This was my response:
Yes, I had a feeling this would be a response. "The world looks flat, and that's all I need."
In my time, I have directly observed that the sun stays the same size overhead no matter where it is in the sky, implying that it does not change relative distance from me. This is direct observation that seems to refute the FE model, where the sun's orbit is many times the size of the sun itself, meaning that it is always either moving closer or further away from me as an observer, but makes perfect sense in the RE model, where the sun is never going to deviate in distance more than a tiny fraction of a percentage point relative to its distance from the earth.
I have also directly observed the sail of a sailboat disappearing last as it floats over the horizon. It was pointed out to me at a very young age. This is direct observation that there is a curve in the earth. You have to accept a lot on faith to believe the alternative that this is all a question of perspective, because as Samuel Rowbotham himself states, he had to kind of fudge our understanding of perspective to allow this as a possibility on a Flat Earth.
Kind of like his explanation of lunar eclipses. The conventional explanation is elegant and fits perfectly well with what we observe in the RE model, but in the FE model, we have to take the existence of an invisible moon on faith to accept this phenomenon. This kind of observation can be made about any number of observable phenomena. They fit like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle under the RE model, but under the FE model, you have to add or subtract a lot of what we thought we knew.
I could also say that I've directly observed hundreds of photographs taken from space from a multitude of sources as proof of a RE. But I won't, because I know the standard FE answer to this.
What I wanted to know is, [][][], were you brought up to believe in a FE, or did Earth Not A Globe really sway you? And if so, was it really simply because you look down and see a flat ground? Surely you've observed that the larger a circle is, the less pronounced its curve. Surely common sense dictates that this would be the same with a sphere. Surely you recognize that the Earth is huge; it is so in both RE and FE models, in fact.
Logic would seem to dictate that when a circle has a circumference of 25,000 miles, you would not expect to be able to perceive a curve, if you are just a relatively tiny speck of an observer right on the surface. This is important, because it means that the fact we see a flat surface even though it is curved makes perfect sense without resorting to alternative theories, like FET.
I guess the crux of my question, if you really believe in a flat earth based on direct observation, is, when you were first told that the earth was round (assuming that is what you were raised to believe), and you looked down at the flat ground, did you really say, "That's impossible, I believe the earth is flat, and I will seek proof that it is such"? If so, why? What leads you to immediately disbelieve the explanation everybody else accepts on the basis that it makes logical sense, and all mainstream scientific observation points in the direction of a RE?
And then, given the alternative explanation (FET), what leads you to accept all that you have to accept in order for it to be true:
Change a couple of rules of science, as we know them;
Accept that no viable map has been created in 150 years of modern FET existence;
Accept a conspiracy for which there is no evidence;
Accept that there are some things that we think we understand under RET that are still not fully explained in FET;
Mostly just take the word of a single man who died over a century ago.
Surely, at best, FET merely casts a shadow of doubt on the idea of a round earth. But only if you make a conscious choice to reject much of what we have come to understand about the world and the cosmos. What logical reason do you have to automatically do that, and accept FE as truth?
Any other FEers care to weigh in?