CathInfo.com

Interesting angle at the moon landings, presented as an appeal case in the scenario that the responsible people would be convicted fraudsters for faking the moon landings.

Not at all.  You've repeatedly presented some of the shoddiest "evidence" out there, simple pictures without any context (where, when, what, how, who, no measurements or facts) and which could easily entail varous atmospheric phenomena, but you present them as proof, while at the same time you simply and gratuitously declare "refraction" for the images which show things that shouldn't be seen given the distances involved ... without any evidence.  You feel as if you merely need to say the word "refraction" and you've won the argument.  So "refraction" only applies to FE evidence but never to the ones that appear to support GE?  In every case, the FEs give all the facts and measurements while there's never any context given to the GE ones.  You've already decided that the earth must be a globe and are begging the question rather than openly considering the subject.  That is textbook confirmation bias, where you cling to things that do not prove your position as if they were proof and dismiss any and all evidence to the contrary.  I started a lengthy thread where I went through both sides of the argument thoroughly and explained how I arrived at my conclusion.  You have never once given any serious consideration to the FE arguments and evidence but simply dismiss them out of hand.  Confirmation bias and bad will.

You need to understand refraction to apply it to observations.

This applies to the globe model in general - most all flat earthers are basically reviewing a book which they've never read. If you honestly look at the evidence and the measurements there is only one conclusion which can be made from that.

Let's not look at whatever you deem "shoddy evidence" (so all evidence contrary to your beliefs), but at actual measurements.

"Transcontinental Triangulation and the American Arc of the Parallel"

Published 1900, an ocean to ocean survey. Shows triangulation with spherical excess (>180° interior angle).

Knowing all the angles of a spherical triangle and one or more of the lengths of the sides it is possible to determine the radius of the sphere upon which the triangle sits. The formula is cos(c/R) = (cos(C) + cos(A)cos(B)) / (sin(A)sin(B)). Where R is the radius of the sphere, A, B, and C are interior angles and c is the length of the side opposite angle C.

Solving for R we get R = c / (acos( csc(A) * csc(B) * cos(C) + cot(A) * cot(B))).

Here's this formula in a spreadsheet with the measurements from several spherical triangles. This method uses zero assumptions to measure the radius of the earth.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kus6gZDIdR_Q3W3OnW0hNyn35CUWas5szyz_dWRwj0Q/edit?usp=sharing

Page 221 for Spherical Excess From page 901 of the PDF, number 3 in the list is the primary result of this survey.
a = 6,377,912 meters
b = 6,356,309 meters
https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/transcontinental-triangulation-and-the-american-arc-of-the-parallel.pdf


Comparison with other independent geodetic measurements. Note the congruence of the results between them.

I do this all the time, with lots of issues, a thought experiment where I pretend that I believe the earth is a globe and want to prove it to a flat earther.  I've tried to come up with solid proofs, and I come up totally empty.

Here's a question for you.

Topaka, KS is about 950' above sea level.  The rocky Mountains, which are about 600 miles away, have peaks of over 14,000'.  If the Earth is flat, why can't the Rocky Mountains be seen from Topeka, KS, using a telescope?