I did and after reading your reply went back to check and did not see any answers.
Try reading harder. I have faith in you! And try the wiki too. There's bound to be something about Eratosthenes' crackpot observation in there somewhere.
How, exactly, does one read harder? Is that the same as reading between the lines? Is that the same as reading something and then dismissing it in whole or in part and inserting what you believe or want to believe is true?
As to pointing to your FAQ or Wiki, you do understand that this is nothing more than circular logic don't you? Why can you not point people to peer reviewed, repeatable and repeated experiments and theories instead?
You believe in a FE for your reasons and that is perfectly acceptable. Do you believe all FE ideas equally or do you dismiss some as less valid or not valid at all? If you dismiss all other FE ideas and maintain your chosen version of belief to be the correct one how did you come to that version of truth?
Please do explain this from a personal perspective as the FAQ's and Wiki are very general (and offer support for so many versions of FE truth) so referencing back to them does no good in supporting your personal belief.
I have not seen any information on these forums backed by data, math, verifiable experiments, etc except by people arguing the Earth is round. What I have seen for the FE model are basically,"We think the Earth is flat so it is", backed by theories with no supporting evidence,dismissing everything that does not conform with their theory as a hoax, conspiracy, flawed or wrong. Even simple observations that everyone can do are given no weight unless it fits their model.
What I have read to support FE theory:
The sun is 3,000 miles away and smaller then what we are told.
The moon is hollow with 1/2 the surface being opaque and the other 1/2 being transparent to explain the phases of the moon. The moon is a projection or reflection, even seen a couple saying it is a hologram.
The satellites and the ISS that can be observed with telescopes do not exist, holograms or closer then we are told they are. Under the dome and I assume in the atmosphere with no regard that friction would continually degrade their altitude.
That all the pics, vids, and live feed from all of the space agencies on Earth are faked. With the proof being that these people are not capable of creating these fake images as professionally and as of high quality as people in the film industry and make obvious mistakes rather frequently. For some reason NASA fakes stuff in a pool while people in Hollywood manage to create the illusion of weightlessness without the use of a pool. Seems if air bubbles are a problem for NASA they would adopt the methods film makers in Hollywood use.
Light would have to behave differently then we currently understand it. Their evidence is since it would make no sense in their model the data we got so far must be wrong. It can not travel as far as we say it can if it did then we would be able to see it all the time from anywhere on Earth.
I have not seen a single thing that at the very least gives evidence that it is plausible. I can find a lot of the it has to be this way or the FE model does not work evidence though.
They seem to want to disregard that some rather clever people around and after 300 BC thought the Earth might be round from observing the movements of the planets and the world around them. Then they decided to offer evidence they were correct by using things like math and reproducible and verifiable experiments.
The closest reproducible experiment I have been able to find information on is the Bedford Level experiment. Which there is evidence that it is flawed. A surveyor named Wallace decided to accept a challenge to prove the Earth was round and assumed that the results that Rowbuthan got were caused by not taking into account density gradients in the air. A bet was made, witnesses and judge decided on and the result was Wallace won the bet.