Tom, hypotheses are often components of a greater theory. EAT is a component of some FET models.
Not the conventional model.
Again, I believe that all FET models should be summarized in the FAQ and expanded upon in the wiki.
I don't. It creates confusion between the real model and someone's fantasy model.
Even though I'm an RE'er, I firmly that this is the a good way way to promote and advance FET.
I don't see how FET is going to advance by introducing a fantasy hypothesis. To consider without evidence is exactly the sort of thing Samuel Birley Rowbotham cautions us about in the first chapter of Earth Not a Globe.
Speculations must be backed with evidence before they can be considered.
Just because you don't agree with EAT or sky mirrors, that doesn't mean that they don't belong in the FAQ.
EAT, having no evidence what-so-ever, is at odds with Rowbotham's perspective model which already explains the Sinking Ship and other phenomena just fine.
There is evidence supporting Rowbotham's perspective model. There is no evidence supporting EAT.
I see absolutely no reason to introduce a fantasy hypothesis to compete with conventional Flat Earth Theory. There is already a mechanism which has positive evidence behind it.
Evidence > No Evidence
Once
some sort of evidence has been collected to suggest EAT, it can be considered as an alternative. Introducing it into the FAQ suggests that it is an alternative when it is not.
Something with no evidence can never be an alternative to something with evidence.I am also unhappy that last year someone added a passage to the FAQ which states that the planets and celestial bodies may be flat disks. That's another fantasy hypothesis without evidence. It has caused a surge of people reading the FAQ assuming that the Flat Earth Model proposes a world with disk-like sun, moon, and planets.
It does not. The Flat Earth Model does not say anything of the sort. That is just someone's wild fantasy they've speculated upon without showing any evidence what-so-ever.