Random flat Earth chit chat

Viewer eyes are at point O. Point G is not a horizon on pic. 2 . It can only be horizon when no refraction occurs at all that is when no atmosphere is present.(pic.1)

Yes this is pretty much the image I used, only small complaint -  their definition of geometric horizon doesn't fit the one you provided.

pic.2

Horizon is just a word and can be used to name different things, like word 'nail', for example, can mean different things. There is cosmological horizon, particle horizon, event horizon all of which refer to things that dont have anything to do with earth. So, while point H is a horizon according to your definition, point G may be called, for example, 'geometric horizon' because it simply needs name and is relevant to understanding what is 'actual horizon'.

Admitently this may and, indeed, has caused some confusion. The problem is worsened as there seem to be lack of consistant naming convention and so we see names like: local horizon, geometric, physical, apparent, visible, geographical horizon which are used inconsistently by people online.

In order to avoid this confusion I propose that we use our own naming convention for the purposes of this discussion. Lets use 'practical horizon' for a visible line that separates earth from sky the way we see it in reality (point H on pic.2). An 'ideal horizon' is a line that would be 'practical horison' if atmospheric refraction doesnt exist and light travels only in straight lie (point G on pic.2). 'Ideal horizon' is about 3,46 miles away from an observer at 8 feet.

So, returning to the original picture of drilling platforms we can say that these platforms are indeed further away than 'ideal horizon' but because of the extreme atmospheric refraction 'practical horizon' is much further away. Under different atmospheric conditions 'practical horizon' might be much closer and drilling platforms might be partially hidden beyond horizon.

First, I'd like to know whether you understand my explanation and agree with my point that this image is a result of refractional distortion
I believe its called stooping.
It is possible. In fact my last sentence in previous post accounts for such possibility. 

This image can be both sinking or looming.

Looks ok. Your original gifs are also the result of looming.

This video suggests that this is a form of mirage:

OK, we've established that. And?

How is that a problem?

A little advice here, don't call out logical fallacy names when you spot them. It's meant to be a tool to categorize and quicly recognize these fallacies, which should help you come up with proper response, not an excuse to post meme images, it can only succeed in pissing off the other party. Also, there is no equivocation here.
You will have to expand on this one. I can only guess what do you mean there.

That is the point, dont call it out, explain where your opponent has made an error or use that error against his argument. Calling it out just gives you smug points.

what is used to explain different phenomena?

What is the premise you are talking about? What is the conclusion? Please lay out your argument fully, in one post, we have been conversing for several days already and I havent seen what is your position on this yet.

skeksi Had a discussion about equivocation and it's more like a bait and switch. So got it backwards, a common mistake. For example, someone talking about Newtonian gravity (outdated gravity) and all of a sudden they slip in it's the bending of space time (current gravity). Two different definitions (Newtonian & Einstein), one word (gravity).

An example of equivocation for refraction would be Andrew Thomas Young (subject matter expert) talking about refraction on a plane, then tying it together to a globe.

Incorrect. The earth is observably flat and stationary, concrete noun, therefore it's the default position.

The positive claim is on the globe side, therefore burden of proof is on them.