so we can find how much it should have been obstructed by the curvature you believe in

That's another topic

Isnt that what we are discussing? what you can see in the images you linked?

What I want us to agree to is that the horizon is curved at altitude

Globe Math is not supporting what you think those images show.

thats the point.

The calcs will match the horizon curve

Per walt bislin or many others

Every single prediction of the curvature have always failed.

Nope

It works great

Hence why no "curvature proof" has ever came with math alongside it.

Nope

Man you gotta be watching the wrong people then

I've seen hundreds of those

over the last years

So please show one.

Wow, well where to start

I hope Einstein is not a flatty

I like the super long range ones

let me get you one of those

But first, do we agree that the horizon *looks* curved at high altitudes?

like the world record photo?

Or will you look more into that at least

Yeah, the 443 km one

Just need a smidge more refraction than standard refraction then it matches

A tiny increase

let me get you another one 2 sek

No bring that world record aswell

I dont remember it being "almost matching"

https://youtu.be/RK93TfSYeQU

This actually matches perfectly

Have you looked at it yourself or heard analysis from people at 24/7`?

because their analysis is as always, crap,

I have observed things that should have been obstructed by the this invented curvature a lot of times myself

ANd yes i did check the world record with metabunk curve calc at least once

Incompetence at 24/7?? ***Surely not***

what about pictures from space

https://imgur.com/a/NeSI64e
https://imgur.com/AN6A2jp
```There is a mountain of evidence that the photographs
From space are doctored, or
Computer generated or staged in a film studio.
In an interview Rob Simmons even admitted the BLUE MARBLE
was photoshopped because it "had to be".```

You should check walt bislins refraction sim also

A smidge more than average refraction makes it match