Stop posting nonsense. Which observations are refraction are in question and you have failed to show which ones are and are not.
Good advice, you should stop posting nonsense.
You posted a video claiming that a series of lights were appearing on a plane, even though they should be hidden (at least when ignoring refraction).
I showed that either it is an outright lie, or FEers not bothering to check their sources.
You can see the bearings provided in the video, then from that calculate the angular separation between the light sources, and then compare that to those observed in the photo. Doing so gives this:
Bearing | Real | Px | Calculated | 222.11 | -------------- | --------------- | ----------------- | 231.74 | 9.63 | 367 | 15.59 | 239.36 | 7.62 | 272 | 11.56 | 245.91 | 6.55 | 224 | 9.52 | 251.4 | 5.49 | 192 | 8.16 | 268.29 | 16.89 | 33 | 1.40 |
|
Notice how the angles do not match at all?
This shows that either they are blatantly lying, knowing that what they are presenting is not correct, such as knowing it was taken from a different location or of different lights, or they are just happy to spout whatever nonsense fits their narrative without even simple checking of facts.
It does not say "El Bartolo" anywhere in that chapter, liar. It just says 'a rocky summit'.
RE can only support themselves with lies.
No, that would be FEers supporting themselves with lies.
The simple fact is it mentions a rocky summit. The best you can have is an unknown height.
But the calculations for how much should be hidden act as if both are at sea level.
So that would be more nonsense and lies from FEers.
It seems the only times FEers can pretend that we can see things we shouldn't is if they ignore the height of the observer or the object, or if they ignore refraction, or both.