That's not where the burden of proof lies, of course. We don't have to prove that. I know that's probably some kind of intended humor or levity or irony or some

That's not where the burden of proof lies, of course. We don't have to prove that. I know that's probably some kind of intended humor or levity or irony or something. But it's important, none the less, to point out that the burden of proof in this discussion lies squarely on anyone arguing otherwise. Here's the truly ironic point. By the numbers FAR more people argue against it, largely for clickbait and views, than advance the notion. And what does that mean? It means that "flat earth" IS the argument against it, if you get my drift. If everyone just stopped talking about it, no one would care at all. In fact it's all the people arguing with it that make it a thing. Let's just stop. But cool article. No dig on the author. Just something to think about.