For this reason, I generally consider such observations to be inconclusive.
People show clear evidence of buildings that should have been hundreds of feet below the curvature.
Curvature and refraction was taken into account according to the math of our current globe model and of course it is still not good enough for globers.
Huh? Do you even know what environmental conditions need to be considered in order to account for atmospheric refraction?
Did you watch ? It is what reality looks like, contrary to the moon passing the earth in deep space.
Yes, I watched it and the heat shimmers at the waterline suggest that conditions could favorable for atmospheric refraction.
Try performing that same observation under a variety of weather conditions and at different times of day, then tell me how consistently you could see the skyline.
I have personally gone to Old Fort Niagara park, where similar views of Toronto are supposed to be possible, but I was unable to see any trace of the skyline, even with a 500mm mirror lens and a 3x teleconverter on my 35mm camera. That's why I tend to consider those types of observations to be inconclusive.
I really am puzzled to the extremes that the former which my eyes tell me presents reality is dismissed by globers with easy as a mirage or distorted refraction of some kind of fata morgana, but extremely fake looking NASA CGI is what reality looks like.
What should an illuminated far side of the moon transiting the earth supposed to look like from a million miles away?
What has become of our natural abilities to discern reality from fiction ? Wow this feels weird.........
What's so weird about technology giving us the ability to experience things that have never before been a part of our normal, everyday experience.
Just think how people felt when medical x-rays were first used. I'm sure that the pictures of their insides looked fake to them.
MRI and CT scans look even more fake, but we trust them to be real, don't we?