Every argument I have seen on these forums is dependent on previous conjecture. This is a good thing for any deductive argument but is irrevocably flawed in the case of FET. For instance, scientific findings or technology indicating a round earth are dismissed as faked or ultimately conceived by the conspiracy in the attempts to create the illusion of RE. If you follow the chain of logic back far enough for FE you wind up looking directly at Rowbotham's work. The average FE'ers stand might be "The conspiracy has to exist if the Earth is flat, and the shape of the Earth was proven to be flat by Rowbotham."
Arguing over the probability of a conspiracy, or the legitimacy of sources reporting Antarctic races, or the common misunderstandings on the part of astronomers worldwide, is ultimately unprovable. Establishing RE theory and disproving FE are completely different goals although one leads to the other. Proving RE requires taking on the work of all the professionals around the world and disproving FE involves finding fallacies in the theory that are necessary for FE to function. Therefore, I put Rowbotham's work under a microscope and chose one of his many arguments to disprove.
This is a previous argument I made against Rowbotham's claims a long time ago which, in the end, could not be countered:
___________________________________
Perspective can logically be determined and supported by simply examining the aspects of sight.
Consider a room. The far wall appears rectangular whereas the lines defining the edges of the other walls, ceiling, and floor converge toward the center. Why does perspective behave this way? It's because the further portions of the wall appear smaller as all approach the vanishing point. Examining the concept of converging lines for a moment, one might question why object appear smaller based only their distance. The answer is simple: The further away an object is, the smaller the angle an object has when meeting the eye, or a smaller percentage of your vision detects that objects.
Basically, the greater the distance an object is, the smaller the angle it is perceived. The smaller the angle it is perceived, the smaller the object appears. As the blue box in the picture approaches infinity, the angle approaches zero degrees.
CRAPPY DRAWING BUT GOOD FOR CONCEPT.Therefore, without other influences on your vision, an object would be visible at all distances. The resolution of the eye, variance in particles, temperature related atmospheric distortions, pollution and particulate matter, etc. all place limits on the vision preventing the eye from seeing objects an infinite distance away. I do think it is important to stress however, that there is no reason for perspective to selectively cut portions of vision out. The sinking ship effect, explained by Rowbotham, quotes a source that notes the limitations of the human eye and how an object no longer becomes visible after a certain distance. He immediately classifies these limitations as a law of perspective.
Rowbotham then claims, without a shred of evidence, that perspective naturally creates the effect that portions of objects become indistinguishable to the eye due to great distance. Besides the obvious flaw that perspective shouldn't account for obstacles and imperfections, the notion that only the lower half of an object vanishes as it moves away is ridiculous. Even though the object as a whole has supposedly reached this magic distance, selectively cutting out only the bottom section within your vision disobeys all reason. This fails to include the fact that the ground and area above this region remain unaffected.
This is a sketch Rowbotham included to illustrate the effect on objects as distance increases. It is based solely on Rowbotham's version of perspective and allows me to illustrate my questions. Compare the wheels to the shape (much like a half circle) on top of the locomotive. Might I ask why distance, the alleged direct cause of the disappearing effect) causes the wheels to vanish but not the shape above? Might I ask why has no one else discovered this phenomenon? Might I ask why I cannot observe it when I test it?
The truth is that perspective doesn't behave this way, nor does it have any reason to. Rowbotham fabricated his physics, experiments, and results in order to arrive at his predetermined conclusion of a Flat Earth. I personally believe it was a elaborate joke that people like TB fell for.
________________________________
If this cannot be explained then there is no premise to believe in FE to begin with. I posted this in the hopes of getting a coherent logical response, not speculation. When one speculates on why this must be true without proof, especially when this is the only 'evidence' of FE, it only shows biases to FE. My challenge is simply provide sources 'proving' FE other than Rowbotham's flawed works, or show why Rowbotham was correct. The alternative is the collapse of your theory.