>>18447698The easiest thing to disprove for the ball earth theory is lack of curvature to be found. The math is solid and doesn't lie. We are told the dimensions of the shape (earth), so with some 3d trig we can plot points that have to be correct. There are hundreds of "see too far" videos online and people understand them.
So, the current shilly technique is to claim - atmospheric distortion, various perspectives, refraction - in an effort to blur the obvious problems for their model. But at long distances the amounts are just too far. At 25miles any major city should be cut in half by a wall of water that just never happens. There is no way we should see the ground floors of the buildings. The City should look like anything above 30 stories is rising out of the water. Anything below 30 stories is hidden behind a wall of water. This never happens and there are thousands of cityscapes over water.
Like looking down a hotel hallway or line of telephone poles, everything does vanish to a point in the distance. So, it will look like the bottom 5' of a city near the water is all crumpled up and missing. The shills say, "look, it is gone". Larger magnification just brings that back. They have tried to exploit this effect by staying unzoomed and then cropping pictures and many other tricks. You can't fool your raw eyes though. Just look at any city over water and see if it is cut in half when you get to the 25mile range.
They are fighting a losing battle. As much as they want 2+2 to be 5, it just isn't.
