Then please look up terrestrial refraction, how it works, how to calculate it, and then make an informed decision if it can be used as an explanation for bent lines of sight.

Dr. John D spent hours going through the numbers and he used the calculators that were most favorable to globe earth.

Refraction explanation is a complete joke as explained in that lengthy thread on the subject, and your repetition of your obviously-biased opinion does nothing to change that.

Here again the full letter of J. William Cooke, quoted by Ladislaus in Reply #31, since the last time I forgot to upload the images (which originally are from Lady Blount's "The Midnight Sun").

======================


Dear Sir,

I know there are still a few persons who profess to believe that the Earth is a plane and stationary, whilst the sun revolves round it, but I did not know that any of them had printed such utter rubbish as in the pamphlet you so kindly sent me. This is the first of their publications I have seen and I am much obliged to you for it. I suppose some of them have written something a trifle more plausible than The Midnight Sun, and it would interest me to see a really plausible explanation of their theory. As to The Midnight Sun, the author has not the slightest idea of modern theories, etc., e g.: in his diagram on page 7. As a fact the sun at its farthest north declination, passes overhead at the tropic of Cancer, and according to accepted theory “overhead” means a contination of a line joining the observing station with the Earth’s centre. The position of the sun therefore should be on a prolongation of E F and at an enormous distance away. Placed thus, what becomes of the difficulty of seeing it from M, in a direction somewhat resembling M Q ?



As to the theory of the sun’s rays just reaching through our atmosphere to a certain distance, it is too funny for words. An action of this kind must be gradual and must vary with the constitution of our atmosphere, if we are to accept any verified facts of optics whatever. In this case the length of each day will be determined by the state of the atmosphere! Besides apply the simplest mathematics to the case. On page 9 : suppose the sun is running round the inner circle O R Q. See how his motion would appear to an observer at G. With centre G and radius G N draw a circle cutting O R Q in X and Y. Then when the sun reaches X it would be just rising to the observer at G, when at R it would be noon, and sunset at Y. But in one hour’s motion from X its apparent angular movement at G would be almost nil and this would gradually increase until it would reach a maximum at noon and then decrease. Now nothing is so certain as that the sun moves through equal angles in equal times, so this consideration alone would absolutely demolish the theory.



I need not go on, but what about the stars? I honestly believe that many who profess to believe (!) in this nonsense do not even know that every star in the sky describes a circle round the celestial pole every 24h. Ask some of them for fun, if you come across any.

The fact is that the writer of the book on Norway could easily have worked out all his statements of facts in his study, and if he used the ordinary theories they would be as correct as if he observed them, and probably more so, because the small error of observation would be eliminated, e.g., the 4th par. on page 3, “the nearer any point,” etc., evidently has been written in this manner, for the observer has not certainly visited the Pole or has remained remarkably reticent about it.

One more word. I believe the confusion of the term “level” with “straight” or “plane” has given rise to no end of error. The sea is, on the whole, level but certainly not plane. The level of anything is measured by an instrument which depends upon the action of gravity and when we state that two points are on the same level we mean that they are subjected to the same gravitational pull, or in other words are equi-distant from the Earth’s centre. This, however, would be above the level of these paradoxers.

Yours faithfully,
W. ERNEST COOKE.

There's also a question of universals and likeness. If one accepts universals and likenesses, it's also clear that the only way that things on the surface of the Earth have a universal relation to the Earth (in any likeness of position) is through sphericity not flatness.

When a boat is upright on the sea, it is always in the same universal relation to the surface of the Earth because the Earth is a sphere. When the Earth is flat, the center is different as well as the sides and the relation of the boat ... and the objects and people on the boat.

What the...

You globers make it impossible to have a logical conversation running fantasies and assumptions practically to the moon.  Why pray tell, is the center different from the sides in relation to the boat on FE?     

I wasn't trying to debate Blount's model per se, was just pointing out that the circling sun model wasn't invented by Dubay, and I just picked out the first one in my collection of books that made mention of it.

Dubay certainly helped popularize the notion, but there were others who became active right round the same time, and I attribute it to the release of the Nikon P900 camera in early 2015.  Otherewise, Dubay would have been another conspiracy theorist on the web.  But people were able to use these cameras to verify the "see too far" problem.  Had people not been able to independently verify the results, he would have been consigned to the dustbin of conspiracy crackpots.

Lots of the FEs came from the "questioning the moon landings" crowd.  Once you see the massive fraud and hoaxes being perpetrated by NASA, then you just can't accept anything they put out there as evidence anymore.

Whether someone believes in globe or flat, there's enough solid stuff out there to make it very credible.  As one of the FEs points out, the earth seems to just be "hiding" the curve form all observations.  Similarly, detecting the motion of the earth has been elusive, and every experiment has failed, from Airy to Michelson-Morley (and many in between).  You have Foucault's pendulum, but its validity is extremely debatable.  Even Foucault followers admit that the tiniest force applied at the very start could set the pendulum in motion one way or another, and not a few of them end up moving in the wrong direction.

Well said. There are serious problems with the ball model for the earth, and especially with NASA and its deceptions. That in itself doesn't prove FE, but it should be taken into consideration. 

Indeed, the "see too far" problem has not been debunked, and it presents a roadblock for believing in a ball earth. 

If the earth is flat, how did the Japs attack Pearl Harbor? 

As you are apparently a man of prayer, I would advise asking for some common sense. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you, but it cannot hurt to ask.

The Japanese used six aircraft carriers, Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, and Zuikaku.

So that's how they did it.  And?

Here's the Book of Enoch regarding the sun.

The "Book of Enoch" is apocryphal, sort of a rejected / not approved private revelation of obscure origin. It's not even part of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh (see wikipedia). For good reasons it's said to be pseudepigraphical (not of Enoch, so the vision is a lie). Claims that Holy Scripture quotes the book are unproven, and aren't provable by principle.

Now, since flat earthers seem to love that book, here what it says about the sun rising and setting (using a different translation calling the "portals" gates [of heaven]):

CHAP. LXXIV. 12. Twelve gates I beheld in heaven, at the extremities of the earth, through which the sun, moon, and stars, and all the works of heaven, proceed at their rising and setting.

CHAP. LXXV. 1. And at the extremities of the earth I beheld twelve gates open for all the winds, from which they proceed and blow over the earth.

CHAP. LXXXI. 5. With respect to the progress of the sun in heaven, it enters and goes out of each gate for thirty days [plus one day per quarter of the year, see LXXXI. 5.]

The twelve gates are sections of 360°/ 12 = 30°, at the extremities of the earth. Hence, rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars are (not apparent only but) real. Sun, moon, and stars ascend from the extremities of the earth and descend down to the extremities of the earth again.

CHAP. XXXII 1. From thence I went on towards the extremities of the earth ; where I saw large beasts different from each other, and birds various in their countenances and forms, as well as with notes of different sounds.
2. To the east of these beasts I perceived the extremities of the earth, where heaven ceased. The gates of heaven stood open, and I beheld the celestial stars come forth. I numbered them as they proceeded out of the gate, and wrote them all down, as they came out one by one according to their number. I wrote down their names altogether, their times and their seasons, as the angel Uriel, who was with me, pointed them out to me.

The hero went towards the extremities of the earth, sees beasts and birds, and sees that heaven ceases, and sees the gates of heaven. He sees the celestial stars come forth from the gates.

Conclusion: Following the book of Enoch, the rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars is real, and not apparent only. The book of Enoch contradicts the flat earthers' model of the trajectories of sun and moon circling at constant height (Lady Blount, Eric Dubay, most online flat earthers, CI flat earthers). It also contradicts the claim that rising and setting are apparent only (explained on CI by an unreal "Perspective Matrix").

So much for the credibility and solid research of CI flat earthers.

https://book-ofenoch.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/book-of-enoch.pdf