You can test GE vs FE easily if you climb a small hill or mountain.

On FE, the horizon should be at the same level as your eye level. It should lay in the same vertical plane than the vanishing point.

On GE, the horizon should dip below your eye level. It shoud lay below the vertical plane of your vanishing point.

So we use the water level:


Wasn't that easy? On FE, the horizon should converge with the water level.

The sky is overcast where I live, unfortunately.

The sky is overcast where I live, unfortunately.

Same here! 

Wasn't that easy? On FE, the horizon should converge with the water level.

False.  Constant fallacies from the globers.  Horizon line is indeterminate depending on atmospheric conditions and depending on the distance whatever equipment taking the photo can actually reach.  Footage taken from high altitudes 120,000 feet by an amateur balloon showed the horizon at eye level.  And there's very little atmospheric distortion at that height.  You can argue that it's inconclusive because you can't see curvature even from that level, but to claim that curvature can be detected from the earth, even from the highest mountain is absurd.

Even your guru Neil de Grasse Tyson says you can't see any curvature from even the height of the Red Bull jump (which was 127,000 feet).

I'm just tired of having the same fallacious argument rehashed over and over again.

You find one picture that you falsely interpret and do the mic drop, but completely ignore the hundreds of experiments done by FEs which show no curvature from many miles away.  Globers dismiss that as refraction (without doing any of the math) and even mirages, but then pretend there's no such thing as refraction and atmospheric phenomena when they present their isolated "slam dunk" proof picture.

If they wanted to end this debate very quickly, all they would need to do is take a few of the leading flat earthers on a flight across Antarctica and come across the other side.  Let everybody take their equipment with them, video equipment, GPS equpment, anything they wanted.

Or they could take them down to observe the actual 24-hour sun.

Why all the fake footage from the globers?  There's one time-lapse video alleging to show this that is proven to be an obvious fake.  Why did they need to fake it when they could just do a real video?  PBS / Discover were also caught hoaxing and faking a "helicopter" test when they could have just done it normally.  Why?

NASA has been caught hundreds of times faking footage from "space" (on the "ISS").  Why?

I saw a group of engineers from Latin America conduct an experiment with high-precision GPS equipment demonstrating that two very tall buildings many miles apart, which should have had the tops farther apart than their bottoms given globe earth theory, were instead completely parallel (tops and bottoms exactly the same distance apart).

No Laddy, no assumption about the distance to the sun is necessary if you take several observations.

You don't have to assume the sun is "far" nor do you have to assume the sun is 3000 miles away.

You calculate it from the data.

No you can't.  If the sun were only slightly bigger than the earth, and not very far way, the rays would come in parallel.  Even the guy in the OP, all he could claim was that the rays were close to 90+ regardless of the latitude.  He concluded that it was "immensely far away", which absolutely cannot be concluded.  Sun could just be somewhat bigger than the earth and much less far way.  It's a function of the size and distance.

And the imprecise measurements taken by guys with tape measures were pretty close to what's predicted by the FE theory regarding the distance.  But the guy in the video didn't actually indicate how far "off" they were.  Was it that the measurements were 3 degres off for FE and 1 degree off for "parallel".  But parallel rays could be caused by many permutations of size and distance.  That's why the estimates of the size of the sun and its distance from the earth have  varied widely, starting from one million miles to something like 9-10 million miles, to 30, to 50, to 67, to 93.

I notice that the guy in the OP video never bothered to give the numbers that readings were off from the FE expectation, but the green lines he drew looked pretty darn close to the grey lines expected.  They were not that far off by any stretch, and he didn't actually bother to give the numbers.  Then he claimed they were within 1 degree of what would be expected if the rays were coming in at 90 degree angles to the surface on a globe.  So, what, were they 2 or 3 degrees off from FE?  What's the degree of precision and the margin of error given the fact that these were a bunch of guys with tape measures.  If you're off by 1/8th of an inch in measuring that way, that's plenty to badly skew the results.  In the end, the readings looked pretty darn close, close enough given the precision instruments they were using (i.e. tape measures).  If either their measurement of the object or of the shadow were even 1/8th or 1/16th of an inch off, given the scale, that kind of test is worthless.

And even IF the angles are off, all that means is that the 3,000 miles estimate of FE was somewhat off.  How far off?  Who knows?  All he was trying to do was falsify a particular FE estimate and did not positively prove or establish anything about the actual size and distance.  Because you can't with this kind of experiment.

No you can't.

Well, you're wrong. No assumption is necessary.

If we had several measurements, we could calculate the curvature of the earth according to those measurements. Perhaps that curvature is zero? That would come out of the calculations.

Might take more than a few measurements to distinguish FE/GE.

Too bad nobody else could observe the world and take a simple measurement.