I may or may not give this a more detailed response, but you seemed to have missed the point that I made in my response. I got the 'viewer height' in the middle of your video (where I took a screenshot and you can see the viewer height) where YOU started panning UP as if the viewer was going higher in elevation. I stopped and took a screenshot at EXACTLY the spot where it looked almost exactly like Jesse's thumbnail in the bottom right corner (again, it probably should have been a meter or so higher, but your lettering obscured the exact point).

But you still have missed the point that I made in several of your comments, that you claim we MUST have refraction for it to work. OK, lets say globers actually do fabricate refraction. This still only shows that it's about 1-2% over the actual stated values.... just like in all of these videos and images.

Why is there NEVER EVER EVER an image with verified numbers that is 20% or even more, as we'd see on a flat earth? As in the French "Longest land to land shots in the world" it's STILL only 1-2% over the line of sight calculated targets, and the images are ALWAYS taken from extremely high elevations.

Why? Why do we NEVER see a 200 mile landscape photo taken from 100 feet? Even in YOUR videos and your comments, you are admitting that the buildings are obscured, just not as much as you seem to to think they should be. Well, why would they be obscured AT ALL on flat earth?

The conclusions you are making are suggesting that the earth is a ball, but 1-2% larger than the stated measurements! That you cannot see that you, yourself, are making this conclusion is ironic.

Why don't you just get this argument over with and instead of nitpicking about 2-10 meters of curvature that are missing, you show us multiple images that should be 50-1000% behind the curvature? Why not show us 200 mile landscape shots with nothing obscured that are taken from 100 feet of elevation instead of 10,000 feet?

You can't, or you would. The earth is not flat. And you keep proving it. Thank you.

Remember, this is YOUR OWN PROGRAM, and the image that I showed from YOUR OWN VIDEO and from YOUR OWN PROGRAM shows that a viewer height of 6.9 meters would have proven the globe. To say that is inconsistent with the globe, and not simply unavoidable errors of viewer height and distance, or that it simply confirms the atmospheric refraction we know exists, but that we cannot measure PERFECTLY all of these factors, can only be due to confirmation bias.