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

In round 1, evidence was presented that IF the earth was a sphere and downward refraction in the atmosphere occurs; it would be geometrically inevitable that light could curve around the earth. This would allow objects behind the horizon to be viewed in the right conditions. Snells law[1], the objectively measured refractive indexes of air [2], AND geometry make it clear and unambiguous that in the right conditions, Chicago COULD be visible on a sphere[3]. I explained the mechanism by which this image could be visible on a sphere: in direct contradiction to PROs assertions. PRO objected to basic images that show this process at work, here is a simpler image that highlights the effect: [3]. PRO confuses the scientific approach of asking "IF the earth is a sphere, what would we see, and do I see it?" with "assuming the earth is a sphere". PRO may not like that we observe everything we would observe if this was a refraction over the curvature of the earth, but that doesn"t make it an assumption; far from it. Indeed, I provided observations that the image shows refraction: PRO agreed. I provided an observation that there were indications that this was a mirage: PRO agreed. I included other evidence that indicated that downward refraction was occurring: this was not contested or mentioned by PRO; and explained how this supported the conclusion. This, together with cited sources, serves to establish that alleged "impossible" images would indeed be possible with refraction on a spherical earth with the right conditions; and I have gone further in showing that all the evidence points to this being the case in PRO"s image of Chicago. I will go on to show that PRO has not really contested any of this at all. PRO needs to empirically show that this process my argument is based on is reasonably impossible. Let"s cover his responses: Pro claims to have ruled out mirages; in actuality, PRO makes 2 statements that, if true, would mean that mirages would not be able to bend light around the curvature of the earth. Most of PRO"s response are based on these 2 statements: That objects appear to drop as they are magnified and that the atmosphere appears as if like looking through a glass of water. That the atmosphere always looks the same as through a glass of water is untrue: examples have been (and can be) produced that show effects different from the glass of water PRO cites [4]. PRO himself has presented images that clearly show superior mirages ABOVE the real object [5]; Something PRO claims is impossible. Many other images appear differently than PRO"s "water" example, clearly showing that PRO"s claims are objectively false.[6][7][8] PRO"s next assertion is that Magnification makes objects appear lower. Again, this is CLEARLY refuted by the videos of Chicago I presented as well as multiple cited images of looming and stooping[9][10][11]: these all show increases in magnification that lead to the building appearing higher rather than lower as PRO asserts. As well as being contradicted by the evidence, both PRO"s claims are also completely refuted by the known laws of refraction: Light bending up or down is dependent on the incident angle of light, and the change in refractive index (RI) of the medium the light is passing through; either bending down (lower to higher RI) or up (higher to lower RI[1][12]. If the light is bent down, to an observer the light (and therefore the object the light came from) appears to come from a HIGHER angle: the object appears higher[8]. If the light is bent upwards, to an observer the light comes from a LOWER angle: the object appears lower[13]. PRO"s water glass ALWAYS has a higher RI than air so is only ever low RI-> High RI to Low RI; but in the atmosphere of air at various temperatures and humidity; light can pass from a higher RI to lower, or vice versa simply based on which direction one looks. Magnification is the light hitting the eye (or camera) at a wider angle than it would from the original object; this can happen concurrently with upwards or downwards refraction as can be shown here [14]: Other examples are magnification of a pen in water (which appears higher) [15] and Prisms, which magnify light AND bend it at the same time [16]. So, the only two arguments presented by PRO are to "rule out mirages" are shown to be false by the evidence already cited and the known laws of physics. Readers should draw their own conclusions as to who is engaging in "pseudoscience." On top of these false principles of refraction asserted by PRO; he goes on to make a set of other false statements. PRO also claims that the image of Chicago appears as it would if viewed over a flat sea. On a sea earth, Chicago should be completely visible as it [17], as other cities are when viewed at a closer distances[18][19]. In reality, Chicago appears as if behind a large body or "bulge" of water; consistent with a spherical earth and not explained by PRO. PRO ASSERTS that looming can only occur up to 10km; no sources state this, and the source he quotes even provides examples of Isokari Lighthouse and the Farrallon islands from San Fransisco at longer distances [20]. This argument is refuted by the sources. PRO demands I show an example of a mirage producing an "upright image with very little distortion" to show this video of Chicago could show a mirage. What PRO neglects to mention, is that the video of Chicago is highly distorted, with objects that appear, disappear, inversion that comes and go, and what [21][21][23] he is demanding I show, is unrelated to what is being observed in the video. It is obvious that the video in question clearly shows the same type of refractive effect as is shown in these videos[24][25]: PRO claims: "not once will we ever observe the skyline appear to raise, in it's entirety, into view from it's original position below the horizon, and still be upright". There are examples of exactly what PRO claims will not happen happening[26] PRO claims that refraction and magnification will occur on a flat earth. His magnification assertions have already been refuted, and there"s innumerable examples of objects not appearing to be refracted or distorted at long distances distorted (in cases where they would be visible at those distances if earth was a sphere) [27][28]. PRO"s argument is inherently making his position unfalsifiable: How can he tell whether the image is a refraction effect on a spherical earth if he is asserting that itg would look identical to a flat earth? Even so, PRO arguing that refraction and magnification could occur on a flat earth does not in any way show it is not possible, or even unlikely that refraction on a spherical earth could make objects appear beyond the horizon; so in that respect, this argument is a red-herring. PRO has clearly not met his burden of proof; to show that this view cannot be seen on a sphere whereas CON has clearly shown the maths, physics and evidence to show this is possible. The two main assertions PRO has made to support his position are easily shown to be false by evidence and science, and the remainder is absurdly false and shown as much; in some cases disproven by PRO"s own images. I have explained to PRO what a rational, scientific and empirical argument would look like: and thus far has done whatever he can to avoid providing it. While PRO is free to label everything I say an assertion, or that I am engaging in Pseudoscience, from someone who gets most of what he says catastrophically wrong all of the time, this feels like the highest praise indeed. (Sources in Comments)