I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it

You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.

As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air/water (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).

Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.

You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.

I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it

You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.

As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).

Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.

You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.

I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it

You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.

As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).

Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.

You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.