Unless that shows the earth isn't flat, obvs.
And this is my problem with you lot. You unduly focus on the outcome rather than methodology. When a terrible RET experiment is denied due to being terrible, you handwave it away, because "it's just FE'ers denying RET experiments again". When the same people push against terrible FET experiments or proposals, you miraculously don't notice. Funny, that!
I'm not clear what you mean here. Can you provide examples?
The infamous Bishop Experiment is objectively bad. It's very much in the Rowbotham style of him just saying "this is what I saw".
There's no documentation or proof of where he was, the angle he was looking at, equipment used and so on.
He just says "this is what I saw". Why is that good enough? He doesn't accept that level of "proof" from anyone else.
Also, he claims to be able to repeat the experiment any time he wishes. But when someone posts a video of a building occluded by the curve of the earth he just says it's "waves".
Really? But waves are never an issue in his experiment?
Come on, you have to admit this is pretty shoddy.
I have suggested experiments you lot can do to measure the distance of the sun. If it's as close as you suppose then some observations and triangulation could show that.
My suggestion about this has always been met with a stony silence apart from one dude who did say that he'd seen this done and would provide the evidence. Never heard from him again.
I've suggested Tom do some experiments around shadows to see if he can produce long shadows like you see at sunset in any other way than by having a light source PHYSICALLY (not "by perspective") close to the ground. He's not taken me up on that idea either.
For people who claim to be so bothered about empirical evidence you seem remarkably reticent to actually do any experiments.