That is to say, if you want to claim that the buildings appear close you can select only the frames with very tall images for the buildings. If you want to claim that the buildings appear far away, you can cherry-pick the frames with very short images for the buildings. Likewise, if you want to say there is no curvature over the water or that there is no reflection inherent in such views, you can choose only the frames showing medium height buildings, claiming that the building heights are without question consistent with heights photographed from a point just offshore across the water, "proving" the earth is flat! But it in fact doesn't prove any such thing.
.

Sure, I see that the heights of things appear to change in some atmospheric conditions.  Yet, when that happens, the image obviously looks distorted or warped or extremely blurry ... in other words, it's obvious that it's being distorted.  I'm not sure if this is refraction per se or some other phenomenon involving light distortion/bending.  While the heights of things changed in this video due to the distortion, this doesn't demonstrate how something can appear when it should be entirely hidden by curvature.  I've seen videos put together by flat earthers where mountains are photographed from nearly a 100 miles away, where most of the mountain is visible despite the fact that curvature math indicates they should be entirely hidden from view.  These pictures were not taken by flat earthers, and the heights above sea level of both the camera and the target were meticulously docuмented.  This doesn't look anything like the phenomenon you were showing in the video.

You spoke earlier of scientific proof.  Either someone (globe earther) must prove that refraction was in play to explain the visibility of the target objects or the flat earther must prove that refraction could NOT have accounted for the visibility of the object.  So, short of such proof, we are at an impasse.  I have just seen enough of these pictures of far-away objects that SHOULD be hidden by curvature to doubt that refraction could be at play in all of them.  Of course I can't rule it out with certainty.  But refraction would then seem a very predictable and nearly ubiquitous phenomenon.  Here's what's interesting.  Globe-earthers, because of their premise that the earth MUST be round, will insist that refraction is a certainty, while flat earthers will claim that refraction could not have caused the phenomenon.  Both are certain of their interpretation a priori because they are essentially begging the question, taking their conclusion for granted.  

I, currently in the middle on this issue, cannot rule out refraction, nor have I been convinced that it MUST be in play.  I am currently leaning slightly AGAINST refraction being the cause just because I've seen too many examples of this.

Think of me as someone who has NO idea whether the earth is flat or a globe ... and try to prove one or another of them to me.  That's how I myself am approaching this question.  I won't take either position as my starting point ... since that'll not allow me to find the truth (unless I just HAPPEN to pick the right one in the first place).

I'm waiting for the curved ocean photo.

Still waiting. ..

.
You must not have been paying attention, as usual.

                Behold a curved ocean photo.
.
BTW if it's data you want, go to the source page.
.

Fake.
Since it's from NASA, it will always be assumed fake.

.
Wrong, again, or should I say, as usual -- it's not from "NASA" so try again, loser.
.

 Here's what's interesting.  Globe-earthers, because of their premise that the earth MUST be round, will insist that refraction is a certainty, while flat earthers will claim that refraction could not have caused the phenomenon.  Both are certain of their interpretation a priori because they are essentially begging the question, taking their conclusion for granted. 

Appreciate much your inquiring mind Ladislaus, but just have to correct you on that one point. Flat earthers do not say that refraction does not exist. We say in particular cases there can be atmospheric distortion. Such is the case with mirages. However it can't be refraction in cases where the image is too integral and steady. It is in those cases the thing itself albeit distant and seen through the humidity of the air.

And by the way, we are talking about AIR refraction as opposed to WATER refraction. I would love to see air refraction demonstrated outside of an argument about the flat earth, being other than over a horizon. Do the planes I see in the air get refracted?

Just asking.

Appreciate much your inquiring mind Ladislaus, but just have to correct you on that one point. Flat earthers do not say that refraction does not exist.

I never said flat earthers say there's no such thing as refraction ... just say that refraction isn't in play in pictures/videos which they adduce as proof against earth curvature.

Neils video was very interesting. 

.
Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated.
.

They are insignificant to the overall point being made in the video. If even 100 feet is visible that is not refracted, then our case has been made. We could just rely on one video. But we have several.

.
You have hundreds of videos all full of fakery and lies. 
.
I provided one example of an honest, no holds-barred simple video and it's somehow unreliable because it's only one?
.
Maybe there are a lot more of these but I haven't seen them yet.
.
I wouldn't have found this one without flat-earthers screaming and shouting their "flat" earth nonsense.
.