A question of logic

"The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE."
These claims, while refusing to accept other scientific evidence, are the major downfall to your theory. Although I praise skepticism, your assertions of certain facts about the FET contradict your use of the Zetetic method. Is is useless to debate scientific facts or observations, as any evidence can be refuted or considered part of the conspiracy. So why should the claims of Flat Earthers be trusted over any other claims? The only logical skeptical position would be to say there is no absolute certainty whether the earth is round or flat. Under the Zetetic method, to claim otherwise would be to say that you have measured the earth yourself, measured the distance to the sun and moon, directly observed the ice wall surrounding earth,  and created your own maps based on exploring the earth yourself, not trusting any observations made by other Flat Earthers or anyone else. Why trust Rowbotham's assumptions over any other scientist? This confirmation bias, which is incredibly intellectually dishonest, is a direct contradiction to the skepticism you use to refute the RET. How can any of your theories' claims be held true, if you apply the same skepticism to your own claims?

I read over your post and saw three questions in that whole post; none of which had to do with logic, which is odd for a post titled, "A question of logic".  But I will give you my thoughts.

So why should the claims of Flat Earthers be trusted over any other claims?

They should not.  You should keep an open mind, though.

Why trust Rowbotham's assumptions over any other scientist?

You should not.  You should, however, not deny evidence just because it goes against what you have been told your whole life.

How can any of your theories' claims be held true, if you apply the same skepticism to your own claims?

Our "claims" are based on observations and other evidence that there are things in this world that are kept from the general public.  We don't just accept what we have been taught our whole lives.  We are just seeking truth for the sake of truth.

I know how this is confusing.
But do not take the term "spotlight" as literal. 
The sun is a sphere shining light in "all" directions.
But because it  so close to the earth it casts a wide circle of light illuminating half of the known world.

I read over your post and saw three questions in that whole post; none of which had to do with logic, which is odd for a post titled, "A question of logic".  But I will give you my thoughts.

I think the questions are very logical.  Perhaps they don't seem logical to you because you're subjective... but, for instance, "why should be people trust FE logic over RE logic.." I think that's a VERY logical and VERY releveant question that (since YOU'RE the one with the fringe belief and the burden of proof) deserves an answer that doesn't include sarcasm and condescension.  I don't understand how you think his questions are NOT logical.  Then again, I'm asking this of someone who thinks that a picture of a round earth CAN'T be real, but moon shrimp totally makes sense.

Our "claims" are based on observations and other evidence that there are things in this world that are kept from the general public.  We don't just accept what we have been taught our whole lives.  We are just seeking truth for the sake of truth.

So, here's another not-so-logical question.  If your claims are based on evidence that is kept from the general public, what manner of clearance allows you to have access to this evidence, and what is it?  Because, all evidence I've heard from FE'ers is circumstancial.  The claim that the earth is flat because "it looks that way," and that pictures from space are fake, and the speculation that there is a universal accelerator and sky gears and [snicker] "moon shrimp..." this is all circumstancial evidence.  It provides a convenient explanation to support a pre-conceived conclusion.  That isn't how science works.  The way sceince works is, we gather evidence and THEN form a conclusion.  What you're doing is forming a conclusion, then denying real evidence in favor of circumstancial evidence to back that conclusion.