Don't waste your time going through that " oh we don't see in 1D nonsense.
Maybe once you stop pretending we do.
That would mean accepting we see an angular range, rather than just a line.
you know fine well I'm showing a simple diagram and leaving it up to the genuine people to see it for what it is
No, you are presenting an extremely dishonest diagram, which in no way represents reality and which has a blatantly false conclusion on it.
If you did it accurately, you would have an angular FOV, rather than the line, because we don't see in 1D.
This would then show how even on a hill, you can still see it, and how even after Earth rotates, you can still see the sun. and you can still see the bulding.
Your entire diagram is based upon the false premise that we only see 1D, a single line extending from our eye; which is pure BS.
Your diagram is using the naked eye to gain your FOV.
Why do you neglect the simple tube with no curved lens?
STOP LYING!
That diagram of mine is using the FOV expected through a tube. It is a FOV of 10 degrees. The FOV for the naked eye is ~180 degrees, much much larger.
It is an accurate, too scale diagram, of what you actually expect when looking through a tube. I even provided the dimensions of the tube before.
Again, what you are suggesting, this garbage:
requires a lens.
See the little grey thing? That is a lens.
This lens bends the light.
Rather than the light continuing straight as it would without a lens, this lens bends the parallel rays of light such that they converge on the eye. This also bends like that would otherwise strike the eye making it so it doesn't.
Without such a lens you instead have a setup like this:
The orange line is stopped by the tube.
But the blue line travels straight, going straight to the eye.
The blue line can be anywhere in the region bounded by the 2 red lines.
Anywhere in that region allows the light to travel straight to the eye with no obstruction.
Those red lines are the actual FOV you get from that tube.
You not liking that has no bearing on reality.
If you wish to assert your garbage is correct you need to explain what magic stops the blue line and what magic causes the parallel lines to curve and hit your eye.
I implore anyone to go out with a simple tube and look level over their street or field and tell me they can see the ground under their tube vision.
Again, a much simpler test to show you are spouting BS.
Tape a piece of paper to a wall. Get your tube, put it up against the sheet of paper and draw a circle around it, touching the tube all the way (the closer the better).
Now stand back from the page, a few m between the end of the tube and the paper should be plenty, and then look at the page through the tube, making sure it is centred on the circle.
If your outright lies were correct, you wouldn't even see the circle.
But in reality, you can easily see the circle, and much more.
This shows conclusively that your vision is not magically bound by the physical size of the tube, and instead is bound by the angular size.
You can also use tubes of different length (or have them a different distance from your eye, and see how the FOV changes with distance. That wouldn't happen if you could only see the physical size of the tube, rather than the angular size of the end.
Again, another simple example is looking at a house, or any object known to be larger than the tube.
If your BS was correct, you would only see a tiny portion of it. But the simple fact is you can see more of it the further away it is.
And if it is so easy, why do you continually refuse?
And again you ignore the question: Why do you falsely claim that the RE should have a blend from light to dark rather than a clear edge like so many other observed balls?
It's not a magic tunnel vision, it is a tunnel vision.
Tunnel vision, or normal tunnel vision, works based upon angles, just like all FOVs.
Light continues to travel in a straight line, as there is nothing to deflect it.
This gives you an angular FOV.
But your magic BS tunnel vision magically changes into a line.
That's why it is magic.
If you want to say it isn't magic you need to explain why it magically becomes a line and what magically stops the blue line.
2 things you are completely incapable of doing.
There's nothing complicated about the set up I've put forward.
Yes there is.
You want to precisely line up 3 sets of cross hairs, where 2 of these sets need adjustment based upon angle and height.
You managed it with what I mentioned.
He managed the much simpler version, with a single tube, which is easy to level and set up as you don't need precise alignment with another object.
He successfully demonstrated that you were wrong, and that a tube doesn't magically prevent you from seeing things above and below it.
Even without the hill, the ruler clearly demonstrates you can see above and below.
Trying to appeal to it being angled downwards just makes the section above harder to see.
Any honest normal thinking person can prove to themselves what I've put forward.
You mean they can prove it is pure BS, like several honest, normal thinking people here have done.
Plumb bobs, multiple tubes, crosshairs, pencils... nothing at all absurd. 
They're only absurd to people like you because they show you up.
No, absurd to any sane person.
A plumbob is used to establish a vertical level, not a horizontal one. Attaching anything to it can affect that level.
Adding additional tubes just serves to further complicate the experiment due to alignment issues.
It won't magically make it so they can't point down.
Everything you are suggesting just needlessly complicates the experiment. It in no way establishes that the tubes are level anymore than a single tube.
Do the experiment and shut me up.
He already did. You then called him a liar, dismissed his experiment as faked and put more ridiculous demands on your experiment.
And you refuse to outline everything that is needed such that when such an experiment proves you wrong you will just accept it. Instead you always demand to be allowed room to just dismiss the experiment because it shows you are wrong.
So how about YOU do the experiment?
Or even better, forget the experiment and stick to the logic.
You don't have a field of view like that through a tube, so why are you using it?
And there you go lying yet again. We do have a FOV like that. (And yet you claim that you accept that we do have a FOV through the tube and never claim we don't).
Because remember, a FOV covers an angular range. So the only question is how large it should be.
Just what is wrong with it?
The scale?
Or is it just that like so many other things, it shows you are spouting pure BS?
Would you like me to make the lines smaller so you can't see them?
No, we would like you to draw in a FOV, to scale, rather than just a line.
If you don't want it to scale and instead want the person much higher above Earth, then you need a correspondingly much larger FOV.