question fallacy again to pre-assume that the cause of seasons must be the angle of the sun's light, not the distance of the sun. But, indeed, the flat earth model I use involves the sun revolving, in a circular shape, around the northern tropic in the summer in the north, the equator at both equinoxes, and the southern tropic during winter in the north; during the year the sun moves north to the tropic of cancer, back to the equator, south to the tropic of capricorn, and back to the equator (one year cycle). But when the sun is making circles around one tropic, it is farther from the other tropic, causing temprature differences; and this accurately models the seasons for all latitudes.
Number three: People at differing latitudes see different stars at night, and thus, says the article, the earth must be a sphere. But this doesn't account -- YET AGAIN -- for perspective... At great enough distances, even stars are also subject so much to perspective, that they cannot be visible anymore (they are past the vanishing point of the horizon), thus allowing for different stars to be seen or not seen, depending on location. This is why, even within the same night, some stars cannot be seen at different hours; some stars only enter the field of view (before the horizon; due to perspective, not the earth's falsely claimed rotation or curve) in the middle of the night (they "rise"), and some stars exit the field of view (go past the horizon) at a point in the middle of the night (they "set").
Number four: one (allegedly) cannot see from Kawaikini to Mauna Kea, two peaks in Hawaii, and so, goes the article, the earth has to be spherical to allow for this. Assuming this observation is accurate (sometimes globe-believers say things that may just be completely fabricated), that says nothing about the shape of the earth... but merely about the nature of perspective (YET AGAIN!!) when paired with atmospheric conditions. But what globe-believers can't explain themselves are the MANY, MANY photographs of mountains or other structures taken from a distance which, based on the globe model's math, should make the sructure impossible to see. Sometimes it is a mountain that should be even hundreds of feet below the "earth's curve," but, lo, you can still see it (with a camera, at least).
Number five: It is claimed, STILL BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE SUN "ORBITS" THE EARTH (instead of how it makes a circle around the earth, longitude-wise), tha article claims that sunrise and sunet times should be always the same across the entire earth. BUT IT YET AGAIN FAILS TO NOTE THAT THE SUN DOES NOT ORBIT THE EARTH AND THAT PERSPECTIVE EXISTS. The actual explanation for differing sunset/sunrise times between different locations is that: THE SUN CAN ONLY BEEN SEEN WITHIN A CERTAIN AREA, DUE TO PERSPECTIVE. Thus, it can be seen on one side (as in, on the plane, not the "underside") of the earth, while on the other side it is night. That explains why in Los Angeles it may be day and in Shanghai (may God liberate it soon) it may be night: they are too far apart for the sun to be within the field of view (horizon) of the inhabitants of both places at the same time.
The article goes on to insult the intelligence of flat-earthers EVEN MORE by assuming that ANYONE would buy any of these ridiculous "proofs" and have their "belief" "challenged." How about learn about other peoples' positions 'fore mockin' 'em? Clearly the author of the article never researched even the BARE MINIUM and realized that pretty much no flat-earthers hold that the sun or moon "orbit" the earth (maybe some idiot, controlled-opposition retards say that...), and also, like most people to be fair, that perspective exists, and that it (and atmospheric conditions like water vapor) prevents one from seeing infinitely far in every direction.
May God give these clowns a real humblin'.