I'll dig up the mountain pictures ... since those are independently sourced and not from a video put together by a flat earther.

.
If you knew anything about meteorology perhaps you would be better able to understand a meteorologist.

There isn't anything wrong with not knowing things.  It's a problem when people refuse to learn.  
People show mastery of a subject when they can explain it clearly to non-experts.  The goal is to convey information, not to show-off how clever one is.

Hmm, I stand corrected on the Chicago case. Apparently it is necessary to include some refraction to make the math work.

And I've seen similar things with regard to the math ... where the response is refraction.  I can't rule out refraction of course ... which is why I don't consider this proof of flat earth.

So, as you can see, I apply the same criterion to both sides.  I'm looking for solid evidence one way or the other.  I don't consider the bottoms of ships disappearing to be concrete proof, but nor do I consider seeing things at distances where curvature math would rule it out concrete proof either.  I consider these two points to be a wash.

... things like lasers, sound beams, GPS measurements, etc.  I've seen some things from flat earthers n that category ... but nothing yet from the globe earthers.  But I don't consider it 100% either, since I can't rule out fakery in presenting the results.

.
The difficulty faced with trying to answer flat-earthers is, they run away and hide when you give them something to think about.
.
Then they come back forgetting everything you told them and pretend the problem still exists.
.
You can repeat your lesson or change it up for better view from anothed wier angle but they just run away again.
.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
.
When being precise and using a variety of styles isn't enough, then what is left?

I have seen what you are talking about, but Ladislaus does not seem like that. He is seeking the truth and can be reasoned with.  There is no need to be adversarial with him.    

.
What you have said here is partially true, and partially false.
.

No, it's entirely true.

The Church doesn't define reality that we can verify by objective observation.
Things like the depth of the sea, or the limits of the sun's northern or southern declination each year, for example.
But the Church DOES define reality in spiritual matters, such as the Assumption of Our Lady body and soul into heaven.
So to say "the Church doesn't define any kind of reality" is incorrect.

One more time for the obtuse: the Church does not DEFINE REALITY. That's a nonsense. Reality is what it is; the doctrine of the Assumption expresses a fact regarding an event that actually occured and had occured long before that doctrine was defined. You seem to have a problem with comprehending semantics here. As I stated, and stated correctly, the Church defines true propositions about that reality which have been revealed by God.
REALITY is not a suitable object of the action of DEFINING. Words, terms, concepts, statement about reality - these are objects for definition.

The dimensions of Solomon's temple is not something that can be verified because the temple no longer exists.

The dimensions of Solomon's Temple are known with certainty, barring some typorgraphic error that may have come down in transcription, because they are revealed in the inerrant word of God. You appear to be denying that inerrancy, which is heresy.

If the temple were still existing, the Church wouldn't declare that its dimensions are other than what can be observed.

Because if the Temple were still standing its dimensions would conform exactly to what the Bible states they are.

Objective observation is its own reality, by the way.

Again: "objective observation" is a contradiction in terms. Observations are, in principle, subjective. Stop wasting my time. Of course everything within the experiential field of the subject is it "own reality"; that's a vacuous tautology.

There are those who deny the evidence of direct personal eyewitness.
Thanks to Hegel, Locke, Hume, Comte, Kant, Marx, Nietzsche and their ilk, we have no shortage of deniers of observation.

When people address me like this, I'm just going to repeat myself: the notion that a “physical reality” - by which really meant a theoretical model abstracted from sense experience, thus based not only upon uncertain data but upon  projecting conceptual fantasies into that data in order to postulate the existence of a world lying behind the content of sense experience - the notion that this process - of the blind grasping in the dark for a cat that might not exist at all - could take precedence over divine assurance of truth is preposterous.
Surely you grasp the distinction that is made IN YOUR OWN ONTOLOGY (not in mine) between the content of your experience and the objective reality of the abstract atomistic "matter" and mechanism of physics which you all postulate as the reductive cause of that experience.

I hope that's not what is infecting your perception!

Please don't talk about an infection of perception while attacking others for questioning the nature of what has been derived from perceptions.

Well, I don't find ships disappearing bottom-up to be proof of globe earth ... because that could be due to various optical phenomena.

Similarly, I don't find seeing objects at a distance not explainable by the math a proof of flat earth ... because that COULD be due to refraction (a different optical phenomenon).

Each side uses one of these as proof for its own position, due to confirmation bias, but I see neither one of these as hard proof.

Lad,
Please watch it all. 1:30. This is what I'm talking about. The second ship is not visible unless zoomed in on. But when it is, the whole bottom of it is not visible. I sincerely want to know how FE explains this.

I just said.  Various optical phenomena could explain that.  It's not solid proof.  Do you think that cameras have infinite zoom capability?  At some point their limitations catch up with devices too.

Honestly if you want solid, indisputable proof, go look further into the stuff Neil posted about the position of the sun in the sky (some video with a bunch of rays that didn't intersect right). The math gets more complicated so you'll have to do a little more work probably, but it's pretty convincing. The tests with the angles of shadows are pretty good too, and less work to derive the math if memory serves. It was one of the first methods used by the Greeks to calculate the circuмference of the earth and they got really close with relatively primitive measuring tools.