The world is round, light travels in straight lines (except when refracted by temperature gradients and such) and gravity exists - take those four simple facts as truth - and all of that spiralling complexity falls away - and you don't need to imagine gigantic conspiracy theories - everything falls into place really neatly and simply.
When you get a scientific principle "right" - it's almost always very much simpler than the wrong answers.
I was going to create a new post for this whole topic of sticks and shadows, but didn't want to be hit with the old "do a search" thing, though being an old thread I'm sure replying to it will be considered poor netiquette as well. But, this hit the nail on the head for me. Things don't always have to be complex - simple is often better, and the simple rotating globe model, tilted at an axis relative to the orbit around the Sun, with a tidally-locked Moon, explains each and every observation in reality very neatly. No layering of rules upon rules and the introduction of nonsensical assumptions to explain the multitude of contradictions FET raises.
Anyway, onto the subject in question. I know that a light source close to a surface littered with sticks of the same height will produce shadows of different lengths at the same time. If the light source is far enough away though, the difference in shadow lengths will be almost impossible to perceive.
FET says that the Earth has a diameter of 25,000 miles, with a Sun 3k miles away, itself having a diameter of 32 miles.
RET says that the Earth has a diameter of 7,900 miles, with a Sun 93m miles away, itself having a diameter of 865k miles.
In FET, rays of light hitting the Earth must be at measurably different angles to produce the observed effect and fit the relative scale of the individual bodies.
In RET, rays of light hitting the Earth have been empirically measured as being (to all intents and purposes) parallel, which is what you'd expect given the sizes and distances involved.
So which is it? Again it's a case that both could be believed if you are naïve, but all FET does is take Eratosthenes' measurement of the circumference of the Earth, posit the Earth is flat, and calls that its diameter. Yet, countless different empirical observations and scientific measurements all agree that Eratosthenes' measurement was accurate to within 1%, and that it represents the circumference of the Earth, not its diameter. Let's say you dispute those observations and measurements. OK, cool, but then FET falls flat (pun intended) on its face when trying to describe why the Sun and Moon do not change in size as they cross the sky.
In FET, the Sun and Moon are the same size and only 3,000 miles away. This would result in an observable change in size as they moved across the sky.
In RET, the Sun and Moon are very different sizes and very different distances, but both a significant distance from Earth. This results in no observable change in size as they move across the sky.
Saying the Sun is so bright that its light is "caught by the air" so that its size isn't affected by perspective is ridiculous. You can buy torches now that output light powerful enough to blind you, much like the Sun. Take that torch, wear some protective glasses, and have somebody point it at you. Have them move away. Notice how that circle of light gets smaller as it moves away. How can that be? It's because it is small and close and affected by perspective. Unlike the Sun which is massive but far enough away to the point where the effects of perspective are not observable to our eyes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people believing what they want as long as they are nice about it to each other. But, when there is so much actual, scientific, empirical, and independently observable proof and indication that Earth is round, to completely disregard that in favour of a theory that needs a band aid for every contradiction is just baffling to me, especially these days. I can understand it thousands of years ago when they didn't have the level of understanding and education that we do now, but that's how science works. You take a theory and test it against reality. If it fails, the theory is wrong. If it passes, it doesn't mean the theory is 100% correct, but it's an indication that your understanding is correct. The theory may fall down on predicting something else, so you refine it, but what you don't do is just patch it up to suit your own narrative.
I get it, RET can be baffling to some as well, but it's not all complex science and maths - some of it is common sense as well based on what you can see with your own two eyes.