This guy made a live video of himself from 12.4 miles away.  There should be about 75-80 feet hidden by curvature at that distance (depending on the height of the camera above the ground), but you can see nearly 100% of the guy (almost down to his shoes).  And he's not an FE and didn't think about the implications of what he was doing, but simply wanted to be acknowledged for a World Record for longest distance video.  I'm not sure how he transmitted the sound across that distance though.

Now, the proper way to demonstrate FE would be to get a reading on elevation at each location, but he said the entire thing was across a single valley.

Lad, gave the obvious answer. The elevations are crucial to know. At that distance he could have easily been 500 feet higher than the camera. 70 or 100 feet would be imperceptible to the human eye at 12 miles.

Across the same valley?
You can't be obscured by an intervening convex surface when you're both in the same concave surface feature.

Lad, gave the obvious answer. The elevations are crucial to know. At that distance he could have easily been 500 feet higher than the camera. 70 or 100 feet would be imperceptible to the human eye at 12 miles.

That’s why I said that to do it right, you’d have to get the elevation to be precise.  But he shows the stretch on Google Maps and also shows pictures of the terrain.  It’s relatively flat across the valley.

There are hundreds of experiments showing 0 drop over 20 miles over bodies of water, using two way lasers (ruling out refraction), and many verified record-breaking pictures by non-FEs showing things like a 150-foot-above-sea-level lighthouse from 237 miles away when it should be hidden by miles of curvature.  Evidence is simply overwhelming.

This is a good one. Especially since it pans all over the place in the skyline, totally refuting the notion of some hazy refraction or "mirage".

Everything, including the vehicles, is clear and not distorted. Globe Earth RIP.

Excellent vid.  

If I remember correctly, Fr Hesse said something about Thomas Aquinas saying that first we believe in something, then we explain it.

It's really easy to explain flat earth when you already believe it. Perhaps that is why so many people of so many different views (protestants, Muslims, liberals, evolutionists, and honestly even Catholics and conservatives) are so stubborn in their opinions/beliefs even against contradictory evidence.

Credo ut intelligam.

What you're missing is that no current FE started off by believing that earth is flat.  We've all been indoctrinated into globe earth.  It took me personally 2 years of going through the evidence and arguments from both sides, before I became an FE, rather reluctantly.  Many of the current FEs actually set out to debunk it and then became convinced they had been wrong.

My personal process:

1) I think it's ridiculous, but because I deliberately keep an open mind, I'll have a look (based on posts that the FEs made in that sub-forum).  I can't just dismiss it and write it off while knowing very little about the case they're trying to make.

2) Hmmm, this isn't as ridiculous as I thought.  There may be SOMEthing to it.  Let me dig some more.

3) Wow, I'm starting to think they might be right.  I can't believe this.

4) I lean FE (as I posted in the sub-forum)

5) I'm completely convinced.

This process took two years, and the one thing you have to already know to be able to successfully navigate through this is that the government lies like it's going out of style.  I already knew that the moon landings were a complete hoax, so it wasn't that much of a stretch to believe that NASA might be lying about other stuff as well.

Also, in pursuit of truth, I always engage in the thought experiment of pretending that I'm an ardent globe earth proponent and am trying to prove that the earth is a globe.  Can I do it?  I find that I cannot.  I'm not talking about sophistically throwing nonsensical arguments out there like, "boats disappear bottom up as they sail away" or "NASA says so" or "Why can't you see across the Atlantic ocean?" or just throwing the word "refraction" out there as a last resort.  I'm talking about concrete evidence that's compelling.

I've done the same thing with things like evolution, atheism, etc.  In each case, I simply cannot make a case for the other side (even pretending that I believe in these things).