First thing that came to my mind when I saw the drawing of him looking at the mountain was, how do we know/prove that the same is not possible with the globe's bulge between him and the mountain. I was just about to redraw it to show what I meant, but luckily he also provided that drawing.

How do we know this isn't what's really going on? Of course keeping in mind that his drawing is not to scale.


VS

To clarify, I'm not sure that it matters curve or not. I would think it does matter, but then maybe his measurement is within the margin of error. I'll have to look more closely at it sometime.

For now, after having taken a little closer look at the trig calculator used, and having heard the description given, I now think my initial suspicion is more likely to be correct, that the curve can be there without affecting the trig, and that just because trig uses straight lines, doesn't mean it proves the earth is flat.

He said the mountain is 2226 higher than the observation point. That suggests to me, that they are starting from the same reference ground level, which allows a bulge to exist between them without affecting the math. Basically, on a globe model this experiment centers the bulge evenly between the 2 observation points, so the mountain's measured height is not down behind the curve, because the observer is the same amount behind the curve. (see the curved ground drawing in my first post)

At some point this experiment might work to prove the globe or FE if the distance is far enough, because at some point an object will be hidden behind the curve if the curve exists, the problem being that due to perspective, hills and trees would hide a very long distance target even on a FE. Also, on opposite sides of the globe, there would be a contradiction to solve when plugging the numbers into the calculator of how high above the observer is the mountain, since both the observer and mountain are above ground level, yet at the same height according to a system of measurement based on space itself and an artificial horizon line reference rather than ground level being the reference.

It's a bulge when it rises between 2 points. When the observer is made the reference point of a height measurement as in how high above him the mountain extends, the flatness of the ground no longer matters, and an artificial line (the bottom edge of the triangle) is made.

BOOM.  Refraction proved nonexistent.  Stars in the sky prove FE.  Simple experiment that anyone can do and repeat as many times as you like.  That's true science.

Yep.  Even taking the start out of the equation, the allegation that refraction cause the top of Pike's Peak to refract EXACTLY the same amount upwards as the curvature of the earth is absurd on the face of it, just like all those observations taken from 10, 9, 8, 7 miles away where everything lines up perfectly, meaning that the rate of refraction had to be exactly the same for every single inch of the distance between those objects and the observer.  It's ludicrous, but the Globers cling to it with white knuckles because ...it's all they got.

Here's a two minute clip demonstrating some flatness.  At roughly 7 miles (11.5 kilometers), shoreline to shoreline, and a viewing height of 1 inch (the tip of his finger), there should be about 28 feet of curvature/bulge/blockage.

But, but, but ... muh refraction, splains it all.