Hi Jon, glad to see you here, as I did think your original video was an interesting one, and it inspired me to look at other mountain ranges in the same sort of way. I made a thread on that, which you might find interesting: you can check it out
here.
Now looking at what you wrote above...
1. I deleted those two videos because I have come to the conclusion that visual observations without the proper math for refraction are meaningless.
One of the good things about those mountain range pictures is that refraction isn't really an issue. Of course, there may be some, but nowhere near enough to skew the results so that there was any way they could fit a "flat earth".
2. I had some discussions with [some flat earthers] and was led to information about perspective that led me to question using long range observations to measure the shape of the surface of the earth.
Maybe you could elaborate on that. Thus far in my experience, it seems flat earthers don't really understand perspective, and there seems to be a recent trend for thinking perspective drawings can be combined with profile diagrams to explain things. This, of course, is a pretty massive mistake.
3. I only left my Mountain of Evidence video up because I put so much damn work into it.
I think that's fine. As I'm sure you can tell from reading this thread, people here enjoyed working on it, and 'cracking the case', so to speak. I think it's just a shame that you didn't really address what people were putting to you, and make a follow up video on that.
(Not all people, obviously: I'm sure you got some stick, and some people barking up the wrong tree - no pun intended - but I think the work here, and that done by a couple of others, independently (linked to here) is pretty watertight, non-offensive, and worthy of response.)
4. My altimeter may have been wrong on my Mountain of Evidence video but my position as I put it on the topo map was accurate.
And yet, as is clearly shown in this thread, the view you photographed is quite literally
impossible to photograph from where you say you were. You don't even need to use or trust Google Earth to confirm that. Just draw a line from the position you put on the topo map, passing to the left of Fryingpan, and all the other mountains will be to the right of Fryingpan, not the left, as you photographed them.
How, then, is it that you're still saying you had your position correct?
(This question,
I absolutely feel, requires an answer.)
5. When I backed up the ridge on a bearing toward Tennent Mountain which did not take long to get it into view I could look behind me and Tennent Mountain was there and then turn my head and there was Frying Pan Mountain in front of me. I was in between them. It was obvious.
Absolutely. I believe you 100% percent. But the same is true not only for where you thought you were, but for where you actually were as well.
6. I am not a flat earther and I don't know what I believe. And whoever said it was wrong.
Fair enough. I know I said that at one time - I felt that's how it was coming across, or maybe I read too much in between the lines - but I can take that back, and apologise.
7. Maybe I am an idiot for even considering [...] what we have been told about the nature of our world could be somehow inaccurate.
I mean, I do find it puzzling that someone with your level of intelligence would think that - but, also, I can understand from personal experience how we can come to believe certain things, or at least be open to the possibilities. I, for one, do hope that you take an active part in the flat earth discussion at metabunk. At the minute there's basically no flat earthers here that are capable of rational discussion, nor even anyone who's on the fence. I wish there were. It would be good to have you, and to look at things together (says I; I can't speak for anyone else).
8. As I said in the other comment thread, send me a simple measurement of the shape of the surface of the earth and my quest is over. Until then I will not stop until I have that measurement in a form I can trust 100%. But I want to know through my own collection and proper analysis of data.
As Deirdre pointed out, there's some contradiction there. And, again, to me it's a bit like demanding what is already evident - but then, I'm not a space-disbeliever, or think it's possible that, at a conservative estimate, tens of thousands of people are lying about space. Nor do I have doubts about any of the other obvious and numerous ways which show that the earth isn't flat, and, indeed, appears to be curved.
Have you seen
this thread, which is a good collection of the basic impossibilities of the flat earth?
As for measuring the shape of the earth yourself...how about the 'North Star test', as outlined in that thread? You could do that where you are. You would only need a way to measure the angle to Polaris and the distance along the ground - a car, if you can trust that - and the rest is just very simple trig. It probably wouldn't take very many measurements to prove to yourself that the earth is curved.
Then again...
9. I am not going to trust any test that is not measuring the surface of water and collecting all atmospheric data while making a very accurate refraction calculation.
If that's the case, why not redo the
Bedford Levels experiment? There are places in California. You could start a thread on here for pre-experiment discussion. It would be easy to do and, best of all, refraction-proof, if done right.
10. I'm not going to take down that damn video like so many people have screamed at me in comments to do. I put too much work into it.
Here's my suggestion: if you can't believe what people have pointed out to you about your position, nor what the maps are telling you, when you're next in North Carolina go to the place where you took the shot, take a GPS reading, and maybe even figure it out old school by hand. Then post a short follow-up video.
11. I will be doing the new test I was talking about in the other thread. I just wanted you guys to help me design it right so it would be accurate. I suppose I was asking too much.
But you haven't proposed a test. And what you're looking at is something highly technical, that I don't think you quite understand the complexity of.
Also, maybe a bit less of the "these strangers on the internet haven't immediately given me what I've demanded, therefore I'm going to tell them they've disappointed me" wouldn't be a bad idea.
(That
other thread, for example: you got tons of information - distances, elevations, tower height, ideas, links to papers, etc, in very short response time. I thought it was pretty helpful, to be honest.)
12. I'm also looking at a laser level test with a very nice high end surveying laser level. It looks like another good test.
If you're not aware of it already, can I recommend the
Lake Balaton laser experiment thread? Many pitfalls to be avoided, but if you're planning on doing something similar, a read through that should save you a lot of hassle and help you generate best results.
13. I really would appreciate help designing a test to measure the shape of the surface of water in a highly accurate way.
When you come back from your ban, start the thread, ask good questions, don't get peeved with people, and stay on track. Breathe a little, and remember that not everyone's online all the time with complex equations at hand waiting to devote themselves to answering your questions. It may take a few hours or even a few days.
From my experience here, you'll be hard-pushed to find a more helpful, even-minded, rational and knowledgable bunch of people on the 'net.
Good luck.