Well, for me, the text stayed the same with distance; for Badxtoss, the text shrank; and for you the text got bigger. I think the only thing that we can conclude from these results is that we can no longer make blanket statements about how optics works.
Yes, there are many different types of lens. You can make a lot of crazy things happen with them if you are creative. That still doesn't bring us any closer to knowing whether "atmoplanic lensing" is possible or how it works. I am not claiming that "atmoplanic lensing" is completely 100% impossible. I just think it is extremely unlikely based on points 2 and 3 that I listed above. And until such a time as it has been shown to be physically possible, it is unreasonable of you to expect people to take it seriously.
At the risk of being accused of copying Ski, I would like to point out that your most educated roundly scientists can not explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or how it works; only that it must exist in order for their model of the universe to mathmatically work. I don't see you accusing them of lying simply because they have no other evidence. Why are we held to a different standard?
First of all, I did not accuse you of lying. Second of all, I constantly see flat earthers complain about modern scientists being incompetent, unethical, etc... so why are you using what you perceive to be their low standards as an excuse for your own? If you want to make a point, take the high road. Don't make excuses.
But anyway, what is the difference between the theories of dark matter and atmoplanic lensing? (I'll focus on dark matter specifically, so we don't get dark matter/energy tangled up. They are two different things.)
First, the similarities:
1. Both are proposed solutions to explain observations that don't seem to agree with a theory.
2. Neither have much (if any) direct physical evidence to support them.
3. We don't know exactly what dark matter or the atmoplanic lens is made of. We know that dark matter contains mass, which affects gravity, and we know the atmoplanic lens must be made of some refractory material, which affects the trajectory of light.
4. I don't think anyone is claiming either as 100% fact. There are alternative theories to dark matter being pursued.
Next, the major differences:
1. Scientists propose very specific distributions of dark matter that would allow observations to make sense. Yes, these proposed distributions are very ad hoc, but that's not the point. The point is that
we can test whether or not these distributions would actually satisfy observations. This shows that the theory is possible, if not plausible. On the other hand,
you have proposed no such arrangement of refractory material that would mathematically result in our observations. The most specific description I have seen is "atmoplanic layers". That doesn't help us much. You need to give us a specific configuration of refractory material that we can use to make specific calculations. How can we possibly test whether the theory is correct if we don't have anything to test???
2. Dark matter is an explanation of a phenomenon we have observed from across the universe. As much as we know about the universe, there is just as much we don't know. It's not like we can stroll across the universe and take a look. It is perfectly reasonable to expect some observations to be difficult to explain. Given the massive number of phenomenon that general relativity DOES explain, dark matter is a rather small exception to the rule. On the other hand, the theory of the flat earth needs a different dark-matter-like theory to explain practically every single observation. Atmoplanic lensing, celestial gravitation, shadow object, alternative theories of perspective... and the list goes on and on. The ONLY observation that flat earth theory correctly explains without the need of some "dark-matter-like" theory is that the horizon looks flat from ground level. If general relativity only predicted ONE correct observation, and needed "dark-matter-like" theories to explain everything else, it would be abandoned at the drop of a hat.
So no, I am not holding you to a different standard. If anything, I do my best to hold other peoples' arguments to a lower standard than my own. I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. You aren't making it easy though.