1. Yes, I proved that "the bases of the platforms are covered by the physical horizon". I proved that to you **mathematically** (not necessarily visually). The video does not "clearly shows" anything, because it is very blurry, as it's supposed to be in these cases. And yes, you can see water "behind" the platforms thanks, again, to Fata Morgana, a well known phenomenon.
2. I never said that the physical horizon "can be seen", I said it **is** there, which is different. What you see is a distorted image, light. Understand that light can be bent, reflected, refracted, you can do all sorts of things with light, as in this case. I even told you that for you to corroborate that the horizon **is** physically there, you would need to have a very long stick to touch it, because your eyes wouldn't be of help.
Yes, the horizon has a curvature, that doesn't mean that you are perceiving it. Most people don't perceive it until very high altitudes. Remember we're measuring stuff here, not perceiving.
3. No, you won't notice the horizon falling down your eye sight until very very high altitudes. It does fall eventually, but you never experienced it in your life.
You shouldn't avoid the hard fact, that the farthest platform cannot be seen as tall as the first one. As expected.
You shouldn't avoid the hard fact that we don't know the height of the sea level at that moment (another missing piece of information).
You shouldn't avoid the hard fact that your initial proposition that "they shouldn't be seen at all according to the model" was proven FALSE.
I'll repeat that last sentence, because you seem to have problems understanding the **point** of my argument here:
You shouldn't avoid the hard fact that your initial proposition that "they shouldn't be seen at all according to the model" was proven FALSE.
The model DOES EXPECT them to be seen partially, as they are.
In relation to your image, no, no, no, no. That angle is not accurate, that is not the real angle that you're experiencing. It is a **representation** for illustrative purposes (otherwise the degrees would appear on the screen, you see a number there?, no). As I said many times before, for you to experience a falling of the horizon below your eye level, you need much much higher altitudes, that you never experienced in your life.
You also put a note "the base of the platforms should be visible", but the base of the farthest platform is clearly NOT visible. You can see that platform appears to be below the closest one.
Again, back to the main point of my argument.
This is not about how many feet are seen or hidden, this is about you believing the lies of the video.
1. They told you that "according to the model" the platforms shouldn't be seen at all. That's lie.
2. They told you that "the horizon is behind the platforms", when in reality it is Fata Morgana, as expected in these cases. Another lie.
3. They told you that "light travels in straight lines", another lie. Light travels in a medium that may not be straight.
These are three basic lies that they use to fool people into believing that a model doesn't work, when in reality they apply it the wrong way, on purpose.
These are well known misinformation techniques used profusely in propaganda and psychological operations by government agencies. As well as the video editing style, etc. It's all very hypnotic, as you may have noticed. It is on purpose.
I suggest you watch the "Behind the Curve" documentary, where more lies from Flat Earth influencers are exposed.
The documentary is very well done, very professional, very impartial, and genuinely entertaining.
I believe that the producers really wanted flatearthers to do better, but instead they found them blatantly lying. Which made me very sad. It's always sad when you find out a liar.
And what's even more sad, they tripled down on the lies after the release of the documentary. That tells you that they will never learn, and that they must have very selfish motivations to do what they do.
Seriously, watch it, it's a very good documentary.
