Are you saying there are no stars that are visible both from the norther and Southern Hemisphere, their corresponding constellations, that don’t appear to travel in different directions?
Again, this comes down to what you mean by "appear to travel in a different direction".
If you have 2 people on opposite sides of a road and they watch a car travel down the road to the east, does the car appear to travel in a different direction?
Yes and no. Both observe the car travelling to the east. But one observes the car moving left to right while the other observes it moving right to left.
Likewise, assuming you can't see the complete circle of the star, if a star passes north of you, it appears to move from right to left.
If it passes south of you, it appears to move from left to right.
But that is simply because you are facing in a different direction.
You don't need Earth to be a particular shape for that.
Doesn’t explain the retrograde of planets. Especially since Venus can be mapped from earth by radar with no indication of a physical supporting structure for Venus.
I don't think I have ever seen a FE explanation for the planets.
Thus, if the earth was flat, there should be places on the earth where one could see the northern and southern celestial poles at the same time.
I would say that differently.
There are places on Earth where one can see the north and south celestial poles at the same time, on the equator.
If Earth was flat, you should be able to see them all over Earth.
Celestial gears do not explain the reality of what is seen.
And with plenty of actual problems with the FE, there is no need to use things which can be explained on a FE as an attempt to disprove it.
Why is this so important?
Because the OP wanted to claim that this one single observation would be enough to disprove a FE.
In reality, almost nothing works like that.
We wouldn't allow a FEer to come in with a cheap single observation which lacks a lot of information understanding the model, so why should we allow REers to do so?
Especially when the OP decided to ignore it and double down.
And yes, there are plenty of alternatives which can be used to show the FE model is wrong, so I don't think we should use things which FEers can try to argue out of, even if that would then cause loads of other problems, or if loads of other problems exist which they can't address.
Yes, it is nitpicking. But when someone acts like the OP has, I will nitpick.
Or even burden of being remotely hypothetically possible.
If that is going to be your standard we can throw out FE right from the start.
However, I also note some FEers would use a similar standard based on their own opinions to discard a RE.