You continue to get this wrong. I'm describing your behaviours and why they are not acceptable here (i.e.: take them somewhere else if you'd like), you're describing me as an individual. All while ignoring the point of the conversation, of course.
Unfortunately, this is common among some of the more zealous RE'ers here. They don't really understand the subject they're lashing out against, and when it's pointed out to them that they might want to sit down and figure out what it is they're opposing, they default to silly insults. I'm afraid that this kind of playground stuff is not allowed here.
Quite obviously I'm describing the tone of your responses. But, your comment was directed at me and my apparent insecurities, just like you called Longitube out for being incompetent and disrespectful. When somebody doesn't understand, or they provide some evidence to challenge things, responses become aggressive and condescending.
I disagree profoundly. The crux of the entire debate is that the video shows an extremely irregular curvature, which, as a trend, decreases with altitude. The reason for this is plain and simple, and I provided multiple methods to verify this fact. I can't force you to choose verification over blind statement of belief, but I can point out that such statements don't belong in this forum.
We can agree to disagree on this one, because the crux of the debate is clearly all to do with the curvature of the earth. Why else would somebody come onto a flat Earth forum and claim victory that you can clearly see a curved horizon? You're the one who immediately brought barrel distortion into the mix to dispute the validity of the video.
Two people are doing that. That's hardly an overwhelming consensus.
Last time I checked, two individuals count as people, and did I state it was an overwhelming consensus?
We conclusively demonstrated that the opposite is the case. Instead of stating again and again that you consider yourself to be correct, engage with the actual argument.
I am engaged - the centre of the camera clearly does not present much distortion, as can be seen at lower altitudes where the horizon is known to look flat and can be used as an accurate reference.
I just did - directly to you; and we routinely do, throughout or documentation. I can't help the fact that you didn't bother to read it before telling us that we're wrong.
You did what, educate me? I was the one stated that both models would predict a curved horizon based on pure logic. What is that I'm supposed to have read, and what did I tell you that you were wrong about in that particular statement?
Thank you for your suggestion. We will be choosing not to follow it.
So you're choosing to not help educate people into understanding FET and your beliefs in it? Fair enough, but don't go losing it every time somebody challenges something that they don't, won't or can't understand or rationalise. At the end of the day, there is an abundance of scientific evidence there to support a globe Earth model, including the curved horizon being discussed here and what that horizon represents. FET disregards that evidence, claims things are faked, so the burden of proof is on the flat Earth community to put forward their evidence to support their conclusions and claims with tested hypotheses, not the other way around.