Tom, about how we know that the camera was above the height of the Waves. The sand where the camera was sighted was dry. If it was beneath the hight of the waves the sand would be wet as it would be lower than the highest water level. Thus is the sand was dry then it must be above the maximum height of the waves. If it is higher than the maximum height of the waves, then they could not ahve gotten in the way and your argument fails.
But back on Topic...
None of the FEers have answered the question about how the sun can appear to travel in a constant angular velocity, and yet still be subject to the perspective effect.
As a side note, the arguments that the FEers are positing for the perspective effect for ship disappearing over the horizon actually disprove the effect for the sun. This is because they are using the perspective effect to allow a ship to become smaller, but then if this is applied to the sun, then it too should appear to get smaller, but it doesn't.
Either the perspective effect makes things get smaller, or they don't. You can't have it both ways.
As a good rule of thumb, if you double the distance, the objects look half the size.
FET places the Sun at 3000 km above the Earth, but RoboSteve said "the Sun should light up a circle of radius 7848 kilometres on the surface of the Earth." As 7848km is more than twice the 3000km that the sun should be overhead, this means that eh Sun should be less than half the Radius at sun rise/set than at midday. That is unless the Sun is much greater than 3000km above us (like around 144,000,000km away - at that distance we would see little variation in size between Sun rise/set and midday, but then that would put it at RE distances).
Now, if you try to use atmospheric effects to make the sun appear larger at Sun Rise/Set, you then have to explain why a Ship does not get this effect as well.
Also, because perspective would effect horizontal distance as well as vertical distance, then if the ship is appearing to go over the horizon because perspective makes it appear to shrink, then at the point where we see it "go over the horizon" the horizontal distance should also be reduced to a small point.
However, all the photos (even the ones posted by the FEers as proof of their theory - so they must accept these as valid evidence) show that there is still substantial horizontal size to the ship even as it goes over the horizon. Not only that, in many of the photos, the ships are actually taller than they are wide, so that if we were seeing them shrink, we should have lost the horizontal size first.
In other words, the evidence presented by the FEers, and that they claim is reliable evidence, actually disproves the whole perspective effect completely.
So Tom, as a Zetetic, you reach a conclusion based off of the evidence. If the evidence (that even you have presented) rules out FET, then what else can you do but accept that FET (as you have presented it) has to be incorrect.