The video and images I have shown clearly shows evidence refraction distortsand obscures near the horizon.
It can. Yes. All sorts of effects on visibility can be seen as the temperature and humidity change rate with altitude as the air or water heats or cools. You aren't breaking news there. I see it every day looking out over the Pacific, watching the Coronado Islands start off "normal" in the cooler mornings and then seem to grow, loom, stoop, mirror or even appear to float due to inversions in the temperature lapse rate that departs from "standard."
Those aren't "standard refraction" effects, Tom. Standard refraction is based on a steady rate of temperature and air density increasing with altitude. And as light passes through this standard layer over a curved surface, it encounters that less dense air of higher elevations as the earth and its atmosphere slope away. Thus, in accordance with refraction, light "bends" back toward the earth. This is not anomalous. It's a function of a "standard" density change in atmosphere and curve. That's why it's a rule-of-thumb factor and never is presumed to be an actual predictor of current or local conditions. "Standard" refraction has the net effect of making the earth's radius seem to be 7/6x larger, or a little "flatter" if you will.
Standard refraction is independent of local, changing atmospheric conditions. Local conditions will -- and do -- alter things, sometimes dramatically as with Fata Morgana or mirages and other distortions. But standard refraction isn't distorting. You're under the mistaken impression that when standard refraction is cited, it's talking about the kind of distorting phenomena you see in the Skunk Bay video. It's not. Get that out of your head. The principles for why light is 'bending' due to atmospheric conditions may be the same, but the conditions and effects are not.
There has yet to be evidence of your large-scale refraction that can project large bodies into the air.
There's evidence everyday. Not of "projecting large bodies into the air" (which is a weird way to depict it) but of things being visible over the horizon that wouldn't be visible were it not for the atmosphere. Refraction, for instance, doesn't make all of Mt San Jacinto visible from Malibu. It just makes a little more of it visible than what would otherwise be geometrically visible sans atmosphere. You just reject the evidence. Geometrically, we should only be able to see 1455' of San Jacinto. But we agree we can see more. Why? because the earth is flat? No. If the earth was flat, we'd be able to see 8000 or so feet of San Jacinto. But we don't. We only see about 2500' of it. That's evidence that light is being refracted. It's not a mirage.
Same with the Clark Island viewed from 20 miles away. Atmospheric refraction isn't making the island visible down to the water. It's just adding a little extra vertical visibility, as if the earth was 7/6x larger and the horizon just a little bit further away than in no-atmosphere, geometric terms. If it's not that and the earth is really flat, then not enough of the island is visible.
There has yet to be evidence of your large-scale refraction that can project large bodies into the air. There is no evidence that refraction can bring anything up from behind a curve or hill.
Refraction is what brought and added 1000' of San Jacinto into view over the Ladera/Baldwin Hills that otherwise wouldn't have been visible without it. I provided you the evidence. You just won't accept it. (You refuse to believe it, while also remaining silent on why, if the earth is flat, we can only see 2500' of San Jacinto.)
The same is happening here with Clark Island. I'm explaining why, on a curved earth with atmosphere we can get an extra few tens of feet of visibility of the island beyond what is geometrically calculated. You just can't accept it. Instead, you argue a strawman to reject standard refraction in a globe model, while never offering an explanation for why we're missing the lower few tens of feet of island visibility if the earth is flat. You need for a geometric calculation to be a pass/fail criteria for a globe earth and leave flat earth as the default conclusion if that fails.
Your Clark Island needs to be floating over a hundred feet in the air and your San Jacinto needs floating over a thousand feet in the air, all creating crisp images without any distortion at all.
No. Not even close to picturing or interpreting what is happening with refraction.
None of the images we have seen "jibe" with a Round Earth model. You always need some kind of odd refraction excuse. What you are claiming is quite ridiculous.
Something's ridiculous here, alright. It might be revealing why you have such difficult applying these concepts while being entirely unaware of the difficulty. If you think applying a refraction factor to a horizon/visibility calculation means the object should appear to be floating or distorted, then taking a time out and going back to RET atmospheric optics basics is really in order.
You know, on that moon tilt topic that got Appaullingly in trouble, he was scolded for not getting "FET" right and alleging things that were supposedly not true about the FET model(s). It caused some of you consternation. Consider that the shoe is on the other foot and you are attributing an interpretation of standard refraction on a globe model in a way that is not true in the model. You can do what you want, of course, and believe it, insisting and convinced that you've got it right; but if you expect to have a dialogue on the subject or to make a persuasive argument, you can't make things up about your opponents' position.
I think if the earth is flat, I should be seeing the full height of those rocky bluffs on Clark Island. Is that wrong? Am I imposing an incorrect assumption on FET like you are about refraction? If so, please elucidate. All I've seen so far is that you think we are somehow seeing the full height of the island. I explained why that's not true, but surely we're not seeing the full elevation we should be of San Jacinto. What's the explanation for that in the FET model?
Instead of, or in addition to arguing with rounder earther's how their round earth model is supposed to work but doesn't, spend a little time on how the flat earth model works to explain what we see in these San Jacinto and Clark Island images. I keep asking, and I'm going to keep asking, because flat earth isn't the default if you think you've proved globe earth wrong. Why is 40-50' of Clark Island hidden if the earth is flat? Why is 7000-8000' of San Jacinto hidden if the earth is flat? You've made the case for why an atmosphere-less globe earth can't be true. And you'll get no argument from me about that. But a globe earth has an atmosphere and that atmosphere plays a part. And my atmospheric "magic wand" gets me closer to what we observe than anything I've heard from you from the perspective of flat earth. What are flat earth "magic wands" for that missing land? Perspective? Convergence zone? Waves?