What should be hidden is 693'.
So why lie and claim over 1800 archaic units should be hidden before?
Also, running the numbers (taking your 260" to be 260') only gives 680 archaic units hidden.
But as I pointed out earlier, that is without taking refraction into consideration.
Meanwhile, if Earth was flat, what should be hidden is 0.
The Sears tower is 1450'. What is seen of the City in the video is a lot more than half the City.
Based upon what?
Accept defeat!
Why accept defeat when you have provided evidence that directly refutes a FE?
The best you can get is saying Earth is slightly larger than people say.
If you want us to accept defeat you will need to show a problem with the RE model, which you are yet to do.
Why does the Sun's angular size have to change greatly on a Plane Earth?
If you want the ancient FE model, were the very distant sun circles Earth, going BELOW Earth, then it doesn't.
However if you want a modern FE model where the sun just circles above Earth, then the distance changes dramatically.
For example, when the sun is directly overhead it is claimed to be 5000 km above.
But then when setting it is setting over a place 10 000 km away (using RE distances, further with FE distances).
That has more than doubled the distance to the sun and thus the sun should shrink to less than half its size.
As you wont give precise details, lets just use the commonly used NP centred AEP FE model?
You want someone at 45 degrees north on the equinox, well as you pointed out the sun is about 5000 km above someone at the equator.
Meanwhile, someone at 45 degrees north is 5000 km away from that point on the equator, making the sun roughly 7071 km away, or about sqrt(2) times the distance from someone at the equator, so the sun should be significantly smaller for the person at 45 degrees north.
But that is changing between locations not time.
Lets go to sunset.
Now the sun is above a point on the equator, with a difference of 90 degrees latitude.
From the FE map, this means the sub-solar point is now sqrt(5000^2+10000^2) km away or ~11200 km away.
This puts the sun 12247 km away, or 1.73 times the distance it was at midday.
That means it should be roughly 1.73 times bigger at midday than it is at sunset.
The roughly constant angular size of the sun only makes sense with a very distant sun, much more distant than the size of Earth, such that regardless of where you are on Earth, the distance to it is roughly the same, and does not change throughout the day (this last part seems less connected, but the issue is if it was close to Earth and changed position, then it could only remain roughly the same distance away from one location, not all of Earth). But this destroys the FE model, as if that was the case the sun would appear in the same direction to everyone.
This is one of the ancient FE models where there was just a single time zone and the sun set by going below Earth
In response to the fairy tales you accept and teach.
Yes, in response to your fairy tales we accept reality and teach.
Yes, observation is good, but FEers reject it.
A simple daily observation is the rising and setting of the sun and countless stars. This refutes the FE model.
So you need to reject direct observations.
While less direct another example of observations is photos, including those from space, where simple observation shows Earth is round.
A more direct version of this is using the moon as the "camera" to take a picture of Earth's shadow during a solar eclipse, which also shows Earth is round.
Then there is also direct observation of water obscuring the view to an object which is above the water from a location which is above the water.
These direct observations show Earth is round.
The other important thing to note is that observation is limited.
For example, by observing the apparent angular position, you are only measuring relative position, not which is moving.
If you were sitting on a merry go round, and you claimed that you were stationary with Earth rotation around the axis of the merry go round, people would think you are crazy.
But that is the same kind of observation as Earth and the stars.
Is Earth stationary with the celestial objects moving around? Are the celestial objects stationary with Earth rotating? Or some combination of the celestial objects moving while Earth is also rotating?
We can rule out the second option due to the differential motion.
The sun and moon move relative to each other and relative to the stars. So they can't all be stationary, but we can focus on some of them at least.
Is Earth stationary with the moon moving around in a chaotic path (with no explanation at all), or is Earth rotating, with the moon following a much simpler path?
So observation only gets you so far. Instead you need to think about those observations and what makes more sense.
The observations work with both HC and GC, as all GC requires is manipulating a HC solar system to keep Earth fixed.
HC won because unlike GC, it made sense. It had explanatory power and didn't require the magic to keep Earth fixed.
But don't worry, there is also other observations to support a rotating Earth, that of Focault's pendulum large scale weather systems, laser ring gyroscopes and the like.
But hey, you were quite close with one point.
Humans don't sense motion. There is no sense for motion.
What we can sense is our body transmitting a force across us.
The absence of a sense we do not have is not evidence that we are stationary.
And yes, we know how easy it is for people to make up a model of Earth which does not match reality at all and have those ignorant of reality and how reality and such a model would work getting conned into it. Look at you, accepting a FE even though it doesn't match reality at all.
So as a summary:
FE does not match observation at all. Even simple observations directly contradict FE models, with mountains of magic needing to be thrown in.
Meanwhile RE does match observation, from the horizon obscuring distant objects (or their lower portion), to the apparent motion of the celestial objects.
So why should RE accept defeat, when all the evidence points to RE?