That is a blatant lie. I wasted my time doing a ridiculous experiment with magnifying glasses that supposedly showed how water droplets magnified the sun as it was setting. It proved the video you posted was a fake. You rejected that out of hand. You also rejected my first hand observations of using two different telescopes that showed the horizon obscured a bridge on the other side of a 20 mile long lake.

It proved nothing of the sort, just that your experiment was junk.  Water in the atmosphere is admitted even by mainstream science to have a magnifying effect.

And you absolutely did not prove that the "horizon" was obscuring a bridge, as objects can be obscured by many things, from waves, to atmospheric conditions, to everything else.  Prove that it was the "horizon" obscuring a bridge.  On the contrary, it's a geometrical fact that the horizon must obscure things, and there are hundreds of pictures, including from non-FEs, that show the horizon not obscuring things that should be obscured, a world-record photograph (again not a "fake" FE photograph) of the Alps from 700 miles away when the should be hidden by 85 miles by the geometrical "horizon", and one showing a lighthouse that stands 150 feet above sea level from 230+ miles away (also not "fake" picture taken by an FE, but a professional photographer with no agenda).  This you ignore and dismiss.  You can try to pretend that all the hundreds of FE videos are "fake", but you're just lying ... to yourself and then to everyone else.  But you can't dismiss the ones taken by independent photographers and verified (for record purposes) as legitimate photos.  You'll just ignore those.

This typifies your dishonesty, as I detailed above:

Obscured Object:  Proof of Globe (no other possible explanation due to atmospheric conditions)
Unobscured Object (that should be obscured):  Must be due to atmospheric phenomena such as mirages and refraction

This borders on the absurd.

In point of fact, it's the opposite.  Obscured objects can be explained by many reasons, atmospheric conditions, waves, the limits of your optics, etc.  There are videos out there (again, from non FEs) that show a person's legs disappearing due to heat / haze / humidity as he walks down a flat road surface.  On the other hand, there's only been one "explanation" thrown out there for objects that are visible when they should be obscured by the actual horizon ... refraction, a word tossed out there in desperation as a deus ex machina to salvage the globe.  In point of fact, however, several experiments have completely debunked the possibility of refraction.

This shows me all I needed to know.

You've shown me all I've needed to know from the beginning, that you've clearly made up your mind beforehand on the issue and are incapable of objectivity.

You makes posts like this but are incapable of following basic logic, like how your assertion that a perfect (or even reasonable or decent) FE model is required before the globe can be falsified, that objects that can't be seen fully can only be obstructed by the horizon, where waves, atmospheric phenomena and other factors only exist when objects are in full view that should be obstructed by the geometric horizon.

I welcome you to actually rebut these refutations of your position, but you won't and you can't.  Then, instead of realizing the flaw in your analysis, you'll ignore it for a while and then re-paste the same thing about the "model".

Start with answering this question, yes or no:

Does it follow from the fact that there's no reasonable FE model (granted for the sake of argument, but not conceded) that the globe model cannot be falsified?

If you answer the only way that can be answered correctly, then you need to stop posting as your go-to "slam dunk" argument the contention that there's no good FE model.  This only exposes the fact that you assume the globe model is correct right out of the gate.