Ah, this article. We've discussed it many times. IF you do a search on the old forum for the link you'll probably find 10 different threads about it. I'll give a quick rundown on each point.
1) The shadow produced on the moon isn't evidence that the Earth is round, it's evidence that whatever causes eclipses has a circular silhouette. Even if we assume that the eclipse is the shadow of the Earth (and in FET it is not), a flat disk would give the same shape.
2) This is just a perspective effect, usually called the Sinking Ship Effect. A lot of it is refraction, and more has to do with the apparently larger waves closer to shore than the ship. It should be noted that a telescope can often restore more of the ship than RET would predict.
3) There are several explanations for this. The first is that Aristotle etc. were making a lot of assumptions about the stars being far away. If they're relatively close, it's conceivable that there would be a perspective shift. There are also issues related with aetheric effects. Suffice to say that FET has mechanisms which account for this.
4) Again, this would only be true if the sun is so far away that its rays can be assumed to be parallel. Since this is not the case in FET, it is entirely invalid.
5) This is related to 2. It should also be noted that atmospheric particulate density increases exponentially as one approaches the surface, so the farther you are from the surface the farther you'll be able to see. There's just less stuff in the way (dust, water vapor, etc).
6a) This is just geographical. Look at the icon in the top-right corner of this page (you might have to scroll up). It's not to hard to start in New York, fly a very long distance around the North Pole, and end up in New York again. As for it being a straight line, there's no mechanism by which one could detect such a minute difference in course. It would be smaller, on average, than the various turbulences knocking the plane (or boat) around at any given moment. If you're just following your compass you'll never notice the difference.
6b) This is just wrong. Commercial planes don't fly nearly high enough to see curvature. If you don't believe me do some research. Claims otherwise are disputed at best, and even in the Concorde or a U2 spy plane one doesn't see the curvature of the Earth. You see your own curved field of vision. The human eye can't actually see such a tiny amount of curvature. We just trick ourselves into thinking we do (this isn't just an FE copout. It's an actual thing)
7) The Earth is not Mars. The existence of planets says no more about Earth than the existence of quasars does. Does the multitude of white dwarfs in the universe imply that the Earth is the radioactive corpse of a dead star?
FET accounts for day-night cycles. It would be a little silly if it didn't.
9) This is true, however it assumes a lot about gravity. As Einstein proved with his equivalence principle, there is no local difference between gravity and an acceleration. Thus, in FET it is assumed that the Earth accelerates upward at 9.81 m/s/s. Alternative theories where the Earth is infinite also exist, which FE researcher John Davis proved mathematically to be exempt from this idea. And it makes sense, when you think about it. If the Earth is infinite in all direction, then the pull will be the same in all directions be matter where you stand.
10) Most FE'ers explain most of this through a conspiracy.