So says the existentialist on the forum. I notice that you're not posting that goofball existentialist nonsense anymore. You must have finally figured out that we're Catholics here, and not occulitists or occultist Eastern Orthodox (as you seem to be).

How old are you? You seem quite young.

Existentialist?
Lol. I am, in the tradition of Plato’s line, as ESSENTIALIST as it is possible to be.
Stop using words you don’t understand.
And stop speaking of things you don’t understand, especially when you continue to conflate philosophical positions of matters of metaphysics (especially those which differ with your own Satanic materialism - yes, for all your talk about “God” it’s clear you are one and conceive of everything, including the spiritual, in crypto-materialist terms) with Catholic doctrine. You known absolutely NOTHING about Existentialism, Hermeticism, “Kabbalah”, the “occult” or any of the other subjects whose names you throw about as invectives whenever you encounter views so at odds with your schoolgirl view of reality that your brain begins to frizzle, in order to shut down further discussion: name the Catholic doctrine that is being contradicted in my supposed “occultist” views expressed here or the sin that is being committed, or hold your tongue lest it lead you into further calumny.

Can you all take the pseudo-religious nonsense elsewhere please? Those of us who actually believe it's possible to derive facts about the physical world from our observations are attempting to have a conversation here.

Ladislaus, as I mentioned, the quarter video did not debunk my question. The fact that the camera is below the surface of the table makes an enormous difference. The camera in my picture is ABOVE the surface of the earth, and you will never see that effect with a camera above the table (try it). Place the camera on top of the table, and back the coin up, and the coin will always be visible.

See below for two simple illustrations. You can figure out what will appear on a specific pixel of a camera by drawing a straight line out from the focal point of the lens through the image plane. The first thing that straight line encounters is what you see on the picture in that pixel. So in my 2nd image below, with the focal point (center) of the camera below the table, as in the video, you see that unless the coin is right at the edge of the table (again as in the video), the bottom will be cut off by the table.

But if, as in reality, the camera is above the table, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a straight line to hit the table before hitting the quarter. So you always see the quarter. This is what I meant when I said that the video had no correspondence to reality. So my initial point stands. The picture I posted in my original post is impossible on a flat earth.

All their cameras will always be below the table surface and they'll keep saying the camera is AT the table top level.

All you have to do is to try the same thing at home.  This happens eventually no matter the angle.  It's just that the higher up you get the farther away it has to be before it gets cut off.  You talk about how people should do experiments and test things, but you obviously didn't bother to try this before shooting it down.

There's nothing false about it.  It can easily be demonstrated.  It's not even that difficult.  Just take those videos where the bottom of the boat appears to disappear.  You claim that this is because of flat earth.  But then the camera zooms in and the bottom of the boat re-appears.  Clearly, then, the bottom of the boat didn't disappear due to being hidden by curvature.  So, then, what caused it to SEEM to disappear?  Please explain.

Neil will not explain how the boat bottom reappears.

Neil will not explain how the boat bottom reappears.

He never does. :D

[....] as I mentioned, the quarter video did not debunk my question.  The fact that the camera is below the surface of the table makes an enormous difference.

The camera in my picture is ABOVE the surface of the earth, and you will never see that effect with a camera above the table (try it).  Place the camera on top of the table, and back the coin up, and the coin will always be visible.  [.... that's] if, as in reality, the camera is above the table, it is impossible for a straight line to hit the table before hitting the quarter. So you always see the quarter. This is what I meant when I said that the video had no correspondence to reality.

"noOneImportant" is entirely correct in this instance.  What he describes is what any experienced photographer would expect.  So he doesn't need to make his own video to discover what will happen.  Or needs not if his skill at previsualization is developed well enough.

In a flat-Earth model, the Sun, being a "luminary of the heaven",  should be always physically elevated above its mere mortal viewers on the Earth, should it not? [†]

So why doesn't the table-top visual experiment require that its quarter (coin) always be completely above the naked eye of the viewer, or the front element of any lens used, hmmm?   It would be simple to elevate the quarter, e.g., by attaching it to the bowl of a stemmed wine glass, or better yet, replacing it by an only-slightly-larger jacks or ping-pong ball sitting in a comparable stemmed bowl.

Might such an improvement to the table-top experiment be objectionable to flattist propagandists, because it would reduce opportunities for concealing photographic shenanigans?

-------
Note †: Would publicly professed flattists dare doubt a scenario they they've promoted themselves as wisdom received from 1 of their heroes, even if recognizing that the book attributed to him is noncanonical for the Catholic Faith? 
"2. And this is the first law of the luminaries: the luminary the Sun has its rising in the eastern portals of the heaven, and its setting in the western portals of the heaven. 3. And I saw six portals in which the sun rises, and six portals in which the sun sets and the moon rises and sets in these portals [....]"
In  "THE BOOK OF THE COURSES OF THE HEAVENLY LUMINARIES (LXXII-LXXXII.) [CHAPTER] LXXII. The Sun."  "The Book of Enoch, [translated] by R.H. Charles" 1917.  <http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe075.htm>.

All you have to do is to try the same thing at home.  This happens eventually no matter the angle.  It's just that the higher up you get the farther away it has to be before it gets cut off.  You talk about how people should do experiments and test things, but you obviously didn't bother to try this before shooting it down.

There's nothing false about it.  It can easily be demonstrated.  It's not even that difficult.  Just take those videos where the bottom of the boat appears to disappear.  You claim that this is because of flat earth.  But then the camera zooms in and the bottom of the boat re-appears.  Clearly, then, the bottom of the boat didn't disappear due to being hidden by curvature.  So, then, what caused it to SEEM to disappear?  Please explain.

.
I think I lost track of this thread so I never got back to reply to these. My apologies.
I'll reply now, with your permission!
.
I did this experiment at home. The only way to get the same results is by keeping my line of sight below the table top level.
When I rise up to the table top level I always see all of the coin.
.
I went to the website YouTube page for this video (you can go there yourself, speaking of personal involvement!) to find that the author of the video admits that he kept his camera below the table top level deliberately, he says, because that is the only way to get the results he was after. So his method was a priori to do whatever it takes to get the effect he wanted to achieve.
.
This is why special effects are done in movies, to get the desired results, regardless of what would be there without special effects.
.
You say "there is nothing false about it. It can easily be demonstrated." When the camera zooms in and the bottom of the boat re-appears, the boat wasn't far enough away from the shore, is all. If this were tried on the setting sun, zooming in after sunset would bring the sun back into view. Where is that shown to be the case? Answer: Never.
.
You say, "Clearly, then, the bottom of the boat didn't disappear due to being hidden by curvature." But it DID. 
.
I have posted several videos where the bottom of the boat disappears and zooming in does not bring it back. 
In fact, the ship continues to appear to sink until the entire ship is gone, and no amount of zooming brings back ANY PART of it.
.
So you're wrong, again.
.
I don't expect any response from Ladislaus on this because when he loses the argument he disappears.
.