Curvature

You have posted a singular observation, and have neglected to show that the sinking even matches up with an RE at all, or that it is consistent when observed at different times or tools.

In contradiction we have reports and photographic evidence of objects at different distances which were lined up in a straight line onto a plane. This is an experiment with multiple control points, as compared to your uncontrolled singular observation.

As I have said it's rich coming from you who never produce anything n the way of original observations. The image I posted is consistent with the earth being a sphere and until you can come up with an alternative explanation, which given your previous performance is highly unlikely, the earth is a sphere and you have lost yet again.
If we look at your own counter, a vague discredited performance by a non-scientist quack from the mid 19thC plus a shaky video of a boat plowing through rough seas! That's hardly credible, to say the least.
In all your posts never once do you provide a credible argument backed by sound evidence all you ever do is heap scorn over anything that's rattles the foundation of your very wobbly belief structure.
My challenge to you now is to explain the missing 70 meters of the Forth Rail Bridge, why couldn't I see and photograph it? 

You have posted a singular observation, and have neglected to show that the sinking even matches up with an RE at all, or that it is consistent when observed at different times or tools.

In contradiction we have reports and photographic evidence of objects at different distances which were lined up in a straight line onto a plane. This is an experiment with multiple control points, as compared to your uncontrolled singular observation.

While I'm at it... singular observation! How many times have you quoted that singularly ridiculous Bedford levels tripe? That truly is a use of singularity gone mad. I suppose as you flat earth types have such few resources to draw on you have to resort to the bottom of your very shallow barrel.

The sinking ship effect is an old aristotilian OBSERVATION.

There are a great many contradictory observations, showing that we can see further than we should. The effect is inconsistent and does not prove curvature. Aristotile 'proved' things through observation and interpretation. In this case the rotundity of the earth.

In another case Aristotile saw flies appear on rotting meat and concluded that flies spontaneously generated into existence. It took 2000 years for people to discover that wasn't true. To observe and interpret is science's greatest fallacy and the root of the word pseudoscience.

If you guys are claiming "refraction did it" to the flat earth observations, while holding that the sinking observations are true, you should need to prove it. Since you have not proven that, you have nothing.

Yet, like in Experiment 2 of ENAG, it is possible for such experiments to put bodies of different distances onto a plane.



In the above each light, located at different distances from the observer, would need to be affected by different refraction gradients of differing magnitudes, which unwrap the lights from around the ball and below the horizon and projected to different altitudes into the air to put the light sources onto a plane. The RE response is "Coincidence!"

Where are the RE experiments which prove at multiple points in an observation that things sink in tandem with what should be shown on an RE?

What?  No.  Different refraction coefficients aren't required. 

If refraction is in the direction of the Earth's curvature so that the more distant lights are just visible above the horizon, the closer ones are still going to appear very very close to the horizon for the rather obvious reason that they are only 16' above the water. 

What would you expect it to look like?

Refraction needs to project the lamps to different altitudes in the air to get them to be sitting on the horizon to the observer like that. Coincidence. A special effect which adjusts itself to different objects depending on distance, to make the earth look flat.

Refraction needs to project the lamps to different altitudes in the air to get them to be sitting on the horizon to the observer like that. Coincidence. A special effect which adjusts itself to different objects depending on distance, to make the earth look flat.

Wrong.

At distances from 3 to 11 miles, how far above the horizon do you expect a light on a 16 foot pole to appear?

Try some simple trig and give me a couple of angles to support your claim.   Or do you need a hand with that?

Refraction needs to project the lamps to different altitudes in the air to get them to be sitting on the horizon to the observer like that. Coincidence. A special effect which adjusts itself to different objects depending on distance, to make the earth look flat.

Have you ever quantified just how flat they are or just looked at the video and said "it looks flat"?

But, "One swallow does not a summer make," Aristotle.
Nor, "One photo does not a flat Earth prove," me .

So why carry on so about one photo when there are so many others that tell a vet different story.

Refraction needs to project the lamps to different altitudes in the air to get them to be sitting on the horizon to the observer like that. Coincidence. A special effect which adjusts itself to different objects depending on distance, to make the earth look flat.

I'm curious.
Why did you run away from the "Rejection of science" and completed ignore this sort of thing:
Rejection of science « Reply #62 on: December 25, 2019, 11:00:56 AM » showing where your own flat-Earth cosmology  completely rejects science?

I answered you questions as well as I was able so how about reciprocating?

The sinking ship effect is an old aristotilian OBSERVATION.

There are a great many contradictory observations, showing that we can see further than we should. The effect is inconsistent and does not prove curvature. Aristotile 'proved' things through observation and interpretation. In this case the rotundity of the earth.

In another case Aristotile saw flies appear on rotting meat and concluded that flies spontaneously generated into existence. It took 2000 years for people to discover that wasn't true. To observe and interpret is science's greatest fallacy and the root of the word pseudoscience.

Why go back to ancient history? Those chaps didn't have telescopes, digital cameras, observatories and knew very very little about the nature of the earth as part of a larger solar system as all they had were their own eyes. Having said that its got nothing to do with the missing 70 meters from the bottom portion of the Forth Rail Bridge. No ancient Greek or Victorian quack will be able to help you with that. The question or challenge to you is how do YOU explain this.
Why is my image in line with the earth being a globe and not as a flat surface? If it were flat the whole bridge would be in the image and not just the upper half.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2019, 08:12:23 PM

Refraction needs to project the lamps to different altitudes in the air to get them to be sitting on the horizon to the observer like that. Coincidence. A special effect which adjusts itself to different objects depending on distance, to make the earth look flat.

Wrong.

At distances from 3 to 11 miles, how far above the horizon do you expect a light on a 16 foot pole to appear?

Try some simple trig and give me a couple of angles to support your claim.   Or do you need a hand with that?

The distances to the lamps and and the number of feet they should be below the horizon is given in the video.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2019, 07:49:43 PM

The sinking ship effect is an old aristotilian OBSERVATION.

There are a great many contradictory observations, showing that we can see further than we should. The effect is inconsistent and does not prove curvature. Aristotile 'proved' things through observation and interpretation. In this case the rotundity of the earth.

In another case Aristotile saw flies appear on rotting meat and concluded that flies spontaneously generated into existence. It took 2000 years for people to discover that wasn't true. To observe and interpret is science's greatest fallacy and the root of the word pseudoscience.

Why go back to ancient history? Those chaps didn't have telescopes, digital cameras, observatories and knew very very little about the nature of the earth as part of a larger solar system as all they had were their own eyes. Having said that its got nothing to do with the missing 70 meters from the bottom portion of the Forth Rail Bridge. No ancient Greek or Victorian quack will be able to help you with that. The question or challenge to you is how do YOU explain this.
Why is my image in line with the earth being a globe and not as a flat surface? If it were flat the whole bridge would be in the image and not just the upper half.

Since there are contradictory observations, the burden falls on you to show that whatever you saw is not the 'special effect' in order to justify the position.

Why go back to ancient history? Those chaps didn't have telescopes, digital cameras, observatories and knew very very little about the nature of the earth as part of a larger solar system as all they had were their own eyes.

Aristarchus of Samos lived from 310 to 230 BC.
He already measured (not accurate, though) the difference between the distances of the Moon and the Sun.

He understood that the Sun, the Moon and the Earth form a near right angle
during the last and the first quarter of the Moon. Based on this, he calculated
that the Sun was nineteen times further away from Earth than the Moon.
However, he made a mistake in his calculations: he took the angle as 87°
while the correct angle is 89° 50'. Thus, the actual distance is 390 times
and not nineteen times, as proposed by Aristarchus.

(from: https://www.greeka.com/eastern-aegean/samos/history/aristarchus/

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 27, 2019, 08:26:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2019, 08:12:23 PM

Refraction needs to project the lamps to different altitudes in the air to get them to be sitting on the horizon to the observer like that. Coincidence. A special effect which adjusts itself to different objects depending on distance, to make the earth look flat.

Wrong.

At distances from 3 to 11 miles, how far above the horizon do you expect a light on a 16 foot pole to appear?

Try some simple trig and give me a couple of angles to support your claim.   Or do you need a hand with that?

The distances to the lamps and and the number of feet they should be below the horizon is given in the video.

The number of feet ignoring refraction is given in the video.  Assuming that the stated observer height can be trusted, of course

But your claim is that even if we adjust for refraction, we’d need different amounts of refraction for each light. 

Show your working.

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 27, 2019, 08:26:09 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2019, 08:12:23 PM

Refraction needs to project the lamps to different altitudes in the air to get them to be sitting on the horizon to the observer like that. Coincidence. A special effect which adjusts itself to different objects depending on distance, to make the earth look flat.

Wrong.

At distances from 3 to 11 miles, how far above the horizon do you expect a light on a 16 foot pole to appear?

Try some simple trig and give me a couple of angles to support your claim.   Or do you need a hand with that?

The distances to the lamps and and the number of feet they should be below the horizon is given in the video.

Quote from: Timeisup on December 28, 2019, 04:13:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 27, 2019, 07:49:43 PM

The sinking ship effect is an old aristotilian OBSERVATION.

There are a great many contradictory observations, showing that we can see further than we should. The effect is inconsistent and does not prove curvature. Aristotile 'proved' things through observation and interpretation. In this case the rotundity of the earth.

In another case Aristotile saw flies appear on rotting meat and concluded that flies spontaneously generated into existence. It took 2000 years for people to discover that wasn't true. To observe and interpret is science's greatest fallacy and the root of the word pseudoscience.

Why go back to ancient history? Those chaps didn't have telescopes, digital cameras, observatories and knew very very little about the nature of the earth as part of a larger solar system as all they had were their own eyes. Having said that its got nothing to do with the missing 70 meters from the bottom portion of the Forth Rail Bridge. No ancient Greek or Victorian quack will be able to help you with that. The question or challenge to you is how do YOU explain this.
Why is my image in line with the earth being a globe and not as a flat surface? If it were flat the whole bridge would be in the image and not just the upper half.

Since there are contradictory observations, the burden falls on you to show that whatever you saw is not the 'special effect' in order to justify the position.

What on earth are you on about? There was a view of a bridge with almost half of it obscured. I took a photo. It’s simple Mr Bishop. It’s shows the curvature of the earth. Granted you don’t like that, but please explain, in plain English would be nice. Everyone with half an eye can see the evidence.

"I saw sunk ship" is not an adequate counter argument. There are numerous observations of seeing farther than should be possible.

"I saw sunk ship" is not an adequate counter argument. There are numerous observations of seeing farther than should be possible.

... or seeing shorter?

For example, if you are on your mast at the height of 10 meters, you see your horizon at 12 kilometers,
and directly behind it, on some island 40 kilometers away, you see upper third of 80 meters high hill.

1 - If the air is blocking the view at 12 km, how can you see 40 km?
2 - If air is allowing 40 km (or more), why is you horizon at 12 km only?
3 - If perspective is shortening the lower part of the hill, why it can't shorthen the upper part at the same distance?
4 - Any other option?

The distances to the lamps and and the number of feet they should be below the horizon is given in the video.

Due to the dishonestly typically displayed by FEers, I don't find their claims to hold much weight.

But lets go through shall we?
It states they are 16 ft high. Relative to what?
The low tide water level, the high tide water level, the floor of the gulf? What?
It seems to just be pulling the 16' from no where.
Also, how do we know that is what we are seeing? It just looks like 6 lights. Did he check to make sure nothing was between him and the lights?
Why don't we do a simple check. He provides the heading to each of the lights when he is showing the distance. This covers a range of 46.18 degrees, and in the photo provided it is 1087 px.

Comparing the angular difference between the lights and the px differences we get these numbers:

Bearing              Real Px Calculated 222.11 -------------- --------------- ----------------- 231.74 9.63 367 15.59 239.36 7.62 272 11.56 245.91 6.55 224 9.52 251.4 5.49 192 8.16 268.29 16.89 33 1.40 Does that seem problematic to you? The angles don't match up at all. The separation which should be the largest is actually the smallest. It is largest by a long shot, yet shows up as tiny compared to the others. So either this image was not taken from where it was claimed, or it is not showing the lights they claim, or both. Either way, it is completely useless as evidence. All you have is a photo, from an unknown location of a collection of unknown lights, which shows absolutely nothing regarding the curvature or lack thereof. If you like you can argue that it does show one thing, typical FEer dishonesty where they present either fabricated "evidence" which they know is wrong, or FE ignorance/laziness where they provide "evidence" they don't understand and haven't checked. Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2019, 10:44:41 AM There are numerous observations of seeing farther than should be possible. IF that is the case then why are you completely unable to provide any? All we have are your repeated assertions that such observations exist. Yet they just ignore refraction to claim we can see further than we should be able to.

"I saw sunk ship" is not an adequate counter argument. There are numerous observations of seeing farther than should be possible.

Just mouthing the words without and details is meaningless.

In very many cases these so-called cases of "seeing farther than should be possible" either:

• Turn out to be not such thing when all the data is presented. Such data might be: correct viewing height, state of the tides and the real height of the target.
  
  
• Cases which are quite explainable when a little extra refraction is included and that "extra" is sometimes even planned for.
  
  One classic example of this is exemplified in the video: World Record Long Distance Photo Proves Flat Earth by 7th Day Truth Seeker.
  Note that BeyondHorizons seems to no longer have a website but can be found on
         FaceBook at [urlhttps://www.facebook.com/BHbeyondhorizons/]Beyond Horizons @BHbeyondhorizons[/url] or
        the photos on Flickr at Flickr: Finestrelles ---> Ecrins 16-07-16.
  
  But it is really not so "unexplainable" on the Globe as in:
        Explained: 443 km distance- mountains visible,
        Pic Gaspard (3880m)/Grand Ferrand (2758m) from Pic de Finestrelles (2826m) in the Pyrénées
  or simulated at Advanced Earth Curvature Calculator

I agree that one example of "I saw a sunken ship" is not an adequate counter-argument but it is not a case of one example at all.

And I get back once again to the situation that you always seem to gloss over: the higher the observer less is being hidden by a sharp clear horizon.

But, in the end, observing or not observing curvature is not very decisive evidence of the shape of the Earth because conditions can vary so much.

How was it determined that the Flat Earth observations were the special effect and the sink ship observations was the effect-less observation?

How was it determined that the Flat Earth observations were the special effect and the sink ship observations was the effect-less observation?

Please explain. Have you forgotten that I wrote:

I agree that one example of "I saw a sunken ship" is not an adequate counter-argument but it is not a case of one example at all.

And I get back once again to the situation that you always seem to gloss over: the higher the observer less is being hidden by a sharp clear horizon.

But, in the end, observing or not observing curvature is not very decisive evidence of the shape of the Earth because conditions can vary so much.

How was it determined that the Flat Earth observations were the special effect and the sink ship observations was the effect-less observation?

It wasn't. Instead it was determined that your "Flat Earth observations" were pure fiction, either an intentional lie to pretend there is a problem with the RE or just ignorance.

Please explain why the angles calculated from the bearings do not match up with the position of the lights in the photo.

In case you missed/ignore it before, here they are again:

Bearing              Real Px Calculated 222.11 -------------- --------------- ----------------- 231.74 9.63 367 15.59 239.36 7.62 272 11.56 245.91 6.55 224 9.52 251.4 5.49 192 8.16 268.29 16.89 33 1.40

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2019, 06:22:35 PM

How was it determined that the Flat Earth observations were the special effect and the sink ship observations was the effect-less observation?

Please explain. Have you forgotten that I wrote:

Quote from: rabinoz on December 28, 2019, 03:02:19 PM

I agree that one example of "I saw a sunken ship" is not an adequate counter-argument but it is not a case of one example at all.

And I get back once again to the situation that you always seem to gloss over: the higher the observer less is being hidden by a sharp clear horizon.

But, in the end, observing or not observing curvature is not very decisive evidence of the shape of the Earth because conditions can vary so much.

There are about 500 observations of seeing further than we should on YouTube. I don't see how multiple sunken observations is a valid counter argument.

There are about 500 observations of seeing further than we should on YouTube. I don't see how multiple sunken observations is a valid counter argument.

And how many of them leaves so much unknown that you can't tell anything from it?
How many are pure fiction or outright lies like you recent video?
How many just don't bother calculating how much should be seen correctly?

How many ignore refraction?

You are yet to provide a single example that actually shows less hidden than should be. Ignoring refraction doesn't magically mean less is hidden than should be.

Stop posting nonsense. Which observations are refraction are in question and you have failed to show which ones are and are not.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 28, 2019, 06:26:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2019, 06:22:35 PM

How was it determined that the Flat Earth observations were the special effect and the sink ship observations was the effect-less observation?

Please explain. Have you forgotten that I wrote:

Quote from: rabinoz on December 28, 2019, 03:02:19 PM

I agree that one example of "I saw a sunken ship" is not an adequate counter-argument but it is not a case of one example at all.

And I get back once again to the situation that you always seem to gloss over: the higher the observer less is being hidden by a sharp clear horizon.

But, in the end, observing or not observing curvature is not very decisive evidence of the shape of the Earth because conditions can vary so much.

There are about 500 observations of seeing further than we should on YouTube. I don't see how multiple sunken observations is a valid counter argument.

So you rely on a 150 year old book with observations that in many places have been shown to be just misinterpreted bad copies.
Should we look at this ridiculous claim again?

Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' EXPERIMENT 14
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

We could look over this again! Questions about a Rowbotham claim « on: June 11, 2018, 07:30:48 PM »
His "more than 6600 feet" completely ignores the height of the light on El Bartolo,  736 m, and the height of the observer on Ibiza at Camp Vell is Camp Vell Mountain, 386 m at 39° 3'27.51"N, 1°21'14.26"E (Google Earth).

That was a total fail for Rowbotham and even Ski wrote:

He didn't account for elevation. His cannon experiment was also quite naive. There are a slew of things I don't believe that Dr. Rowbotham espouses.  That is not grounds to discount everything the man ever said.

I fail to see why I should bother answering when you totally ignore what I have asked here and in other threads.
You said that:

Anything that contradicts RE often supports FE.

I presume that if there are similar discrepancies in FET then we can take that as evidence that the Earth is a Globe.

Well, what about this:

Rowbotham claimed that the Sun could no be higher than 700 statute miles.
Most recent flat Earthers seem to claim "about 3100 miles".
Flat Earth Scientist, Sandokhan clams something like 10 miles and
I believe I've seen you claim about 6100 miles.

That looks to be a massive weakness.

This works two ways and I see these total failures of FET as evidence that the Earth is a Globe.

So, some answers from you, please!

Stop posting nonsense. Which observations are refraction are in question and you have failed to show which ones are and are not.

Stop posting nonsense! Nothing should be hidden on a flat Earth other than by some physical obstruction.

How many ignore refraction?

Look at my previous post where Rowbotham not only ignores refraction but an observer height of a bit under 400 metres and the target height (a bonfire) of over 700 metres.

There's a whole thread that Rowbotham's failure at the link given.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2019, 06:35:11 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on December 28, 2019, 06:26:13 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 28, 2019, 06:22:35 PM

How was it determined that the Flat Earth observations were the special effect and the sink ship observations was the effect-less observation?

Please explain. Have you forgotten that I wrote:

Quote from: rabinoz on December 28, 2019, 03:02:19 PM

I agree that one example of "I saw a sunken ship" is not an adequate counter-argument but it is not a case of one example at all.

And I get back once again to the situation that you always seem to gloss over: the higher the observer less is being hidden by a sharp clear horizon.

But, in the end, observing or not observing curvature is not very decisive evidence of the shape of the Earth because conditions can vary so much.

There are about 500 observations of seeing further than we should on YouTube. I don't see how multiple sunken observations is a valid counter argument.

So you rely on a 150 year old book with observations that in many places have been shown to be just misinterpreted bad copies.
Should we look at this ridiculous claim again?

Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Zetetic Astronomy, by 'Parallax' EXPERIMENT 14
In the account of the trigonometrical operations in France, by M. M. Biot and Arago, it is stated that the light of a powerful lamp, with good reflectors, was placed on a rocky summit, in Spain, called Desierto las Palmas, and was distinctly seen from Camprey, on the Island of Iviza. The elevation of the two points was nearly the same, and the distance between them nearly 100 miles. If the earth is a globe, the light on the rock in Spain would have been more than 6600 feet, or nearly one mile and a quarter, below the line of sight.

We could look over this again! Questions about a Rowbotham claim « on: June 11, 2018, 07:30:48 PM »
His "more than 6600 feet" completely ignores the height of the light on El Bartolo,  736 m, and the height of the observer on Ibiza at Camp Vell is Camp Vell Mountain, 386 m at 39° 3'27.51"N, 1°21'14.26"E (Google Earth).

That was a total fail for Rowbotham and even Ski wrote:

Quote from: Ski on June 15, 2018, 08:36:34 AM

He didn't account for elevation. His cannon experiment was also quite naive. There are a slew of things I don't believe that Dr. Rowbotham espouses.  That is not grounds to discount everything the man ever said.

I fail to see why I should bother answering when you totally ignore what I have asked here and in other threads.
You said that:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2019, 10:26:00 AM

Anything that contradicts RE often supports FE.

I presume that if there are similar discrepancies in FET then we can take that as evidence that the Earth is a Globe.

Well, what about this:

Quote from: rabinoz on December 23, 2019, 08:01:12 PM

Rowbotham claimed that the Sun could no be higher than 700 statute miles.
Most recent flat Earthers seem to claim "about 3100 miles".
Flat Earth Scientist, Sandokhan clams something like 10 miles and
I believe I've seen you claim about 6100 miles.

That looks to be a massive weakness.

This works two ways and I see these total failures of FET as evidence that the Earth is a Globe.

So, some answers from you, please!

It does not say "El Bartolo" anywhere in that chapter, liar. It just says 'a rocky summit'.

RE can only support themselves with lies.

It does not say "El Bartolo" anywhere in that chapter, liar. It just says a 'rocky summit'.

RE can only support themselves with lies.

Just watch your language, thank you, Mr Bishop! - I am not a liar!
I did not anywhere claim that Rowbotham did "say 'El Bartolo' anywhere in that chapter."

I said:

His "more than 6600 feet" completely ignores the height of the light on El Bartolo,  736 m, and the height of the observer on Ibiza at Camp Vell is Camp Vell Mountain, 386 m at 39° 3'27.51"N, 1°21'14.26"E (Google Earth).

Anybody reading the reports from Biot and Arago would see that Rowbotham was referring to their surveying of the leg from Ibeza (Iviza) to El Bartolo.

In any case, it cannot be denied that even with your claims that they were about the same height, that height could not have been less than the 386 metre (1266 feet) height of the Camp Vell Mountain.

For an observer and target height of 1266 feet the hidden height would be only 1266 feet not 6666 feet with no refraction and there is usually some refraction!
But please give Biot, Arago and Mechain some credit. They were physicist and astronomers and would have known not to waste their time setting up camps at impossible locations.

If you disagree then point to any other survey that Rowbotham could possibly have been referring to.
To assist in that, you might read, Debunked: Eric Dubay "Flat Earth Proof" #13

And no!
The Globe needs no lies to support it, thank you!
All the Globe needs thorough investigation to dig up the facts of these cases.

Why do you continually ignore this?

I fail to see why I should bother answering when you totally ignore what I have asked here and in other threads.
You said that:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2019, 10:26:00 AM

Anything that contradicts RE often supports FE.

I presume that if there are similar discrepancies in FET then we can take that as evidence that the Earth is a Globe.

Well, what about this:

Quote from: rabinoz on December 23, 2019, 08:01:12 PM

Rowbotham claimed that the Sun could no be higher than 700 statute miles.
Most recent flat Earthers seem to claim "about 3100 miles".
Flat Earth Scientist, Sandokhan clams something like 10 miles and
I believe I've seen you claim about 6100 miles.

That looks to be a massive weakness.

This works two ways and I see these total failures of FET as evidence that the Earth is a Globe.

So, some answers from you, please!

Stop posting nonsense. Which observations are refraction are in question and you have failed to show which ones are and are not.

Good advice, you should stop posting nonsense.

You posted a video claiming that a series of lights were appearing on a plane, even though they should be hidden (at least when ignoring refraction).

I showed that either it is an outright lie, or FEers not bothering to check their sources.
You can see the bearings provided in the video, then from that calculate the angular separation between the light sources, and then compare that to those observed in the photo. Doing so gives this:

Bearing              Real Px Calculated 222.11 -------------- --------------- ----------------- 231.74 9.63 367 15.59 239.36 7.62 272 11.56 245.91 6.55 224 9.52 251.4 5.49 192 8.16 268.29 16.89 33 1.40

Notice how the angles do not match at all?
This shows that either they are blatantly lying, knowing that what they are presenting is not correct, such as knowing it was taken from a different location or of different lights, or they are just happy to spout whatever nonsense fits their narrative without even simple checking of facts.

It does not say "El Bartolo" anywhere in that chapter, liar. It just says 'a rocky summit'.
RE can only support themselves with lies.

No, that would be FEers supporting themselves with lies.
The simple fact is it mentions a rocky summit. The best you can have is an unknown height.
But the calculations for how much should be hidden act as if both are at sea level.
So that would be more nonsense and lies from FEers.

It seems the only times FEers can pretend that we can see things we shouldn't is if they ignore the height of the observer or the object, or if they ignore refraction, or both.