Bottom line here is that there have been myriad experiments performed where no curvature can be found (where things that should be hidden behind thounsands of feet and even miles of curvature can be seen very clearly).

There are only two ways to address these --

1) claim that it's all fabricated or
2) assert "refraction"

In terms of fabrication, many of the long-distance photos that defy globe math were taken by pro photographers who are not FE and weren't considering the globe-shattering implications of their photos.  Some were certified / validated by various organizations as having set various long-distance photography records.  In addition, many of the experiments (including the most solid ones by Dr. John D) were announced beforehand, live-streamed, and witnesses were invited to participate.  Finally, some of it would require CGI skills that are beyond the skills of the average video-maker and there are too many people who've made videos, taken photos, etc.

In terms of "refraction", light can bend downwards when it encounters increasing density (generally due to humidity, moisture in the atmosphere or, less so, except where it affects humidity, temperature changes).  But two-way laser experiments performed in public by Dr. John D, wherein he also took meticulous measurements of humidity, temperature, etc. at several points along the way, completely debunk this phenomenon, since the lasers going in opposite directions were at the same elevation and just a few feet apart and with negligible humidity and temperature changes along the route that couldn't possibly account for "refraction".  He also performed his experiments when it was relatively cold out and with low humidity to minimize any chances for atmospheric distortions.  In order for refraction to work both ways, if there were a continually-increasing density in one direction, it would be continually decreasing in the opposite direction, causing the light to refract up, if anything, and not be visible.  Finally, refraction simply cannot produce images with the clarity we see them from miles away, since you'd have to have an absolutely consistent rate of refraction the entire way.  If during any part of these stretches of many miles the change of rate in terms of density were to change slightly, different things would refract into each other along the stretch and cause major distortion.  Dr. John D made videos of various wind turbines at something like 6, 7, 8, and 10 miles from his vantage point and they all follow a consistent line that would result from perspective, without any distortion from refraction.

Unless some globe proponent could explain why the earth almost consistently tries to "hide" the alleged curvature using some other explanation where light would consistently bend exactly around the globe ... refraction is worthless, dead in the water, and an act of desperation for the globers to salvage their model, throwing the word out there without proof that it's actually taking place, combining that with begging the question.

Bottom line here is that there have been myriad experiments performed where no curvature can be found (where things that should be hidden behind thounsands of feet and even miles of curvature can be seen very clearly).

There are only two ways to address these --

1) claim that it's all fabricated or
2) assert "refraction"

In terms of fabrication, many of the long-distance photos that defy globe math were taken by pro photographers who are not FE and weren't considering the globe-shattering implications of their photos.  Some were certified / validated by various organizations as having set various long-distance photography records.  In addition, many of the experiments (including the most solid ones by Dr. John D) were announced beforehand, live-streamed, and witnesses were invited to participate.  Finally, some of it would require CGI skills that are beyond the skills of the average video-maker and there are too many people who've made videos, taken photos, etc.

In terms of "refraction", light can bend downwards when it encounters increasing density (generally due to humidity, moisture in the atmosphere or, less so, except where it affects humidity, temperature changes).  But two-way laser experiments performed in public by Dr. John D, wherein he also took meticulous measurements of humidity, temperature, etc. at several points along the way, completely debunk this phenomenon, since the lasers going in opposite directions were at the same elevation and just a few feet apart and with negligible humidity and temperature changes along the route that couldn't possibly account for "refraction".  He also performed his experiments when it was relatively cold out and with low humidity to minimize any chances for atmospheric distortions.  In order for refraction to work both ways, if there were a continually-increasing density in one direction, it would be continually decreasing in the opposite direction, causing the light to refract up, if anything, and not be visible.  Finally, refraction simply cannot produce images with the clarity we see them from miles away, since you'd have to have an absolutely consistent rate of refraction the entire way.  If during any part of these stretches of many miles the change of rate in terms of density were to change slightly, different things would refract into each other along the stretch and cause major distortion.  Dr. John D made videos of various wind turbines at something like 6, 7, 8, and 10 miles from his vantage point and they all follow a consistent line that would result from perspective, without any distortion from refraction.

Unless some globe proponent could explain why the earth almost consistently tries to "hide" the alleged curvature using some other explanation where light would consistently bend exactly around the globe ... refraction is worthless, dead in the water, and an act of desperation for the globers to salvage their model, throwing the word out there without proof that it's actually taking place, combining that with begging the question.

So show me these videos.  I can't find them.  Even when I search for Dr. John D on CathInfo.

  I cannot explain a hoax.
Why does light ONLY get bent right above the surface of the earth and nowhere else?  Why does light not get bent in a fog?  or when it rains?  Why does light not get bent underwater (one can clearly see sun light rays underwater and they are straight)? 

If 'refraction' were true, it would seem that in any conditions where there is a lot of moisture, that light would behave erratically and unpredictably, depending on the temperature, the amount of light, etc.  If rain happens in the morning, light would shine differently than if rain happened at evening...also spring vs fall, and summer vs winter, etc.

Light from the sun should be bouncing all around us, and creating all sorts of mirages and hallucinogenic visions, as water/rain/mist/fog changes the light and causes it to change directions, or magnify some things or not.  And all of this would be different if the temperature were in the 30s, or 40s, or 60s or 90s.

But none of this is observable.  We see no distortion of light when the temperature gets cold vs hot.  We see no distortion of rain, or mirages on land (close up), or any other refraction (close up).  The closest thing we see to a distortion of light/rain is a rainbow, often in the distance.  But we can repeatedly recreate a rainbow using a hose and sunlight, for scientists have a clear understanding of why rainbows exist, and the factors that lead to them.

But there is no understanding of 'refraction', and it cannot be recreated.  Nor do we see mini-refractions during changes in seasons or weather conditions, or temperatures.

It's a lie.

I do find the Flat Earth experiments quite convincing, and I don't believe that refraction can explain them, but it does exist.

You can see it quite clearly on a swimming pool. Pools usually look shallower than they are because of refraction.

Considering how much water a pool has and the refraction observed, it does not seem plausible that what we see in the experiments can justify a round Earth based on refraction alone. It would take some calculations to convince me, but as I am quite bad on the exact sciences, I would probably be unable to understand it.

As I see it, the burden of the proof in on the round Earth people. If what we see is due to refraction, we need to see numbers and calculations. I know enough to understand that these calculations are simple for people who have a reasonable knowledge of Physics and the required data avaliable.

Refraction seems to be quite pronounced when we are dealing with different "enviroments". When light travels from water to air, there quite a distortion, as in the swimming pool example I mentioned. When we are dealing with moisture in the air, it apparently does not happen, or happens very slightly. Otherwise, we would notice it right away.

So show me these videos.  I can't find them.  Even when I search for Dr. John D on CathInfo.

Here you go.  There's a link in there to Dr. John's channel with all his videos.  He has his Ph.D. in Spectrometry.  As I point out, he isn't one of the big "names" in FE precisely because his videos are long and, well, "boring" by modern standards.  But they're very boring because he's doing all the sciency stuff.

https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/dr-john-d-destroys-globe-earth/

Here you go.  There's a link in there to Dr. John's channel with all his videos.  He has his Ph.D. in Spectrometry.  As I point out, he isn't one of the big "names" in FE precisely because his videos are long and, well, "boring" by modern standards.  But they're very boring because he's doing all the sciency stuff.

https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/dr-john-d-destroys-globe-earth/

These curvature questions do give me pause.  And some day I will just have to do these experiments myself.

The video below concerns me.

(warning the video has a picture of natives barely clothed) by Dr. John D.  Maybe he has been hacked.

Density equals mass divided by volume.  This is how you get a 1 inch cube of something (copper, aluminum, wood, etc) and they all weigh different for the same size.

The video I referenced shows Dr. John D showing that all of that is just an imagination.  What is the point of that?  It makes him not a reliable scientist.  I know you think that I am nit picking and going off topic, but it makes him lose some of his credibility.

At this point maybe science doesn't exist at all and everything we know is just some illusion demons want us to see.  Maybe God didn't give us a discoverable world.  Maybe computers are just demon machines that cause us all to sin. 

Sorry I am having a melancholic spiral episode, so I will just back away from this topic for awhile.

May God bless you and keep you all.

No, what he meant was, sometimes science makes things too complicated (he means this from a practical standpoint).  So he says the creation of the term "atom" is a type of imagination, because we should (from a practical standpoint) simply call it a "small particle of copper" or a "small particle of wood".  He says that we can't see atoms, so that by reducing 2 different items (copper vs wood) into the same thing (an atom), this is just imagination.

He has a point, from a practical point of view.  But from a scientific/THEORETICAL point of view, the term/concept of atom is very valuable.

I wouldn't put much weight into his opinion on this.  It wouldn't affect any other of his views, assuming such are backed by facts.

Thank you for the explanation.  

These curvature questions do give me pause.  And some day I will just have to do these experiments myself.

The video below concerns me.

(warning the video has a picture of natives barely clothed) by Dr. John D.  Maybe he has been hacked.

Density equals mass divided by volume.  This is how you get a 1 inch cube of something (copper, aluminum, wood, etc) and they all weigh different for the same size.

The video I referenced shows Dr. John D showing that all of that is just an imagination.  What is the point of that?  It makes him not a reliable scientist.  I know you think that I am nit picking and going off topic, but it makes him lose some of his credibility.

At this point maybe science doesn't exist at all and everything we know is just some illusion demons want us to see.  Maybe God didn't give us a discoverable world.  Maybe computers are just demon machines that cause us all to sin. 

Sorry I am having a melancholic spiral episode, so I will just back away from this topic for awhile.

May God bless you and keep you all.

Grey, thank you for pointing this out.

You are the king of tangents and putting words into people's mouths.  And also of horrible reading comprehension. 

Nothing I said was an endorsement of John D, or of any of his views.  Neither did I say I agreed with his video(s). 

Take a couple of DEEP breaths before you post, re-read what people wrote, and then respond. 

Since you agree with him on FE, and don’t try to wiggle out of what you were alluding to, have you done any experiments yourself to confirm his “facts” about FE? Have you ever looked at the moon through a telescope? Have you actually gone to a large body of water with a telescope to see for yourself if what “Dr.” John D. is presenting is true?