I'm not backed into any corner and you have provided zero evidence of anything that proves you right and me wrong.
I skipped the evidence as I knew you would simply dismiss it, but I have provided logical arguments and diagrams and simple questions which show beyond any doubt that you are wrong. Unlike the evidence, there is no way for these logical arguments or diagrams to be a con, so there is no excuse for you to use, so you simply ignore them, repeatedly.
That shows just how you have been backed into a corner with no way out.
If you weren't backed into a corner, and hadn't been shown to be wrong beyond any sane doubt, you would have addressed the arguments and diagrams, clearly pointing out what is wrong with it with an actual justification, rather than simply dismissing them or ignoring them.
Likewise, you would actually answer the questions asked of you.
Remember this diagram I provided plenty of times:
Remember how I repeatedly asked you what magic stops the ray of light indicated by the blue line from reaching the eye?
This is a simple disproof of your insanity. The light reaching your eye from a tube doesn't come into the tube parallel. That would require a lens, like in the below diagram.
Without such a lens, the light simply comes in in a straight line, and thus you see things below the tube, including potentially the ground, like in this scale diagram of a RE:
So unless you can tell us what magic stops the blue line, you have been backed into a corner and shown to be wrong beyond any doubt.
Likewise, remember this argument you repeatedly ignored (or came up with pathetic excuses to try to avoid it) because it clearly shows you are wrong:
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 m above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - This means if you were to look through a level scope, which is positioned at 2 m above level, with a FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, you would see the horizon on the globe.
If you weren't backed into a corner and shown to be wrong beyond any doubt you would have clearly pointed which point(s) of this argument you think are wrong, why you think it is wrong and what the correct version should be.
Likewise, you would have answered the question which is dealing with the first points of the argument you haven't accepted yet:
Just what do you think visually separates the ground/sea from the sky on a RE?
i.e. you start looking down seeing nothing but ground/sea. And you then slowly lift your head up, eventually reaching nothing but sky.
Just what do you think you see in between?
Instead you continually appeal to a level scope and your baseless and refuted assertion that the horizon shouldn't be seen through a level scope. You do this as an excuse to ignore the simple question which establishes beyond any doubt that the RE DOES have a horizon, while you also repeatedly claim that the RE doesn't have a horizon at all, anywhere.
So it is quite clear that you have been backed into a corner and shown to be wrong beyond any doubt.
But in terms of evidence, plenty of evidence has been provided by others which show beyond any sane doubt that you are wrong.
But you reject it as a con job, with no justification at all. The only reason you reject it as a con-job is because it shows you are wrong and you have no interest in admitting you are wrong.
And your refusal to provide a complete list of requirements, which if met, means you simply admit you are wrong rather than looking for more excuses also shows not only that you have been backed into a corner, but that you also likely know you are wrong (as does your complete refusal to provide evidence of your own to show what you repeatedly claim we should see).
I started to respect you
No you didn't.
The only people you show respect here are those who appear to just be accepting whatever BS you spout.
If they question you to the point you cannot answer them, or they show you are wrong, you insult them; just like you insulted him by accusing him of faking evidence.
Respecting him would be accepting what he showed as evidence that you are wrong. But that would basically be accepting that you are wrong, so of course you wont do that.
No it does not.
You are technically correct as it doesn't work at all, regardless of the shape of Earth, but you are yet provide any justification (which is actual justification rather than a nonsense excuse which has been refuted) for why it shouldn't work on a round Earth if it did work on a flat Earth.
And also, how can you even say that when you struggle to understand my theory?
Realising your model is pure nonsense doesn't mean we don't understand it.
Either way, it shows your claim for why we reject it is pure garbage.
It doesn't matter if we merely think it works just as well for a RE or if it actually does work just as well for a RE, either way, we think it works just as well for a RE and thus there is no need to reject it to cling to a RE.
You cannot show anything that verifies a sphere in the sky, no matter what you produce.
Plenty of people can. It just would never be enough for you, as you have no interest in accepting reality.
You're here to try and ridicule alternate thinkers into global compliance, once again.
You're failing with each post....but, your efforts are respected by myself.
Don't get mixed up.
And there you go projecting yet again.
You are the one attempting to ridicule people, not us.
You are the one repeatedly failing, not us.
Clearly explaining why you are wrong is not ridiculing you.
Providing plenty of evidence that shows you are wrong is not ridiculing you.
You repeatedly making baseless assertions and dismissing reality as nonsense and those who support it as indoctrinated fools is attempting to ridicule.
I do claim the spinning globe nonsense as fiction. I stand by it for reasons I've given.
What reasons?
Do you mean your refuted strawmen? Or your baseless assertions contradicted by plenty of evidence which you just dismiss as a con-job?
Because I am yet to see you provide anything that actually indicates Earth is not round or spinning.
As for my stuff. I've already set it out as potential (to me) without fact (to others).
And we have shown it makes no sense and in plenty of cases is completely false.