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

I intend to show, via the scientific method, math, and empirically verifiable evidence that the earth is flat. My opponent has limited the very numerous proofs of a flat earth because of... reasons. As agreed upon before the debate, (mostly because we wouldn't want it any other way)we will be discussing the validity of the claim made clear in the title, specifically that the Chicago skyline should be invisible from Michigan because of the curvature of the supposed magical spinning ball earth, though there are dozens of examples of this type of evidence, some sightings up to 200 KM, away Ill focus on this one.https://joshuanowicki.smugmug.com... Using the Pythagorean theorem, we can determine the amount of curvature there should be on a spherical object with a circumference of 25,000 miles at sea level. In order to do this, all we need is the mileage involved to plug into a simple formula. (M x M)8", where M is the mileage. The distance between Grand Mere state park and Chicago is 57 miles.(1) So 57 x 57= 3,249 x 8"= 25,992"/12= 2,166'. The tallest building in Chicago is Willis tower at 1,451 feet.(2) When factoring in the height of the observer above sea level, the maths get a bit complicated, So I then turn to an automated calculator.(3) The source explains that he took the picture from Grand Mere State park, (4) as I've stated before, but the height above sea level was not included, so we'll just factor the highest elevation there and add 6 feet for the observer's height. The tallest dune is 180' high which gives us 186 feet. (5)This allows us to see a lot more of Chicago, but still, over 1080 feet should still be hidden. In the photo linked above, we can count at least 40 buildings. The John Hancock Center is the 4th tallest building in Chicago at 1,128 feet, so we should see about 50 feet of this building. The next tallest building in Chicago is just 1,007 feet, so it should be 75 feet under the horizon, along with the rest of the city. The weatherman agrees that the common sight should not be possible on the globe, but instead of eliminating the obvious, the imaginary globe earth, he invents a reason for why it is possible. This not the first time someone has invented reasons we observe very obvious problems with the globe earth theory, but I'll stay on topic, as per the request of the instigator. Globe earth proponents may be gullible enough to suck this excuse up without question regardless of the absurdity, but anyone who's actually seen a mirage will know this is a poor attempt at an excuse, or at least have a few questions. My opponent disagrees with his assertion that this is a mirage, but instead asserts that the skyline is raised back into view over the curvature over 1,000 feet, due to refraction of some sort. This has never been observed, so it is a speculative assertion. As a matter of fact, the simple act of filling a glass with water and placing an object behind it to produce said optical refraction shows that just the opposite happens, and the object appears lower and larger than it's true position. This experiment is one that can be done by anyone anywhere at anytime. Since there are tons of water in the atmosphere at any time, in the form of a gas, it is apparent that refraction is happening, which is why we can't see the bottom portion of the skyline, simply because it is magnified and dropped from it's apparent position. The details can be explained and further demonstrated by Rob Skiba on Youtube, (the video is titled atmospheric lensing) one of the many flat earth proponents. With this, I give the floor to con, so that he can give us a somewhat more believable excuse as to why we can see further than we should than the meteorologist. (1) http://tjpeiffer.com...(2) https://simple.m.wikipedia.org...(3) https://dizzib.github.io... (4) (5) https://books.google.com...