The argument is like standing next to a one story house and scratching your head in wonder on why a skyscraper in the distance seems lower than the house.

Don't get your education from Metabunk. Think for yourself.

Oh for four, Tom. Though, to be fair to you, you make a decent point: it's just that saying it isn't really the same as proving it - for that you'd need to do some calculations, and maybe draw some diagrams.

For example, as I look out my window right now, there's a tree about ten feet away, maybe eight feet tall; then a tree about sixty feet away, around fifteen feet tall; and then a hill, about half a mile away, around 300 feet high.

Yet: the smaller tree seems highest, then the taller tree, then the hill.

If I know the distances and elevations I can work out the angle between my eye and the objects: the larger the angle, the higher the object will appear in my view.

So to take your house and skyscraper scenario, let's say the house is 25 feet away and the top of it is 25 feet above my eye: that makes the angle I look up to the top as being 45°.

But what about the skyscraper? Will it appear higher or lower than the house?

Well, that all depends on the angle I'm looking up at it at - and that all depends on how tall it is, and how far away.

With this scenario I've made it easy, by using 45° for the top of the house: basically, if the skyscraper is taller than it is distant, it will appear higher; and if it's more distant than it is tall, it will appear lower.

Are you with me so far?

Now just do the same for the mountain ranges pictures and see how it works out.

And just to point out to you: I'm the one who wrote the original posts on metabunk too.