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).