The Wiki, multiple Flat Earth books, and our posts here on this forum are quite clear in that there are multiple FET models in contention; including one which shows Antarctica as a continent.
So what are you actually doing to determine which one is correct?
Can you honestly not see how crazy this sounds?
You think the earth is flat because of...reasons. In the Wiki you declare this as an "obvious truth" which is strange when it flies in the face of 2000+ years of science. Your only basis for this seems to be "the horizon looks flat" although in your "High Altitude Photos" page you "explain" how a curve can be seen at high altitudes. So you DO understand the concept that a large enough curve can appear locally flat. So the horizon looking flat is NOT evidence for a flat earth.
Anyway, whatever. But then you must have some idea of how the flat earth works. A model which matches observations - something you claim is important to you. If you can't make one then the premise of a flat earth must be wrong.
The model as outlined in your Wiki clearly doesn't tick that box. It doesn't match observations. The sun would be visible all the time for one thing. I know you explain this using "perspective". Wrongly, you don't understand perspective, but whatever, you have an explanation at least.
But then how do you explain the 24 hour sun at Antarctica? With the model in your Wiki Antarctica seems to be a ring around the disc so you wouldn't get the 24 hour sun. Your model clearly doesn't work. So your two options now are:
1) Deny that the 24 hour sun occurs - that would be strange given how many people can testify to this, the fact there's a research base at the south pole which you can literally go to if you have the money. You lot have claimed stranger things, but it would be a strange claim.
2) Accept the model as outlined in the Wiki is wrong and Antarctica is indeed a continent. But that creates a bunch of other problems. How does your sun move now which matches observations? I saw one video on YouTube which was all kinds of crazy, the headline was it claimed there are two suns.
Do you really not see how big these problem are?
You can't decide if there's one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored.
You can't agree on a map - in the real world airlines get people around just fine using great circles plotted on a globe.
These are pretty fundamental problems.
Your model is full of desperate rationalisations which you have to make up to try and explain things.
The "shadow object", never been observed but you make it up to fill an otherwise gaping hole in your theory.
The sun has to keep changing height and its orbit and speed above the plane as it's your way of explaining lunar phases and seasons. You have no way of explaining what makes it do that (and actually if there are two poles then your explanation for seasons doesn't work anyway).
You have no understanding of how the sun actually works - what would keep powering a sun that small for as long as it has clearly been working for.
You don't believe in gravity and sneer at the idea of gravitons which are admittedly theoretical but then you rationalise the effect of gravity by making up UA and saying it's powered by "dark energy" - another completely made up concept with no explanation.
There are a bunch of other problems.
A more rational person might consider whether the reason that all these problems exist is that the premise they are based on - a flat earth - is incorrect...