Flat Earth...

How do you explain planetary shadows?

Just to make sure I understand what you're asking for,

Are you asking for evidence of shadows, you know, like on the surface of the moon?

No, on planets.

Look up Cassini spacecraft images taken about five months after Saturn's August 2009 equinox. The novel illumination geometry during equinox causes out-of-plane structures to look anomalously bright and cast shadows across the rings. Images with this novel illumination are only attainable during the few months before and after Saturn's equinox, which occurs only once in about 15 Earth years. Before and after equinox, Cassini's cameras spotted not only the predictable shadows of some of Saturn's moons , but also the shadows of newly revealed vertical structures in the rings themselves. 

Can you show me a single of those images that isn't a CGI composite?

I say 'composite' knowing what it means, they claim they need to photoshop composites because the singular snapshots from satellites are too blurry and incomplete to give a proper image.

Completely unaffiliated to NASA, these people are sky divers

They are affiliated, they needed permission from NASA to do what they did and release the footage. Also, please show me where that proves the Earth is Round if it's all real and not fake.

I don't see any stars or planets when people leave the sky in such videos.

It.... literally shows the curve of the earth........ like.... the literal curve that you would say, "Hey, following this curve, the earth is obviously spheroid." Not to mention, that doesn't prove anything! 

Firstly, you have no presented positive evidence besides. "Nasa could be lying" which isn't valid, towards not trusting Nasa. 

Second, you have presented no evidence towards the claim that they had to ask for permission to release the video,

That curve, if the video isn't staged, can entirely be the curve around the flat earth which is Antarctica. You can barely see what it is through the clouds.

You cannot travel into space legally without explicit permission from NASA.

The default position is not trusting NASA, third-party audits and such are what lead to trust.

No the default position is: Nasa may or may not be trustworthy 

Therefore concluding that they are not is an assertion and requires evidence to make validly.

Also, Occum's Razor says we should prefer the explanation with the least assumptions. 

Here you are assuming that the thousands of hours of video is faked instead, what it appears to be, real. Therefore you must also demonstrate that position. And I wanted evidence that they needed permission to release the video not to go to space. 

No, I am assuming that it's very easy to pull off a scam when all authority comes down to a singular point of failure vs success.

Unlike any other field of science, space science comes down to 1-2 organisations dictating the entire world's research into it.

Except.... they present scientifically verifiable studies, as well as peer-reviewed studies, hundreds of them. There is a reason NASA is a leader in it's field. Not to mention you are completely wrong, there are definitely more than 2 organizations, here are 6.

Here are 30 more

Absolutely all space science research is done with full permission, oversight and coordination with/via NASA. Roscosmos is second-in-command but there is no organisation beyond those 2 who doesn't 100% go through them to do the research if you mean actual outer space missions.

I have also spent time looking at the footage and images given, they all look very likely to be CGI-edited and/or studio-done. The moon landing is the most blatantly faked of them all, there is also extremely high amount of motive for Nixon to have wanted that to happen.

I am done replying to you, at first I liked you because you have similar political alignment to me but every interaction with you is so passive-aggressive it's like you just want to sulk every single post you make for no reason as I am not picking a fight with you and neither are most people you have 'beef' with on this site.

Every since you joined, you've gone out of your way to make enemies here and I don't know why.

*Post - and Rational has blocked me for pointing to logical fallacies*

Make enemies? I point out when people are wrong, I note the particular fallacy. I don't choose to respond to people because of my political views. I don't attempt or even try to make enemies. I suppose people don't like that I consistently require evidence to justify a claim, or get upset whenever people refuse basic human rights to people, or deny decades of science that has been proven over and over again. 

"Sulk every single post you make"

I'm legitimately confused what you mean. Do you want me to stop being logically consistent? Or pointing out bad science? At no point have I tried to be enemies with people. Just to reiterate that point. You can reply if you like, all your lack of a response means to me is forfeit. Or, giving up because you don't feel like engaging (obviously people could just be busy, but I mean you are specifically pointing out you won't respond.)

Passive-aggressive? Because I am legitimately confused about why you believe this, and I believe a strong approach may help me understand. And, me, being passive-aggressive? Isn't that the least bit hypocritical coming from you? 

How about this, how would you like me to respond? How would you like me to conduct myself in these responses specifically? How would you like me to address arguments and all? Since you are saying I'm passive-aggressive, sulky,  and trying to make enemies, I suppose you have a standard that is objective or at least more justified than my own? One that you follow perhaps? 

The RatMan always blocks, but will not ignore you.....It's just a coping strategy and shouldn't be taken personally.

Ah, thanks I guess? I can't tell what their deal is, cognitive dissonance I suppose. 

Wait, so you're a flat earther for real? Come on man. 

How do you explain ships disappearing over the horizon?

Tbh, I only believe in the round earth because that was what was taught to me. And I simply don't care enough about whatever shape the thing is.