[AATW]

Check the Frozen Lake video again. When the camera is 1 foot above the surface the red light does not blink and is steady. Only when the camera gets to such a close altitude of 5 inches the red light starts blinking a bit.

At 1 foot above the horizon, refraction would need to occur there too, yet the red light is not blinking. Your 'blinking light proves refraction' argument is shown to be false by the 1 foot observation.

I don't understand how any of that explains the light blinking. Refraction over water means you can see things which should be over the horizon if we lived on a globe with no atmosphere. That refraction varies over time because our atmosphere is turbulent. Which probably explains the blinking, obviously it's impossible to know the exact conditions on the day that experiment was done.
If the earth were a plane then what is causing the light to blink at all? I guess atmospheric effects could cause the apparent light to vary in height but there shouldn't be anything blocking the light source at any height.

I don't see what the size of the sun has to do with this. That can occur through a mechanism that does not rely on 'coincidence'. This response is admitting that your position is that a coincidence did it.

I don't have a position because it's impossible to know all the conditions. I suspect some refraction is at play here though.
My point was you know full well that if RE was claiming a mechanism whereby an object could move above us at a fixed height across the sky but maintain a consistent angular speed and size, you would scoff at the coincidence. Especially if no explanation or evidence for that mechanism was presented. Because that is not how objects which move across the sky behave - they increase in angular speed and size as they come closer and decrease as they get further. You are scoffing in this thread at what you say is a coincidence but you're fine believing in ones which make your model work. Just like you're happy to believe this video is proof of your model but hand wave away ones like the Turning Torso video which prove the opposite.

The video is admittedly interesting and deserves some further investigation.

[JSS]

I'm still waiting for an answer to this earlier post asking for references to Wallace's alleged cheating.

I've posted the following link, which is a transcript of one of the libel court cases that John Hampden lost after being unable to show any evidence of any cheating. It pretty clearly shows he had no defense or facts to back up his position.

https://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S248A.htm

If any evidence exists that Wallace cheated, I'd like to see it.

I've looked at all the references and accounts and can't find anything other than Hampden's claims, in between death threats and other insults. There just isn't anything in the historical record.

The only case Hampden won was in initially claiming that he canceled the wager so shouldn't have to pay, which a court agreed with. So he successfully backed out of a bet that he lost. Hardly proof of the OTHER guy cheating.