There are no contradictions.
There you go deflecting yet again.
Again if you want to claim there are no contradictions how about you just answer the questions provided?
As they clearly show your contradictions.
You refuse to answer, because they will again show that you have been contradicting yourself.
You are looking through a level tube, 1 inch in diameter, and 10 inches long, towards an object 1 mile away.
How far below the tube can you see at this 1 mile distance and WHY?
If there is a tree that has its base 6 ft below the line straight from the tube, and passing through the tube level, can you see the base of the tree?
Note this is referring to the physical size of the object, not any compressed size by your vision.
Is it like you first claimed, where you claimed you can only see the 1 inch of tube tube?
Or if the tube is 6 ft above the ground can you magically see that 6 ft, but no more?
Or something else?
How do you determine just how much you can see?
And as for your actual posts showing the contradiction, how about this one, and the posts around it/related to it, where you clearly admit that you can see the ground even though it is below the tube. And this includes that the tube is 6 ft above the ground and the base of the tree is thus 6 ft below the tube.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2312325#msg2312325Yet in this post:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=87127.msg2313712#msg2313712You lie and claim you haven't already admitted that.
You refuse to answer the simple question because it will either take us straight back to the tree where you will then contradict yourself yet again, or you will directly expose your contradiction.
Now again, answer the simple question.
You have a tube that is 10 inches long and 1 inch in diameter.
It is level. You are looking directly through it with your eye at the middle of the tube height wise. How far below the tube can be seen at 1 mile?
Can you see the base of a tree at 1 mile distance, if you are on a flat surface, with the tube 6 ft above this surface, and the base of the tree also on this flat surface and thus 6 ft below the eye line?
I have no need to give up.
Because unlike some people, you don't care about the truth and are quite happy to continually lie and use whatever dishonest BS you can to prop up your irrational hatred of the globe.
If you had any shred of honesty you would have given up long ago and admitted you were wrong.
The ground would not be visible through a tube set at 6 feet in height
So we go straight back to the tree. Are you claiming we cannot see the base of the tree 1 mile away over flat ground, through a level tube 6 ft above the ground?
Even though you have previously stated that you have never had an issue with that?