If conspiracy theory is acceptable, then we must also accept even the most obviously unacceptable theories as plausible due to conspiracy theories providing as much evidence as necessary.
Not as plausible, possible. But yes.
Well it seems to me that you are refuting Occam's razor.
I'm refuting it because it holds no substance in establishing actual fact. Using it in an argument for proof of a theory's incorrectness is silly.
Also, one must remember that the basis of science is assumption: we can never truly know all of the facts.
Exactly.
Science is based off of assumptions: we can never truly know the facts. Also, any theory could possibly be true. We agree on these points. However, the truth of most theories is mutually exclusive: FET and RET cannot both be entirely true. And just because every theory is possible doesn't mean that they're all equally possible. However, you keep insisting that the probability of a theory has nothing at all to do with its validity. I ask again, what then are your criteria for determining the superior theory in the case of mutual exclusiveness?
Unfairness is subjective.
You're avoiding my question. What is the point of using an argument that you know no person can practically verify? That's where most of our problems come from on these forums: people refusing to accept the other side's arguments because they can't verify the evidence for themselves. FEers keep whining when REers are unable to produce repeatable evidence of the curvature of the horizon, etc. But then those same FEers seem completely fine with invoking the conspiracy as an explanation when it's even more impractical for any REer to confirm such evidence.
Answered in the post. Whether such evidence is to be trusted or not is subjective, but that's true for most RE evidence, too.
The predominant theory of the shape of the earth is contradicted by Rowbotham's results, so it does not explain everything just fine if the results are to be believed. Again, whether one chooses to believe the results is subjective, and anyone who claims to have duplicated the experiments and gotten similar results (as a couple here claim to have done) would have grounds for believing the earth to be flat, at least from his point of view.
Subjective, yes. But yet again, the two theories are not at all equal. RET has vast amounts of evidence supporting it - especially considering that without RET, most modern physics (which are capable of incredibly accurate predictions) would have to be scrapped. Also, what little evidence has been provided for FET has been strongly refuted with arguments that I have yet to see countered. The mere existence of possible contrary evidence is not justification for giving said evidence equal bearing as the mainstream theories.
When it comes to choosing which evidence is to be believed, there is a mote of subjectiveness involved - but simple rational thought and careful application of Occam's razor easily determine the most logical theory to support. Unless of course you don't believe in the use of Occam's razor and just choose whichever theory tickles your fancy at the time.
Lastly, someone with knowledge of High School physics and basic logic could point out the flaws in Rowbotham's theories. Whereas the ancient Greeks, with only basic trigonometry and observation, collected strong evidence that the Earth was round, calculated its size, and even the distance to the Sun with respectable accuracy (by today's standards).