So... umm... let's talk for a second. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to accomplish here, but it certainly isn't educating the public with anything. Definitely not anything useful at the very least. So first off you start by stating something that is completely incorrect, "the earth is not round". You repeat this a couple times throughout the post and the evidence that you thought you included to support this is I guess the 20km elevation difference? Though I'm again unsure what you aim to prove here as being "round" is not synonymous with being a "sphere" in that simply being round doesn't mean that it has to be "perfectly" round, hence the implications of the term "perfectly round". So anyway, you falsely claim that the earth is not round throughout the post only to abandon this in your conclusion where you state both that it is not perfectly round (which is correct) and that it is not round at all (which is incorrect). Then there's the spherical problem you present. I'll start this by pointing out that you specifically mention both the earth not being spherical and not being a sphere, again (edit: oops no you don't but this applies to the round thing and also later in rebuttal). You seem to not realize that these two things are completely different claims, as you use them interchangeably (edit: you don't but you do this with the roundness). Note that spherical simply means relating to a sphere or having a shape approximate to that of a sphere and that a sphere is simply a perfectly round object. So right off the bat, no, the earth is obviously not a sphere as it has elevation fluctuations and multiple different diameters. Although I'm not really sure who disputes this fact, you are technically right about this part. But you claim that the earth is not spherical as well (edit: oops no you don't but let's point this out anyway because the earth is spherical and there's really no reason to prove to people that it is not a sphere when nobody really tries to claim this), and this is not true. The evidence you use to support this is that the earth has a "massive" (edit: "significant") difference between multiple diameters. In order to be considered spherical, it would only need to be similar or close to a perfectly round object. The difference between the diameters that you gave is only .3% the length of the shortest one. If you're trying to argue (edit: you aren't) that .3% is a "massive" (edit: "significant") enough difference to knock it out of consideration for being approximately a sphere (spherical), I'm afraid you don't have much of an argument.