Surely you understood what I meant.
I do understand what you mean, but the logical implications of what you propose are ludicrous, and I'll carry on bringing them to light until you've fixed your argument. You're trying to draw a parallel between an observation and whatever intentionally-terrible interpretation of said observation you can come up with. I do not for a second believe that you're proposing this in good faith.
The appearance of setting, i.e. the sun appearing to move to a place below that plane, must therefore be deceptive.
No, physics and optics are not "deceptive". The fact that you find one interpretation of a certain appearance to be intuitive does not make it the default. In the same way, the RE appearance of the Sun sinking into the sea/ground is not "deceptive" - it's just a poor interpretation of an observation.
I am simply trying to understand the Zetetic method.
In order to understand something, one must occasionally think. I asked you these questions for a reason, and I'm sad to see you ignored them entirely.
My question is, if some testimony (travellers to Antarctica) is allowed, and some isn’t (travellers to space), by what criterion do we distinguish the true from the supposedly false testimony?
Once again, if you had thought about the questions I asked you, this would be obvious. Much like you (hopefully) do not need peer reviewed literature to prove that I was drinking a Red Bull, humans do not need incontrovertible proof of everything they consider true. I honestly would never take someone seriously if they demanded that I go into length proving that it does exoist, but I'm confident that it can be done relatively cheaply and easily. Indeed, that confidence is part of the reason
why nobody takes such demands seriously.
Yes, FE perspective being a case in point. What I see is the sun going ‘below’ the horizon line. That’s my observation, and the observation of many others.
That's your interpretation of an observation. one you don't sincerely adhere to. It's also an interpretation of an observation that doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can travel to the location you originally perceived as the horizon line, and confirm that the Sun doesn't literally sink there. I'm really not a fan of the eristic rhetoric you're trying to shove down people's throats here.
FE perspective is a fairly complex (and to me unintelligible) theory to explain why that observation is illusory.
It's not particularly complex when contrasted with most mainstream physics. I suspect it's more likely that you're unwilling to comprehend it, rather than unable.
The areas past the ‘ice wall’
Okay, so the Ice Wall has been surveyed. How does that constitute going very far past the Ice Wall?