One question

I live in the far north (on Shetland, Mainland), this means the pole-star is (at night) basically directly above in the sky when i look above. However when i go to other countries (southern ones i.e france, england and spain), the star changes in position and is not as directly above me. Note: i've observed this in different countries at nearly the same time (in a week).

i don't see this point explained on FAQ. I hope i made sense with this.

The only answer i think you could give me is that the earth is not shaped evenly i.e in the far north the land is more upward so the polestar appears is directly above..however that would have to be a huge increase in raised land..

I'm exploring the idea of a flat earth at the moment, and reading books on both sides of the debate. However this is my current problem for beliving in flat earth. it's explaiend if the earth wasn't flat, by the fact at the far north you sit ontop of the earth directly under the celestial pole, thus this would explain why the pole star i sit directly under (or very close) in Shetland.

I very nearly applied for a job in Shetland about this time last year.
The flat earthers have no adequate explanations for anything pertaining to star positions or movements whatsoever. Everything they come up with pretty much conflicts with each other depending on which individual effect they want to describe in the sky.

Just a follow up on this. I found an answer to my own question here about pole star and how it can fit with flat earth.

As i said, i am not anti-flat earth at all and am still exploring different ideas.

I think as i briefly mentioned, if the earth was flat the only way the pole star would work is if where i live was more elavated. However having read a book which offered a different opinion on this, it has answered my question (though as i stated it alo could be answered via elevation and we know in all ancient cosmologies the 'naval' or central abode of the earth was always related to a tall mountain (Vedic: Mount Meru at N.Pole) or a mythical tree (Norse: Ygdrassil), anyway i quote the following which clears this up.

(Zetetic Astronomy,Samuel Birley Rowbotham [1881] p.231-232):

DECLINATION OF THE POLE STAR.
Another phenomenon supposed to prove rotundity, is thought to be the fact that Polaris, or the north polar star

p. 231

sinks to the horizon as the traveller approaches the equator, on passing which it becomes invisible. This is a conclusion fully as premature and illogical as that involved in the several cases already alluded to. It is an ordinary effect of perspective for an object to appear lower and lower as the observer goes farther and farther away from it. Let any one try the experiment of looking at a light-house, church spire, monument, gas lamp, or other elevated object, from a distance of only a few yards, and notice the angle at which it is observed. On going farther away, the angle under which it is seen will diminish, and the object will appear lower and lower as the distance of the observer increases, until, at a certain point, the line of sight to the object, and the apparently uprising surface of the earth upon or over which it stands, will converge to the angle which constitutes the "vanishing point" or the horizon; beyond which it will be invisible.

What can be more common than the observation that, standing at one end of a long row of lamp-posts, those nearest to us seem to be the highest; and those farthest away the lowest; whilst, as we move along towards the opposite end of the series, those which we approach seem to get higher, and those we are leaving behind appear to gradually become lower.

This lowering of the pole star as we recede southwards; and the rising of the stars in the south as we approach them, is the necessary result of the everywhere visible law of perspective operating between the eye-line of the observer, the object observed, and the plane surface upon which

p. 232

he stands; and has no connection with or relation whatever to the supposed rotundity of the earth.

Unfortunately, Rowbottom's perspective theory would result in the apparent distance between one star and another also diminishing as the stars neared the horizon. This does not happen. Therefore Rowbottom's theory is proved wrong because it conflicts absolutely with observation.
If Rowbottom was correct, the entire constellation of Ursa Minor would get smaller and smaller as you went further south. This shows how ignorant and unscientific he was.