You clearly don't understand the 'lack of curvature' problem for globeism.  You have it completely and utterly backwards. 

How? At sea level and a body of water does not incline like a hill (think of a river, dam or bowl of water)... Yet we clearly see the water inclining like a hill and the base of Habitat higher than Platform C too... This defies logic for a flat Earth... This can only occur if the Earth is curved as it inclines before reaching the horizon and then falling away.

God Bless

The oil rig which is furthest away, is 10 miles from the camera.  Based on the curvature of the earth, (which is easily calculated using various online tools), this rig should be hidden by the curve of the earth, and the horizon should be blocking the lower part of this rig. 

But, with camera tech, this oil rig can be seen, and is not hidden by the horizon.  Ergo, there is no curve of the earth.  Ergo, FE.

So what? This has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what I said... all it says is that whatever calculator and maths your using is wrong... that's what we need to look into, but it's still irrefutable proof of the curvature of the Earth... if he got his maths right then it's also proof that their horizon calculator is wrong lol... but it has no bearing on the observable reality that the Earth is curved.

God Bless

The below picture shows the globe curvature and how, over a great distance, that a boat or an oil rig should be partially obstructed by the horizon, due to the curvature.

If you use the 'eyeball test' then yes, it appears that you cannot see the full oil rig.  But that is a deficiency of the eye, not reality.  Using a powerful camera, one can see the full oil rig, which should not be possible on a globe earth, at a distance of 10 miles.

Well it's not my area of expertise so I can't check his maths and the calculators too

You most certainly can.  There are all kinds of calculators on the web, put out by NASA and gov agencies.  Very simple to use.  Go check.
This guy in the video (and others like it) aren't calculating anything on their own.  They are using the curvature calcs that SCIENCE agencies/experts put forth as accurate.

If you're not going to put in this simple amount of effort, then you have no business in this discussion.

They are using the curvature calcs that SCIENCE agencies/experts put forth as accurate.

The same 'experts' that you yourself would deny? So who's making appeals to authority now? lol

God Bless

No rocket science needed. Anyone traveling frequently to different latitudes can verify the facts in the attachment that cannot be explained in a FE scenario. XV century's Portuguese sea travelers were the first to verify this in modern times and the theory of the universe composed of several spheres was developed.

I'm just jumping around here but it sounds like you're not sure where to look?  For me, I've found Taboo Conspiracy on youtube posts numerous vids showing repeatable experiments.  P-brane also does some interesting vids on perspective.

Here's a vid I like, partly because I lived in Santa Barbara for ten years and know this location.  What's great is that the horizon is way behind the oil rigs.  Very interesting stuff.

Thank you.  I will look at this soon.  I am trying to set up a new homeshool year.

Yes, tn the picture, you could move the person to the "top" of the curve (the picture is not perfect).  But then, you'd have to move the ship the same distance to the right/down.

So then couldn't I see more of something because I have the higher ground?

No, because the curve would block your view.


Imagine you're on a rollercoaster, and you're sitting in the BACK of the ride.  As you get to near the top of the main hill, the FRONT of the ride disappears, because it's already gone over the hill, and your view is obstructed by the "curvature" of the track.  Even though you are higher, that doesn't help if the curve is large enough. 

Same with long distances.  At the distance of 10 miles, the curvature of the earth would block your view IF YOU ARE AT THE SAME HEIGHT (i.e. sea level) of the object.

If you view something from a high vantage point (i.e. top of a building) then obviously, you can see farther.