All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view

All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!

I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can use it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.

If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.

Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the claimed curvature of the earth that we are trying to confirm or refute. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.

Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything about the claimed earth curvature without careful control over other variables.

All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view

All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!

I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can use it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.

If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.

Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the claimed curvature of the earth that we are trying to confirm or refute. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.

Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything about the claimed earth curvature without careful control of other variables.

All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view

All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!

I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can use it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.

If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.

Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the curvature of the earth that conventional science claims. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.

Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything about the claimed earth curvature without careful control of other variables.

All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view

All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!

I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can us it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.

If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.

Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the curvature of the earth that conventional science claims. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.

Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything about the claimed earth curvature without careful control of other variables.

All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view

All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!

I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can us it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.

If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.

Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the curvature of the earth that conventional science claims. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.

Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything without careful control of other variables.

All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view

All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!

I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can us it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.

If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.

Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the curvature of the earth that conventional science claims. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over confounding variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.

Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything without careful control of other variables.

All tests show lasers at up to 40miles across a lake in perfect view

All tests do not show items in perfect view on a flat earth. For every FE observation, there are a dozen out there showing the opposite, including even by FEers themselves trying to prove their case (Interesting...)!

I know you want to mix me up with Neal Tyson, Professor Dave, SciManDan, and all these dorks in the media. I don't say stupid shit like these people do. I choose my words carefully, and what the comment you are responding to says is that you cannot reliably demonstrate the curve from observations restricted to the ground. This does not mean that you can us it to demonstrate the flat earth, you cannot. You cannot demonstrate anything.

If for every "flat observation" there is a "round observation" then in science we say that the experimental method is inadequate. This should not be too difficult to understand, since it is not uncommon for people to see large objects literally floating in the air, including ships on the same water you people like to use to prove the flat earth.

Assuming that you don't believe that planes just hover in the air or ships fly a story or two above the ocean, then we now agree that surface restricted observations are subject to deviations from linear trajectories that far exceed the curvature of the earth that conventional science claims. This means that the experimental / observational method is inadequate unless there is sufficient control over variables. I don't care if Duvey, Weiss, Oakley, etc. say that this refutes the globe. It does not. Anything that "confirms" ships flying over the ocean does not refute anything.

Incidentally, you have found an example where all the "believe science FE debunkers" are wrong. The only correct statement is that surface observations are too noisy to conclude anything without careful control of other variables.