With all of the different ideas supported by all of the different FE proponents; don't you think you should focus your efforts on the best piece of evidence you have? Seriously though. Why get caught up in the discussion of topics that don't get you anywhere.
Why not just sort out what is going on with the sun and moon? Do any of the claims (UA, bendy light, antartica, gravity, FE map, conspiracy, etc....) even matter if you don't have an explanation on the sun and moon that could survive any scientific scrutiny?
An example to put it in perspective: During the Bill Nye -V- Ken Ham debate, Mr Nye made a statement that applies here. I'm paraphrasing but the statement was something like - If you could find a squirrel in the fossil record mixed in with the trilobites you could change the world -
My point being that if you could produce a model that explains how the experienced reality of the sun and moon could be explained in another way you could change the world. It would not take a complete Flat earth theory with every little detail sorted out, only one big point to unsettle the foundation of the globularists.
I'm not asking this question to have a debate about the merits of any of the FE ideas. I am more interested in more of an explanation for the tolerance of so many conflicting views. If the case is that there are some flatists who claim to be actively working on FET and you want to lend credence to your case I think you might focus your efforts better. Forum communities like this are almost your best best for a crowd sourced simple peer review. It seems like all you have to do is put out one single piece of founded evidence and the rest of the scientific community (who are unaware of their indoctrination and take all evidence as a challenge to their knowledge) will rally to prove or disprove it. They will do all the work for you if you give them a starting point.
Instead of going on and on about how a thing is plausible or not, produce some maths and let the opposing view have a crack at it. The more you learn form the nay-sayers the closer you will be to uncovering the mystery. The people who most strongly oppose your view are, in reality, your team mates in showing the holes in your position so you can easily sort that out.
That is how peer review works at its most fundamental level. It's not about showing who is right or wrong, but about revising and revealing our understanding of reality. If the earth is flat and we could all benefit from this understanding, no amount of conspiracy could hold back the truth in today's social media climate.
Just a thought.