No. It's a tiny portion of a seam, which appears to be going uphill and to the right. I can clearly notice that there is what appears to be the crest of a hill.
No, you can't.
There is nothing in that photo to indicate if it is going up or down or to the left or to the right.
If you think there is, identify the key part of it that does.
You basically picked a spot that has a bell curve (it may be going downhill, but where you are standing, it arced uphill) to "prove" there is curvature.
You sure do love playing dumb don't you?
Even you have admitted the road is curving to the right.
That is the curve being discussed.
In this photo you can easily see that curve to the right, but in the photo of a tiny portion of that curve, you can't easily see it.
That is the point you keep fleeing from.
It exposes your dishonest BS and you can't accept it.
I just proved it by doing it.
No, you didn't.
You pissed around with GIMP and got something which looks nothing like it.
But here, let's prove it again.
“There is a video showing the same scene, but the curvature is not there!”
And then the logical thing for you to do here, is for you to do what you have allegedly done, take that image and make it show the curve.
But you can't.
Instead, you cling to a low resolution, carefully cherry picked image to pretend there isn't a cuve.
As already demonstrated, it is easy to get a curve, and take a photo of it in such a way to dishonestly hide the curve.
So showing a photo where the curve is not obvious in no way proves your delusional BS.
Took about three seconds.
To produce an image nothing like what is seen.
Yet again you have failed to justify your delusional BS.
Enjoy that moment when you find out I was right about globalism
That moment exists only as a figment of your imagination.
How often you flee from topics after being repeatedly refuted demonstrates quite clearly that you are spouting pure BS.
The answers are going to be the same whether you asked be the other day or right now.
i.e. you will continue spouting the same refuted, delusional BS, no matter how many times it is explained why it is delusional BS, and you will make no attempt to actually defend that delusional BS by addressing those refutations.
There has never been a successful space flight, and there never will be.
More wilful ignorance of reality wont save you.
But what we do know from car perspective experiments is that where we turn the car, the the moon shifts with it
No, it doesn't.
If the moon is in front of the car, and you turn the car, the moon doesn't magically shift to be in front of the car.
but the car is never able to pass it, nor is the moon able to pass the car. Conclusion?
You can sit in the car and watch the moon pass overhead.
So conclusion: You are spouting delusional BS with no connection to reality.
It moves at a fixed rate from a fixed distance
The majority of the apparent motion of the moon is due to Earth's rotation.
That makes it move at a fairly constant rate.
Straight from my signature. Figure 5.
You mean your delusional pile of garbage, which was refuted when you first posted it, only for you to flee from that refutation and lie to everyone with every post you make?
In this you continue with your delusional BS that for a FE the horizon is magically fixed at 3 miles, for no reason at all.
And continue to promote your delusional parabola, that makes no sense at all, and which you cannot justify in any way.
In other words, you just blatantly lie to everyone, bringing up the same refuted BS again and again.
Your "proof 3" is just proof of how much you are willing to lie to everyone.
For a RE, the distance to the horizon depends on your altitude.
That means if you go higher, you can see further.
But this doesn't help your delusional BS, so you outright lie to everyone and pretend that exactly what is expected for a RE magically refutes the RE.
Proof 4 repeats the same dishonest, refuted, BS.
Proof 5 just further demonstrates your delusional BS doesn't work.
If the moon was close, you would expect it to change drastically as you moved around.
But if it was 350 000 + km away, you wouldn't expect it to change much as you travelled around Earth.
If your delusional BS was true, and your vision was limited to 3 miles by the parabola, you should only be able to see the moon for a tiny portion of the day.
Your parabola BS doesn't work at all.
But the RE model does.
As for the last bit, your delusional BS in no way invalidates a sensible depiction of the RE.
You providing BS has no impact on sensible depictions.
Perhaps you should try a sensible depiction, and try combing that last image which directly your previous BS and try explaining why a RE should magically have vision limited to 3 archaic units.
In other words, no matter the distance we travel, the moon never appears closer or farther. It simply tilts due to upward or downward angle, and shifts left or right based on facing.
Just like you would expect for a RE with a very distant moon, and nothing at all like what you would expect for a FE with a close moon, even if it is a projection.
Nevertheless, we can know for certain that RE models of how far away it's supposed to be are dead wrong. Light does not project this far.
No, we can't.
You have NOTHING at all, to support that delusional BS of yours.
The point being that phases are about alignment
And that is just yet another thing you cannot address at all.
Once more, with a RE and a very distant round moon that merely reflects the sun's light, it makes perfect sense, but your delusional BS you can't tell us what this alignment is, or how it causes the phases, or for how long each phase should be.
These aren't passing over a curvature, because we happen to know green doesn't carry as far as red.
You repeatedly asserting your delusional BS, with no justification at all, will not help you.
Green carries just as far as red, that is until something blocks it or absorbs it.
It doesn't just magically die.
as everyone will tell you when you ask why traffic lights are certain colors.
Because green means go and red means stop.
It has nothing to do with how far they travel.
Do I know how far? No, and I do not care.
Of course you don't care.
You are happy to leave your model as vague garbage, because you know that specifics makes it even easier to demonstrate it is BS.
Now again, try explaining the Moon's phases, or grow a spine and admit you can't explain it with a FE and that the RE is the only viable explanation.