However, what about the "magnetic north pole" in Antarctica which is on solid land. It is as indisputable as the Arctic magnetic pole. To stop the magnetic field, getting the "all directions are North" effect would require a large magnetic field eminating from the Antarctic pole, which is obviously NOT on the edge of the Earth as humans have visited it countless times.
Fact: There is a single magnetic south pole on physical land.
I am but an egg, but I think you have failed to engage with the premises of the FE theory you are interested in contesting. One premise of note is that Antarctica, a relatively small continent which contains a bit of land which we call the "south magnetic pole" (even tho it's actually a north pole, in physics jargon), which is uncontested in RE theory,
does not exist in this form in FE theory. So asserting its existence, or the existence of this "south magnetic pole" (in geography jargon), and even adding the word "Fact", doesn't make it a sound basis for discussion of problems with FE theory.
Regarding the certainty of this "fact", I think that you could entertain some doubt. The entire continent of Antarctica is clearly substantially less well-travelled than the Arctic regions. There is no native human population, and only a relatively small number of explorers and scientists (and military personel) have a good personal experience with its geography. (Yes, some cruise ships go there, but my feeling is that passengers on ships are not really doing cartography to make sure the boat is going where it says it is.) It really would be relatively easy to have a worldwide conspiracy about what's in Antarctica, given sufficient motivation.
Oh, and this bit about the "proven hundreds of times on TV"? Even aside from the cheapshot I could make about "it's true if you saw it on TV, rofl?", this is a bit doubtful. Journalists can be fooled (even very wise/observant/clever ones), and I do think Antarctic journalism isn't as common as you claim. And again, if the journalist doesn't suspect the Great RE Conspiracy, why would he be on the lookout for it? Poor candy-on-a-stick journalist.
In summary, your argument that there is something that FE theory lacks, w.r.t. the south pole, is in my opinion lacking both in grand plan, and in rhetorical details. In general, I think FE theorists claim it (the continent of Antarctica as presented in RE theory) is all lies, and compared to other parts of the conspiracy, this bit seems pretty easy to take.
Now, is anyone going to try and explain the phases of the moon, the setting sun, or why no one has broken the conspiracy as mentioned in my first post?
I apologize for not addressing this. Okay, hell, I'll put something random forward. This is by no means canonical FE theory.
While we all know (those of us who troubled to read the FAQ before flaming, anyway) that the FE-theoretic moon is a spotlight, perhaps it is surrounded by a baffle, which has the shape of a sphere, half of which is transparent (and the inside of which is utterly matte, of course). This baffle revolves around the moon-spotlight (on an axis which I trust is obvious).
I think that with certain assumptions about the shape of the baffle, this generates an experiment. (Probably someone is happy about that). In particular, the way I am imagining the baffle, different parts of the world should see the moon earlier or later in its cycle, although I'm not sure how much. For all I know, maybe the RE-theoretic moon exhibits that property - I'm not much of an astronomer.
Actually, a simpler model might be that the moon is a sphere, half of it luminous and half of it dark, and it rotates on itself as it follows the already-established FE orbit above the earth's disc. Of course, it's a spotlight, so it needs a baffle. And also of course, the observable lunographic features need to be part of the baffle or something, otherwise this theory would imply they'd move in a way that they can plainly be seen to not move.
Regarding the sun getting "larger" at the horizon, I believe you're mistaken. For example, here is a quickly-googled RE-theoretic explanation of the phenomena you might observe:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_mysteries_020716-1.htmlAccording to that article, which one will note is rife with RE bias, the actual observables are that the sun gets
shorter as it approaches the horizon. This is generally something on the order of a 5:6 ratio, though, so most scaling phenomena you observe are allegedly an optical illusion. That's what those crazy RE "scientists" say, anyway.
If in fact it's true that the sun's disc gets shorter as it nears the horizon, that's potentially a good confirmation of FE theory. If a flat light-casting disc moved away from you, horizontally in a plane which you are not yourself in, it would shrink faster in the dimension that you perceive as vertical than it would in the other dimension. (I apologize for the torturousness of that sentence.) So I guess the whole sun-shrinking thing is at least someone supportive of the FE model.
I myself am a terrible empiricist, and thus must content myself to read the work of giants like Nicolaus Copernicus and Samuel Rowbotham. But if you are a truer scientist than I, you could compose some experiments to test my proposed model of the sun's behaviour, which all forum members could perform, as follows. Figure out the apparent transformation of the sun's disc under my model, in some detail, and then take measurements. I, being an indolent sloth, am doomed to ignorance.