Every instance I have seen thus far of something appearing over the horizon at a greater distance than the mathematics would otherwise suggest has exhibited the characteristic distortions of a mirage, or demonstrated a failure in the mathematical model assumed by the "globe debunker." Such mirages do not require the "constant and continual" refraction you seem to believe they demonstrate. All I know is that when I have visited the Great Lakes and the Pacific coast, my personal observations lined up with the predictions of the spheroid earth model.

Doubts about possibility A does not prove possibilities B, C, or D. It doesn't even disprove A. Allow me to attempt an analogy. Let us suppose the entire narrative of 9/11 is a lie. I am willing to consider that possibility. Even so, my doubts regarding the official story do not necessarily prove any given alternative, or disprove that airplanes hit two towers and the Pentagon.