Please Read Earth Not a Globe. Perspective accounts for why the North Star appears lower or higher in the sky at different latitudes.

Also see Rowbotham's modified rules of perspective which more accurately reflects reality.

You mean the ones whose only proof is in the sinking ship phenomenon, which requires those rule modifications to fit the flat earth model, which is necessary because the Earth was "proven" flat at the bedford levels?

So you "prove" the earth is flat in one experiment, then get to reinvent every other facet of math and science? By that method, why can't a scientist "prove" the roundness of the earth through celestial observation, and then use the "explanation" of refraction to explain the observations that Rowbotham made, without actually reinventing any mathematical phenomena such as perspective?

The mathematics behind perspective have been developped and studied by people probably far more intelligent than either you or Rowbotham. Entities such as vanishing points and horizon lines, as well as the concept of parallel lines have been precisely and painstakingly defined to be completely mathematically sound, and you're just going to dismiss it because some guy thought he saw a flat stretch of water.

And from all that, we know that perspective is basically this: visible object has angular position... angular position is determined by both distance and altitude. We've shown you this, and through calculations, proved that the FET sun cannot set under the influence of perspective alone without physically passing under the earth, and that perspective would cause the sun to diminish in size, which is an unobserved phenomenon. You responded by invoking refraction to explain sunsets, and invented your own refraction explanation involving some kind of projection without any kind of lens to explain the lack of diminishing - at which point FET loses any advantage it had over RET, as it now requires a new light bending phenomenon, while RET needs refraction to explain the bedford levels results. So their even... only RET is now the only theory where observations are mathematically supported, and FET has a giant Conspiracy theory telling us the plethora of flawless nasa images are fake.

So now, which way shall Occam's razor fall?