There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position. This isn’t magic. If I can see PART of it FULLY, then the problem is not the problem of distance which makes it too small for the human eye to see; but if that is not the problem, then a telescope is not going to fix it.
Stop being stupid. It’s beneath you.

You're extremely ignorant about this subject.  Said optical phenomena have been well demonstrated and are well known.

You are the one who's being stupid.  Lots of things can happen to light and its relationship with how the eye perceives it.

In fact you can find many videos demonstrating exactly that which you bluster about being impossible.  You see the bottom part of boats seemingly vanish, only to reappear when zoomed in on.

It would be one thing if you were just a simple idiot, but you're an arrogant idiot who blusters about claiming that your ignorance is actually truth.

There's a difference between neatness and impossibility. The math for a flat earth simply does not work. It's not that it's messy. It's impossible. The neatness argument applies when talking about things like geo vs helio centricism, because they both can be made to work mathematically. But if you assume the earth is flat, do the geometry, and find a contradiction (i.e. the sun in many different places at the same time), then it absolutely does constitute proof (by contradiction. One of the oldest well established forms of proof around).

I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.

I am not sure how the image below (taken from that video Neil posted a few days back) can in any way be reconciled with reality. The sun would need to be in a million different places at once.

Well, Neil understood my point even if you didn't.  If you terminate the lines before they cross over one another and then point out to space, the vast majority of the lines coalesce at some point not too far from the earth, at the top of a conical structure.  And that is where flat earthers would put the sun, relatively close to the earth.

That works for some of them, yes. Are we just ignoring all the ones that shoot off in completely different directions?

And, if there's a solid dome, reflection off the dome might account for those strays around the perimeter.

There is no optical phenomenon whereby part of an object obscured becomes visible upon zooming in on it. None. That is a priori absurd. Why? Because part of an otherwise visible object becomes obscured when light from that part is somehow blocked from reaching ones eye; but if that light cannot reach ones eye, then it cannot reach a telescopic lense at ones position.  This isn’t magic.

Theosist is entirely correct in this instance.

People posting in this topic are, in effect, attributing optical magic to "zoom" lenses.  Which is a technical term that just about everyone posting herein is using incorrectly.

Each lens under discussion is refracting whatever light rays enter that lens, having already been reflected (whether from near or far) toward the lens and the human eyes behind it.  No "zoom" lens, um, unblocks any light ray that is reflected-but-blocked by physical obstructions far out in the distance, where an "obstruction" includes telephoto-foreshortened seawater.

You're extremely ignorant about this subject. [....] You are the one who's being stupid.  Lots of things can happen to light and its relationship with how the eye perceives it.

This is not an issue of perception by the human eye; the light rays reflected from the distant object are either able to enter a lens--or not.  It makes no difference whether that lens is a "zoom"--especially because it's a term that just about everyone herein is using incorrectly.

Said optical phenomena have been well demonstrated and are well known. [....] In fact you can find many videos demonstrating exactly that which you bluster about being impossible.  You see the bottom part of boats seemingly vanish, only to reappear when zoomed in on.

Why do you seem to have ruled out that possibility that those "many videos" claiming magical "zoom" lenses are frauds?

E.g., close coördination between 2 photographers: 1 stationed at sea-level, and the 2nd at an elevation high enough to look over-&-past the "hump" of ocean curvature that obscures--i.e.: blocks--the distant ocean surface from viewers at sea-level, plus more-or-less competent video editing, could be all that's needed to produce such a fraudulent video.

It would be one thing if you were just a simple idiot, but you're an arrogant idiot who blusters about claiming that your ignorance is actually truth.

Really, now?
My 50th anniversary of serious photography [♥] arrives in 2018 (if not already passed in 2017).  I've typically applied an engineering mind-set to the tools of the art & trade, which of course includes the technical characteristics of lenses.  So altho' I'm making an appeal to authority--my own--I'm well positioned to call "seabird [guano! ] on magical "zoom" lenses.

-------
Note ♥: Serious enough about photography to have started self-taught for a high school annual, including push-processing for my own film (there's quite a narrow margin for error in photographing football games by available light at night), and printing some of it esp. in my college years.  From time-to-time being paid for my fieldwork in photojournalism, and later, commercial film processing in a darkroom (dip-n-dunk: no autoeverything processors).

Well, Neil understood my point even if you didn't.  If you terminate the lines before they cross over one another and then point out to space, the vast majority of the lines coalesce at some point not too far from the earth, at the top of a conical structure.  And that is where flat earthers would put the sun, relatively close to the earth.

.
Your premise is 100% false, again.
The "vast majority of the lines" do NOT "coalesce" or "cross over one another" anywhere near each other.
You're only looking at one view of the model when many views in a moving image are provided for clarity.
Clarity which you ignore repeatedly.
.
The arrows that APPEAR to be close to each other here IN THIS VIEW ALONE are separated from each other near to far.
There are only a VERY FEW like less than 10 that come close to crossing each other AT ALL, and not very close at that.
Most pairs of these arrows don't come close to each other at all. 
Most of these arrows don't touch ANY OTHER ARROW.
So knock it off with your gibberish fantasy, Ladislaus. Unless you enjoy making yourself look stupid.
.