I was reading through it, and there were two passages I was wondering about.
Q: "Why do you guys believe the Earth is flat?"
A: Well, it looks that way up close. In our local frame of reference, it appears to take a flat shape, ignoring obvious hills and valleys. Also, Samuel Rowbotham et al. performed a variety of experiments over a period of several years that show it must be flat. They are all explained in his book, which is linked at the top of this article.
and
Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"
A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator. They are located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light" and the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.
Doesn't it seem to be glorifying our perceptions and senses for the first segment as being accurate and trustworthy, while condemning those same things as being completely untrustworthy and easily fooled in the second part? Our eyes tell us the truth about the Earth being flat, but lie about it being round?
Maybe I'm mistaken, but they seem to contradict one another. Either we should trust what our eyes tell us, or we shouldn't, right? If we have to accept the possibility that the sun rising and setting is an illusion, then shouldn't we also accept that the Earth appearing flat from close-up could be similarly false? And vice versa?