The sun rising and setting from/to below a flat horizon. An eclipse of the moon. Earthbound pics of shadows in directions impossible on a North-centric flat Earth.
Like I said before, these are not really direct observations of curvature - but rather are observations of the Heavenly bodies and an extrapolation of the Heliocentric theories behind these to support (surprise, surprise!) Heliocentricity.
As has been explained to death, the sun rising and setting is explained by perspective. There was a post on one of these threads at altitude, which showed the sun simply disappearing at height above the horizon. Consistent with Flat Earth and perspective as the cause of sunrise and sunset - not consistent with Heliocentricity and the "curvature of the Earth" being the cause of sunrise and sunset.
As for eclipses, Heliocentricity can't explain these itself. The shadow on the Earth caused by a solar eclipse being thinner than the object (the moon) itself? Unheard of in any scientific demonstration of the principle (shadows are always larger than the object casting the shadow). A selenelion, where the moon is supposed to be in the Earth's shadow, but yet where both sun and moon are visible above the horizon? Again, the excuse that this is diffraction or some effect of light doesn't cut it.
I'm not really interested in arguing on the theories behind the heavenly bodies, because I'm unaware of either Flat Earth or Heliocentricity being able to adequately describe the real life phenomena. It's like trying to prove something based on a demonstrably flawed theory - sort of if Dawkins were to try to use Evolutionary theory to prove the Big Bang theory.
As I said to you before, my observation is that there is no curvature. This is consistent with every real piece of science we have. For Heliocentric theory to even be considered, it's gotta have proof, and all it's got are the fraudulent data from NASA and its ilk.
1
