The city of Chicago being visible from the opposite shore, proves the earth is not a sphere.

PRO's response here appears to have turned into a combination of name calling and outright denial, rather than an argument. This is evidenced by him repeatedly denying I provided examples I clearly provided in my previous rounds. I would stress to PRO that while "The Black Knight" is a beloved character from Monty Python; he should not be emulated in debates. To start with, I'm going to deal with the easier of PROs liberally asserted claims that are easily shown to be false: Images I have provided all show inversion (these ones I posted show images raised objects without inversion :[1][2][3][4][5][6] That I didn't explain how light can bend around the globe (I did, twice in both my last rounds[7][8]) That I have refused to give examples refuting his explanation of what"s happening (I posted all of these that clearly show he is wrong when taken in context with the argument above [9][10]). He also changes the subject; he claims I am assuming the earth is round in some examples; I explained why this is not the case, and instead of dealing with my argument, he instead changes the subject onto the meaning of "science" rather than whether I was assuming the earth was a sphere and starts name-calling (and makes his initial claim again later). PRO asserts I have provided no evidence or observation for the curvature of the earth; when I provided just that evidence and examples, which he has ignored in both his replies.[11] PRO continues to raise his two unsupported claims (that magnified objects bend downwards, and everything looks like it does through a glass of water). He has provided no evidence for these claims, nor has he attempted to defend or justify them. I have provided real world examples; both general examples of refraction, and specific examples of atmospheric refraction that flat out contradict these claims.[9][10] PRO mentions three examples I cite that prove his claims are false; A pencil in water, the Farralon islands, the prism example, and some of the inverted images: I provided these together with both an explanation and justification of how PRO"s claims about how the atmosphere works is wrong. He has yet to defend or explain how these images are possible if his position is correct. Instead, he wildly misunderstands, or simply didn't read the argument I made, instead arguing I'm using them as examples of refraction around the curvature of the earth: I'm not, and that should be obvious if you had read what I said! It is an obvious "no-brainer" that these images would not great examples of the effect I am not using them to support; which makes PRO's argument here an irrelevant straw-men that doesn't address the issue. As well as this, his arguments don't seem to make sense. He claims the Farralon islands were not raised, when they are clearly raised![1] He claims that the atmosphere doesn't behave like looking through a glass of water; even though this was his entire claim all along (why does it matter whether you're looking down, or through a glass of water? Both are looking through a perpendicular water/air boundary!) He also claims that Prisms are purposefully cut to make light curve down: Of course they are. How does that refute that with the right refractive indexes that objects can appear magnified and higher for the same reasons? When analyzed, PRO"s arguments are laughable assertions, which makes it all the more puzzling why PRO is consistently accusing me of not supporting my position. Moving on... I previously explained the scientific basis for how light can bend around the curvature of the earth in some [7][8]. PRO simply dismisses this argument with a combination of denial, name-calling and using the same two claims I have repeatedly shown are impossible, and which he will not defend. PRO has not presented any argument to demonstrate my interpretation of the laws of refraction, or the physical situation I've proposed is impossible. He has not analyzed my claims, he has not disputed conditions, or shown that air cannot refract air in the way I say it can. That should speak volumes to everyone. If we recall, we are talking about Chicago. The root of this debate is whether CHICAGO is where the image shows it to be, or whether it"s not in the same place (and is actually beyond the horizon with light being refracted). I use the term "refraction" , as there are multiple different types, some sources differ a little in their definition: some require inversion, some do not [12][13][14]. I've presented video"s and images of distortions that match EXACTLY the type of effects without inversion.[1][2][3]. All of these indicate that light can be bent around the horizon; that refraction can change the observed position of objects, and that PRO's exampleis most assuredly refraction changing the apparent position of chicago. PRO presents an incoherent collection of responses. Arguing that objects appearing higher will be inverted (WRONG: [1][2][3]), that magnification ONLY makes objects look lower (WRONG:[9][10]), and that the atmosphere is like looking through water: (WRONG:[9][10]). The only thing resembling evidence supporting his position, is a news report that vaguely states this view is not uncommon with anecdotal examples: which is to be expected. He has no data to quantify how common it is, whether it"s visible in wildly different conditions, and even whether that would render it unlikely to be a mirage; etc. Yet he falsely concludes in his reply that "it"s more common than mirages" he has absolutely no evidence or justification to support this claim. On the other hand, I have presented innumerable pieces of evidence that allow us to conclude, based on the empirical observations that this is not the real Chicago, that it is an optical effect and Chicago is not really there. Buildings in the center disappear completely, he entire image inverts at some points. Radar indicates there is downwards refraction (required for a superior mirage, or for light to be bent around the horizon); I even post a video that clearly shows Chicago rising up from behind the horizon.[15][16][17] There is no plausible, or justifiable reason that PRO can continue to state that this video is not an optical distortion as I indicate, especially considering he has absolutely no data or evidence to indicate it is anything else. I have shown that Chicago appears to be a mirage, that light could be bent around the horizon, and PRO's image show all the hall marks, and all the evidence that both are occurring. PRO has made no scientific argument, and provided no justification why this cannot happen; only a handful of assertions that I have clearly refuted over the last two rounds. PRO has argued that this can't possibly be a mirage; and must be the real Chicago. He has provided no evidence to support this; and instead has spent all his rounds trying to attack my position rather than support his own. In attacking my position, I have shown that he has misrepresented my argument at least 4 times; he has attempted to change the subject several times; he has made at least 12 objectively false claims or arguments in the last two replies; he has ignored KEY evidence that refutes his position, only acknowledging data that agrees with him. PRO's reply here, is nothing short of a litany of denials, falsehoods and unsupported assertions. Any human being reading this should clearly be able to see that his accusations are without merit, and vacuous. It is now clear that PRO has not come close to meeting his burden of proof to establishing that this image shows the earth is a sphere. Moreover, given PRO's hostile, assertive and systematically false argument (as shown in my reply), that PRO appears to have conceded this point, and instead of trying to defend his position, has decided instead spend the rest of the debate name-calling and peddling demonstrably false assertions (again, as shown in my reply) (References in Comments).