[AATW]

AATW is well aware that the Flat Earth effect has been observed many times.

It has been claimed many times. I dealt with that above. In every claim I've seen the claimant made a mistake - I've listed some of the mistakes I've seen made above.

There are probably over 500 videos of this observation on Youtube and throughout the Flat Earth streams.

Cool. So post some examples and I'll have a look.
There are significantly more than 500 videos and photos of the globe earth from space.

My observation does not need to be videotaped

I'm somewhat surprised that in all the times you made this observation you didn't once think to take a photo or document it in enough detail that the claim can be examined.

[Tom Bishop]

It has been claimed many times. I dealt with that above. In every claim I've seen the claimant made a mistake - I've listed some of the mistakes I've seen made above.

You should correct yourself here. The people you are talking about actually went out and conducted observations and experiments. You merely tried to explain it away, while doing nothing further and providing no contradicting experiments of your own to settle the matter for us. The experiments are easy, yet you have consistently refused to even look.

Cool. So post some examples and I'll have a look.
There are significantly more than 500 videos and photos of the globe earth from space.

The examples are readily available, and reproducible. Your "photos of the globe earth from space" claim is not reproducible.

My observation does not need to be videotaped

I'm somewhat surprised that in all the times you made this observation you didn't once think to take a photo or document it in enough detail that the claim can be examined.

Not required. Your disbelief is your own problem. The claim itself is evidence. Read a thesis sometime which describe conducted experiments and the level of photographic evidence given for the results claimed. The level of evidence I provided is consistent with the level of evidence for a plethora of science which has been conducted. You need to learn more. Claims are evidence. This is also why people have been sentenced to imprisonment based on the word of a single witness alone.

[markjo]

Cool. So post some examples and I'll have a look.
There are significantly more than 500 videos and photos of the globe earth from space.

The examples are readily available, and reproducible. Your "photos of the globe earth from space" claim is not reproducible.

Of course photos of the globe earth from space are reproducible.  That you personally don’t have the resources to reproduce them yourself does not mean that those who do have the resources can’t reproduce them. 

[Tom Bishop]

Of course photos of the globe earth from space are reproducible.  That you personally don’t have the resources to reproduce them yourself does not mean that those who do have the resources can’t reproduce them.

The issue isn’t whether someone, somewhere, with the right resources could reproduce those photos, it's that you're submitting them as reproducible evidence to a group that can't verify them. In any rigorous evaluation, if your peer reviewers or replicators lack the means to independently recreate your findings, your work gets stamped "unreproducible."

That's the standard: replicability isn’t about theoretical potential; it's about practical access for those assessing it. You don't get a passing grade because NASA might have a rocket lying around. Your submission fails because the reviewers can't test it themselves. And to be real, you haven't replicated it either, so you're asking for trust, not proof. The reasons for the resource gap might be an interesting footnote, but it doesn’t change anything. Unreproducible is unreproducible. End of.

[markjo]

In any rigorous evaluation, if your peer reviewers or replicators lack the means to independently recreate your findings, your work gets stamped "unreproducible."

The thing is, you aren’t a member of a peer group that is able to reproduce the results.  Neither is anyone else here.  So what?  Does that mean that you should automatically disregard the results from those who are in that particular peer group and have reproduced the results? 

Peer review means just that, review by one’s peers, not review by any schmuck on the street.

[Pete Svarrior]

Does that mean that you should automatically disregard the results from those who are in that particular peer group and have reproduced the results? 

Yes. Science zealots are too afraid of accepting that they just don't know something, and that right now they can't know it. Accepting unknowns would be a good first step, and I'm glad you suggested it unprompted.

[AATW]

The people you are talking about actually went out and conducted observations and experiments. You merely tried to explain it away

You are conflating "pointing out mistakes" with "explaining it away".
If someone makes an observation but makes a mistake - not accounting for viewer height, not accounting for the height above sea-level of the object they're observing and so on then that renders the observation, and the conclusion they have drawn from it invalid.

The experiments are easy, yet you have consistently refused to even look.

As the people I'm talking about above have shown, they're not actually that easy. There are lots of mistakes people make.
And as I've said, I don't feel the need to do experiments to gather evidence to prove something I already know to be true.

Your "photos of the globe earth from space" claim is not reproducible.

A fair number of amateurs have sent up balloons - the footage from that people like you "explain away".
Space tourism is still too expensive for most people but with a bit of crowd funding I'm sure a flat earther could be sent up.

Not required. Your disbelief is your own problem. The claim itself is evidence.

My disbelief isn't a problem at all. Yes, your claim is evidence. Yes, people can be convicted based on claims. But photographic and video evidence is more compelling.
And unfortunately your claim on this matter is impossible no matter what the shape of the earth.
You have provided the evidence for that yourself - you have shown time-lapse videos which demonstrate how inconsistent refraction is.
Those videos prove that your claim that "the same result comes up over and over throughout the year." cannot be true.