It's been well explained. If you think it hasn't then force me to do better by showing me what you're struggling with, specifically.
Again, it isn't us struggling.
We have made the problem with your lies clear, yet you continue to ignore these problems and pretend there is none.
But if you truly think it is us struggling, then what we are "struggling" (by which I really mean we are repeatedly showing you are wrong) with are a few key points:
A - What is wrong with the argument I have presented to you, which you have repeatedly ignored?
According to this argument, you are wrong, as the RE would have a horizon and when close to the surface that would be imperceptibly different from level. You have repeatedly ignored this argument, and haven't shown a single thing wrong with it.
Here it is again:
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.
Can you point out exactly what is wrong with this argument?
And again, before you appeal to a level scope, that is dealt with at the end. If you need it explicit:
9 - Thus looking through a level scope with a vertical FOV >= 5.4 arc minutes, standing 2 m above Earth, will allow one to see the horizon through this level scope, furthermore, looking through one with a FOV of 2.5 degrees would have the horizon appear to only be 1.8% of the FOV below level, and that still relies upon you having it perfectly level.
B - Just what is wrong the diagram I presented? It clearly shows an observer looking out level, with a FOV of 90 degrees, and still clearly seeing the horizon. It also shows how this physical horizon obstructs the bottom of distant objects.
Here is the diagram again:
And before you repeat the same lie, IT IS A LEVEL VIEW! That purple line is simply one line out of many in the FOV. The FOV is bounded by the brown lines, which is symmetric about the line extending horizontally from the observer, and thus it is a level view.
C - Why do so many photos, found from so many sources, clearly show the horizon to be below the convergence point, below eye level? And no, just dismissing them all as fake is not good enough. Clearly explain why you think they are fake, and no, them showing you are wrong is not good enough either.
D - The closest thing you have to an actual argument against being able to see the ground on the RE is appealing to the fact that it is below you and below your line of sight. But this argument applies equally to the FE. So what magic allows the ground to rise up into your FOV on a FE but doesn't allow the same for a RE?
You can't use perspective, because that would work for both.
E - What magic prevents us from seeing the bottom of distant objects on your hypothetical FE? All the available evidence indicates a real physical horizon, with the distant object having its base below that horizon, likely due to the curvature of Earth.
We know it can't simply be the atmosphere scattering the light, as that would merely create a blur which obscured the bottom of the object and blurs the sea/ground into the sky. It would not magically cause the entire building to appear lower.
We know it can't simply be limited resolution, as that would equally obscure the top and the bottom (technically it would obscure the top slightly more as it is further away). It also wouldn't magically lower the base, instead the entire building should just appear smaller, but still entirely above the horizon. And perhaps most important of all, using a better optics system doesn't allow more to be brought into view, even though it does allow small objects before the horizon (which limited resolution has rendered unresolvable) to be well resolved.
We know it can't simply be that the light reflected off the base isn't strong enough, as that would simply make it dark. It wouldn't magically lower the base to have it appear below the horizon. The best you would get is a dark band in your vision. It also would be dependent upon sensitivity to light, with more sensitive optics allowing you to see further down. That would mean simply changing the exposure setting on a camera should control how much is visible.
You will notice a common theme missing from all the explanations, what makes the building appear to have its base submerged?
Does that clear up the issues that YOU are struggling with, that YOU are struggling to come up with an excuse to dismiss to have it match your flat fantasy and reject the RE model you cannot find fault with, that you wish to pretend we are struggling with as you can't provide any rational objection?
I'm not the one being dishonest.
Put some effort in.
Yes you are.
You are repeatedly lying about the RE.
You are repeatedly lying about reality.
You are repeatedly ignoring arguments and explanations presented only to then ask the same stupid already answered question again and again.
You are repeatedly misrepresenting what we have said or provided.
You are repeatedly dismissing evidence as fake and manipulated, even though the sole justification is that it shows you are wrong.
You are the one being extremely dishonest.
And that dishonesty seems to be the only effort you are willing to put in.
So now you're using a hump.
Make up your mind.
And more pathetic dishonesty.
No, we are still using the same round Earth, constantly curving down from any point.
But if you rotate it, it looks like a hump.
That is because you kept on appealing to it curving up.
But thanks for showing your dishonesty yet again.
The sole distinction between those 2 diagrams is that one has been rotated and had the lines turned into stick figures.
Do you see a hump in the second diagram? No. So why pretend anyone is appealing to a hump.
That is just to try to explain it to you, because you don't seem to understand how the RE model works at all, or how sight works at all.