The story goes on with this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPouevRkB_o
That's at least strong evidence, that there is refraction, grossly varying with weather conditions, especially close above water surfaces.
I'm not claiming FET or RET wins. What's presented can be explained in both models, depending on the value of refraction.
But no one ever measured refraction close to water surfaces.
This is a very good one. Thanks for posting.
I invite anyone reading to watch all the way until the end. The scene changes over time, obscuring or revealing the distant objects. Sometimes bodies are viewable on the opposite shore, and sometimes they are hidden. When things are hidden near the horizon the background and area near the water is much more messy. When the refraction changes and things "below the horizon" are now viewable, in contradiction to RET, the images near the water are much clearer. At the end of the video the author leaves with the message asking which one is refraction -- the messy one, or the clearer one.
Sorry, I cannot let you go with this biased comment. I tried, to keep my comment "open". So I give an alternate explanation, just to compare and let others decide, what is right:
Is refraction only possible with blurred, distorted images? For me, the "messy view", the blur and distortion is a clear sign, that the air is not stacked in smooth layers of different density, but disturbed. This way no coherent refraction is possible.
Again: Did anyone measure refraction values during their level experiments?
That, combined with Experiment #2 in the first video, which is performed in a fridged environment over ice is, to me, very suggestive.
What is ice? Another aggregation state of water. For me the same questions arise as for water surfaces.