But you won't do the experiment I gave.
And it has been explained to you why.
All it does is throw in a bunch of needless complexities which just serve to make the experiment harder and reduce the FOV to move it further away from your original claim.
And there is absolutely no reason to think your response to it will be any different. For the last experiment you simply dismissed his results as fake and threw in needless complexities. Why should anyone think you would do any differently now?
You refuse to provide the requirements for you to simply accept the results. You demand to have a way out.
And that is why you never do the experiments yourself, because you can't then turn around and say you were cheating yourself.
I've set up what we actually see with a level.
Again, LEVEL was not mentioned.
Stop trying to bring it up where it has no place.
You've set it up as if the person is angled with scope. It's basically cheating.
No, I have set it up as if the person is looking, and is able to look in any direction, rather than magically only seeing 1D, i.e. along a single line.
What you are doing is cheating, where you are pretending you can only see level to pretend you can't see the lighthouse on a globe.
So that's the farthest distance you accept as truth?
And you wonder why I think you're wary of talking about lighthouses.
No, and that should be clear based upon what you asked.
You asked him what is the furthest he knows about, not the furthest he is willing to accept as truth.
Now how about you stop with the deflection and explain what magic prevents the close or high people seeing the lighthouse in my diagram?
Or try to explain how Earth merely being round prevents you from seeing it.