Meanwhile, the "Mountain of Evidence" guy was extremely meticulous in docuмenting everything, and a mountain that was 35 miles away appeared to be roughly the same height as a mountain close to him.  These two mountains were of similar elevation and could only have been the same height if the earth is flat.  Given that he was looking at multiple objects in line, a magical refraction is completely ruled out.  People without an agenda have taken pictures of mountains a couple hundred miles away.  Could they ALL be fake videos?  Unlikely.  I intend to do some of my own experiments next Spring and Summer and will report back.

I notice that many of the supposed-experts on this thread have yet to offer an explanation of the *magical* 770ft curvature disappearance.  

Can you at least grasp that someone might have looked into FE - possibly more deeply than you - and came out considering it a combination of unconvincing, incoherent, and simply wrong?

Do YOU find it correct and convincing?

If mistakes were pointed out to you, would you argue that they are not mistakes? or even if they were, there are still 100 other "proofs" you find totally convincing but won't bother telling us about in any detail?

"99% of the glober "refutations" were unconvincing, involving all kinds of logical fallacies:  straw men, appeals to authority, etc."
Would it surprise you that that description sounds a lot like FEers?

You need to have an open mind, too, Lad. That includes admitting - at least to yourself - that you may have been duped by "FE" arguments. It's OK, it happens, especially outside one's field.

Most of those questions, right back at you Stan. You assume you've looked at the evidence better, you might have not. You might have been duped by NASA and mainstream Science (should be called Scientism or Scientology, since it's a religion, but the latter term is already taken). Because it's outside YOUR field just as much as ours.

Your last couple sentences were extremely condescending, as if you're pretending to be a scientist yourself, like you're "above it all" -- the struggle of us plebs to find the truth despite being non-scientists.

Get over yourself.

Can you answer this: Do you or do you not believe that the "Mountain of evidence" video is correct and conclusive? Why or why not?

It's about the only specific "evidence" you've provided.

I'll bite.

I believe that man did a GREAT job setting up that meticulous experiment. And I don't see any problems with the whole experiment in that video.

Let me guess, Mr. "Scientist in my own mind" does find problems with it that somehow no one else can see.

What are your scientific credentials by the way? Computer science doesn't count. Besides, Lad and I are both neck-deep in computer science.

Marion, I admire you for doing some personal testing but what you described is not a scientific experiment, which must be reproducable.  Water complicates things because it moves; it's best to use mountains or landmarks in distance calcs.

I wasn't presenting my observations to provide proof for globe earth to others. Rather I just was telling Tradman, who said ...

globe believers never do their own experiments, they copy and paste what appears to be a working conclusion.

... that I personally verified that I can see further from higher up. The whole bay is very quiet, a few meters deep only, more like a lagoon. You need a storm to get higher waves.

I managed to convince my wife, who has seen that island for more than two decades every day with her own eyes. We can see it from higher up, but not from down below. We also see small boats, which don't disappear behind waves. And we've cruised the bay in small boats.

That's why we're convinced that the surface of the water in the bay is curved, not flat.

You assume you've looked at the evidence better, you might have not.

Then provide the evidence. Convince me.

Besides, Lad and I are both neck-deep in computer science.

A couple days ago, I think it was you, brought up Fr. Robinson. I said something negative about his computer-science background.

Is that what this is about? If I indirectly insulted you, I'm sorry.

Fr. Robinson is still quite ignorant in science.

Then provide the evidence. Convince me.

What do you think I am, an Apostle of Flat Earth?

I'm just a common sense seeker of the truth. And I do trust my faculty of Reason and the evidence of my senses.

You'll forgive my saying so, but your pretended "openness" comes across extremely forced and fake. You're not open at all. You're totally committed to, married to, the Globe Earth paradigm. From reading your posts, I don't think you'd admit good evidence if it stared you in the face.

Your haughty quote above comes across about as sincere as an angry child being forced to apologize to his little brother.

Good to hear you did an experiment. The reason you saw further from higher up is because you're on a flat earth.  You would not be able to see further from a mountain on a spherical earth because the horizon would drop lower and lower the higher you ascended.  Trying to see what is disappearing behind the curve as you climb would be an exercise in futility as earth drops away from view to form the spherical shape. Coming to the conclusion that you must be on a ball because you saw further is clearly wrong. The opposite is reality. 
Another thing you may not have noticed is that no matter how high up you'd go up on the mountain, the horizon rose to your eye level.  That is impossible if earth is a ball because the horizon has to fall away as you ascend in order to conform to the shape of a sphere.  The horizon is irrefutable proof earth is not a globe.     

For me, this is killer evidence in favor of Flat Earth. Fundamental, basic -- but a lot of people don't grasp it for some reason. The problem is, it's impossible to compare and contrast our experiences here on earth with those of a REAL Globe-shaped "planet" with "gravity", etc.

So all that can be done is descriptions and explanations. But a lot of listeners will not be able to grasp, or understand the import of, these explanations.

People are so used to the reality of life on earth, as well as the official Globe propaganda, that they think -- they assume -- the two are compatible. They're not, but the fact they're not compatible is hardly intuitive. You really have to put in an effort, if you want to think for yourself instead of letting others think for you.

It helps to approach the problem from the opposite direction, such as "What would it look like, if the elites DID create a fake pandemic?" as well as questioning each and every assumption we've been taught.