Your attitude is beneath contempt.
Actually, your attitude is beneath contempt, because as you well know all of the points you raised have been answered. For example, as soon as you posted the thread about trig's experiment, I answered with criticisms which you were unable to answer. Don't come back here and pretend that it was the other way around.
You have consistently failed to answer any of my questions in this thread. So until you get down off your perch and answer them, we have nothing more to talk about. Good day.
You are obsessed with this idea that I never answer your questions - this is at least the third time you've accused me of that. On at least one occasion I hadn't noticed you asking me a question or I thought it was addressed to someone else. On at least two other occasions I can think of I've seen you ask questions the answer to which has already been supplied in the thread - you seem to specialise in that. On another occasion I can think of I answered your question and you accused me of not doing so and so I clarified and you then admitted I had answered it but clearly misunderstood my answer (I think that may be earlier in this thread, not sure. You will undoubtedly demand me to provide links or quotes to these instances because that's what you
always do when anyone says "xyz was said" about anything, and then act as if it never happened if a quote is not provided.)
Moving on, you say all the points I raised above have been answered. If they have been answered then your statement:
So in other words, I need to get this proof myself, because you don't have it.
becomes nonsense because you are admitting that I have already supplied the proof. Alternatively, if I have not supplied the proof, then your statement:
as you well know all of the points you raised have been answered.
is in direct contradiction to your question:
If RET has so much proof, why am I still waiting to see it?
In other words, ANY response to you generates a paradox because of your inconsistency. Make your mind up... waiting to see proof + points raised answered = cancels each other out.
And nearly forgot the Trig thread. Your "criticism I was unable to answer" was the rather lame comment "which flat earth model are you saying doesn't work". The reason I didn't answer right away (although I did later on in the thread when you brought it up again, much as a seabird brings up partially digested fish for its chick), was because the answer is so laughably obvious that I could not be bothered to do your thinking for you.