The results are where you usually find them...at the end.
Could you give a timestamp on the video? I was watching one experiment about 40 minutes in.
"Experiment with Long Range Telescope".
It's the one at lake Titicaca. They claim to record images at 110km.
Then there's an interview with some bloke who says it's possible to see the other side of the lake - no details given about from where or what he reckons he's seen. He claims to be able to see 60 or 50 kilometres but, again, he's giving no details so that claim can't sensibly be commented on or investigated. Obviously at the right viewer height you'd easily be able to see distant hills or mountains that far. Taking 60km as the distance, which is the most he claims, then even at a viewer height of just 2m you only get 240m of hidden, the top of any distant hill taller than that would be visible even without refraction/
Then there's a very brief screenshot of a mapping application in which a line is drawn. That line is around 35km long.
And then the view from the telescope is shown and the voiceover claims is it's a distance of more than 100km.
So which is it?
The only details of where they are or what they're looking at are from the very brief screenshot of the mapping application.
The land mass they're looking at according to that is a small island, the peak of which is around 280m above the level of the lake (I checked the terrain on Google Maps)
And the distance to the island according to the line
they draw in the very brief screenshot is 35km.
I'd estimate, looking at the video, a viewer height of 1m. Using a basic curve calculator the hidden height is less than 80m.
So yeah, of course you can see a fair amount of that island.
Are we supposed to take that seriously as evidence? They claim to see things from distances of more than 100km. They give no details of where they are or what they're looking at. The only clue to those details is a very brief screenshot of a mapping application which shows a distance of around 35km (it even shows that in the screenshot) and pointing towards a land mass with peaks high enough that you should definitely be able to see them from that distance, even without refraction. You see how that's not very compelling?