I have to credit Macarios for the excellent diagram in "walking a straight line" to show how the angles of the rising sun and setting sun during the equinox do not correspond to what is observed if the world was indeed flat.
But now here is what I think is a further kicker. The moon is more complicated by a further degree. A full moon travels over the tropic of Capricorn and a new moon over the tropic of Cancer during the June solstice and the full moon travels over the tropic of Cancer and the new moon over the tropic of Capricorn during the December soltice. And the other phases of the moon move between them.
Anyway, if you are a Zenetic researcher like Rowbotham and you never leave England you could argue that the same side of the moon always faces England (it turns as it travels so the "man in the moon" is always facing England). However, if he would have left England and traveled to say Moscow or Beijing, he would have noticed that the same side of the moon always faces those cities as well. And if he would have traveled to Sydney, he would have seen the same moon. And on any given night it always looks to be the same diameter regardless of if it is rising, setting, in Australia or in Paraguay.
So how can a flat earth model explain the appearance of the moon with the same face always towards us, plus all the arguments made about the flat earth sun? If you looked at the sun with a telescope & filter or those screen projectors, you would see it looks the same in the morning and when setting as well (the sun spots are in the same place for example) , but everyone knows what the moon looks like so it is easier to use it as the example. When I see a car coming I see the headlights, when it is across from me I see the doors and when it leaves I see the tail lights. I do not always see the headlights. And if you are at NASCAR, not everyone sees only the headlights regardless of where the car is or where in the stands you are sitting.