Yes the intellectual dishonesty goes a long way. It's just as easy to doctor video shots as stills.
It is actually harder to doctor videos.
That is why we can see in the video the Lego is quite easily fake.
While in the still image of it your provided it isn't as clear.
However, I can see outside my window. There is a gap where I can't see due to perspective (is that curvature? No like its inverse, vanishing point, this is where angles make things impossible)
Just what do you mean by that?
Do you mean where your wall blocks the view, just like the curve of Earth blocks the view?
Why don't you try to draw a picture of this (side on)?
none of them bend like that.
Bend like what?
Try heavily doctored photos.
Try you are just rejecting reality because you don't like it.
There are countless examples. It all comes back to why things appear to sink as they go over the horizon and disappear from the bottom up.
This is seen time and time again, and FEers have no explanation for it.
But reality is, I can take a shot, and if Discord works on my Kindle, post it to Discord. This is literally the view out my window.
Over a tiny distance, where the effects of curvature are negligible.
So pathetic try.
You not liking reality doesn't make it not reality.
Why would he "move his flashlight below the horizon line"?
Because the sun was below the horizon in that photo.
You're missing the point. The sun's light comes at a level line.
Which would also be impossible for your FE fantasy.
If the sun is above, the light from the sun should be coming down.
The sun near goes into the horizon where it suddenly shrinks as you want it to do. Because at no point during its set, does it shrink. It appears to dip.
And now you outright contradict yourself.
First you claim it suddenly shrinks, but then you claim it doesn't.
In reality, if you exclude glare, the sun's angular size remains fairly constant, and it drops below the horizon, vanishing from the bottom up.
Another impossibility of the FE.
But that's not the point. The point is, the video has satisfied one of the conditions, but the sky isn't just right for the sun to show up, so you're gonna ignore the results and pretend like you didn't just see the exact upright shadow that you asked for.
It really hasn't.
There are many faults, some of which were pointed out in the comment, and some they pretended to address.
The biggest issue is the ratio of the height to the distance.
They make the sun so far away, it would be completely off your flat fantasy.
Another big issue is they have the clouds being opaque rather than transparent and solid, and touching the mountain.
And they use a small light to model for the sun, instead of a light that would be larger than the mountain.
All of these issues affect the result.
You think the sun goes down
No, we think Earth rotates. But from our vantage point this creates the appearance of the sun going down.
Observing how the angular size remains roughly constant, this means the distance is roughly constant, so the only way for it to appear to sink is for that relative motion to actually be occurring.
even though you literally can see the shadow of the fan "setting".
No, we don't.
We see it appear quite wide and high with the flashlight close, and as the flashlight moved further away the shadow shrunk, but it didn't set.
Nothing like how the sun behaves and nothing like how shadows cast by the sun behave.
rewatch the video paying attention to the fan. This is what glare does. We have an object that casts glare at certain times of day, and we call it the sun. I have seen this exact effect, with metal objects placed near our window (Mom likes birdhouses) I typically have to move the object in question because the glare is as bright as the sun.
Glare isn't magically caused by some object.
What you are appealing to is an object that reflects the sun.
And glare can be caused by any light source.
When you have to change a model to make it not work, you're pretty desperate.
When you have to blatantly misrepresent the model to pretend it works, you're pretty desperate.