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

To "Prove" the earth is not a sphere PRO has to show that reasonable explanations that could explain such a view on a spherical earth can be reliably ruled out. PROs argument is essentially based on an assertion: that this image is an unimpeded view of Chicago. He points out such an unimpeded view from this location is impossible on a spherical earth with the diameter he states (though it IS reasonable on a different diameter sphere). However, as is constantly observed, the atmosphere of the earth produces fantastic effects due to various forms of refraction [1][2], so to be able to claim it is an unimpeded view, PRO must produce evidence that rules out such effects producing the observation. Could it be possible to view Chicago beyond the horizon? PRO has not provided any detail refuting this, only 3 assertions (which will be covered), so let us analyze. Firstly, the principles of how light travels through air are well known. Mediums with different refractive indexes will bend light that passes between them [3]. As warm air and cold air have different refractive indexes [4] in the right conditions, therefore, it"s geometrically inevitable that light could be bent around part of the earths curvature [5][6]: making an object normally invisible appear on or above the horizon. Numerous examples of atmospheric refraction exist, and they have different names based on the specifics of how the light is bent. [2] An unimpeded, un-refracted object will normally be visible a significant proportion of the time (dependent on atmospheric haze and weather) it will not be magnified to any significant degree, and there will be no significant distortion in the image most of the time. An object that is being refracted around the earth, however, will only be visible while conditions that could cause the refraction are present. It will likely be magnified or distorted, and as it is reliant on unstable atmospheric conditions, changes in the amount of distortion as these conditions fluctuate is expected. In some cases, there may even be inversion; which is a where the amount of refraction changes such that a portion of the city appears upside down. [2] PRO rules out refraction with minimal argument; but to rule it out empirically PRO would have to compare how an unimpeded view would be observed, versus that of a refracted view; then show that the observations match his explanation rather than refraction. IE: his explanation better matches the evidence. As he has not attempted to do so, I will attempt to do it for him: PRO cites only one source, if Chicago was truly visible, it would be expected that people and individuals would have regularly taken images or pictures of this occurrence any time the conditions were clear enough. PROs source (Joshua Nowicki) has produced time-lapse videos of the same view PRO cites, at the same date and location indicating they are the same view of Chicago. These are better to analyze as it provides key evidence that allows you to distinguish refraction from a real object [7][8]. In these videos, it is clear that Chicago is shimmering, it is distorted, buildings change size, some appear and disappear [9][10][11]. At one point in the video, the image Chicago even appears to invert through the center [12]; a defining characteristic of a mirage. In addition to the evidence disconfirming PRO's hypothesis; there is additional anecdotal evidence that supports refraction, rather than unimpeded views that further erode PRO"s position: Firstly, the skyline still appears below the horizon, even in PRO's image. If this was the real city, unimpeded by the curvature of the earth, and un-refracted, it would be fully expected that the full city would be fully visible top to bottom, as there should be nothing between the observer and the city to impede the view. [7][8] Secondly, distortion in weather radar at the time of the images indicates that downward refraction is occurring: required to bend light around the curvature of the earth.[13][5][6] Thirdly, a few days before there are examples of other types of refraction over the lake; which indicates significant refraction can indeed occur over the lake. [14] PRO implies that refraction making an object appear "1000 feet higher" is impossible. PRO does not offer any explanation of why, simply asserting a big number is impossible and is never observed. PRO must provide evidence for refraction being unable to shift an object at 57 miles by 1000 feet. Especially as the inverted Chicago image [14] clearly and explicitly shows the bottom of the building displaced by thousands of feet: an image even PRO will admit is refraction. PRO also asserts looking through a glass of water as evidence that objects always appear lower. He does not explain how his example is relevant to Chicago, or evidence showing the atmosphere always behaves as he claims. PRO must provide evidence to show his glass example applies to the atmosphere; and how he can support his contention that in the Atmosphere, objects can only appear lower. Indeed, the example of a fully inverted Chicago [11] clearly shows an example of atmospheric refraction operating differently than his example. If the atmosphere produces VASTLY different effects than his example, then the example cannot be used to claim what always happens in the atmosphere. Testing PRO and CONs explanations, the images used to support PROs claim match none of the observations expected if the image was a true and un-refracted image of Chicago, and ALL the observations expected for a refraction effect; including one "smoking gun" observation. I have provided a further three observations fully consistent with a spherical earth experiencing refraction. These would all be "coincidences" if PRO"s assertions are correct. While one coincidence maybe understandable, PROs explanation requires 3 separate coincidences consistent with refraction all happening at once, which is untenable. A scientific and empirical analysis thus support the explanation that this is a refraction effect, as all data about the observation are consistent with that claim, and no data is consistent with PRO"s claims. PRO has not identified or dealt with these observations that inherently contradict his conclusion. PRO appears to have assumed that this image is of an unimpeded view of Chicago (which is indeed impossible); and instead of empirically confirming his position, he simply asserts that it can"t be refraction in three ways. 1.) That anyone who has seen a mirage can tell this is not a mirage. 2.) That refraction cannot displace objects "1000ft", and 3.) Views in the atmosphere always behave like views through a glass of water. As shown, each of these 3 assertions are contradicted by evidence. This empirical analysis, and evidence clearly shows PROs claim do not pass muster, and further show claims he is following an empirical or scientific approach are also untrue. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://aty.sdsu.edu... [3]https://en.wikipedia.org... [4]http://emtoolbox.nist.gov... [5]http://aty.sdsu.edu... [6] http://aty.sdsu.edu... [7] [8] [9]http://i44.photobucket.com... [10] http://i44.photobucket.com... [11]http://i44.photobucket.com... [12] https://www.metabunk.org...- [13] [14] http://www.pbs.org...