Finally slogged through that thread. It was mostly repetition with relatively little actual description of how or why things we can see in the sky behave. The "Ice Dome" idea presented is terribly incomplete, seems very poorly thought out, and no less preposterous - perhaps more, if that's possible - than the other FE ideas we've seen here. There is no plausible explanation for the apparent motion of the sun across the sky at all, much less sunrises and sunsets - at least not in that thread.
Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.
What you think of it is entirely up to you. That's the beauty about it all - you can decide.
You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.
What's the value in deciding something if it's wrong?
The Universe doesn't care what you (or I, or anyone else) think. You can think and wish with all your might that something should or will to happen, it won't have any effect on whether it happens or not. You can, however, try to understand what has happened in the past, what is happening now, and use what has been learned to make predictions about what will happen in the future. The value of this is how well the predictions work.
That's why I have an alternative thought, because the one given out - the one you adhere to, makes absolutely no sense at all when it's logically thought about - but can make sense to anyone that reads into fantasy and embraces that.
Where are the logical flaws in mainstream models for life, the Universe, and everything? Note: your simply not liking or not believing them - for whatever reason - is not a logical flaw.
They're mainstream not because some evil cabal is forcing them down our unwitting throats; they're mainstream because they explain what we see, and predict what hasn't happened yet very well.
So where, specifically, is a flaw in the heliocentric spheroidal-earth model? Pick any one you think you see. How does your model explain it better? What predictions can your model make that will be different than the mainstream model? Predictions that can only be tested in the distant future aren't particularly useful in discussions such as these.
The difference with mine is, it's not given out as any official model, it's merely a thought process that requires a lot of work, which I admit.
This is an advantage? "Given out as an official model", even if true, doesn't necessarily mean something is
wrong. See earlier comments about why mainstream is mainstream and useful predictions.
"Merely a thought process" devoid of actual observations and checks against reality is usually described as "arm waving", or, in some cases, "raving". It can be amusing to dream up, and to poke holes in, but has limited usefulness otherwise.
Since I asked you for an example of a flaw in the mainstream model, I'll describe what I see as a major shortcoming in yours:
Someone is in, say, New Orleans, Louisiana (approx. Lat 30 N, Lon 90 W) and watching the Sun as it moves across the sky on a summer afternoon until it sets to his west. You suggest what he sees as "the Sun" is actually a reflection of a big bright thing fixed at the center of a disk-like earth that doesn't move. The reflection is coming from a fixed dome that covers the entire earth-disk and holds in the "atmosphere". A similar observer in Jacksonville, Florida (approx. 30 N, 82 W) will have seen the Sun move similarly and set about a half-hour earlier. If nothing is moving, how and why does the reflection move from east to west? How and why does it "set"? When it's setting in Jacksonville, how and why is it still higher in the sky in New Orleans?