Sure. I'm a skeptic, I trust nobody. But I do trust my own observations. As a former mariner, I can tell you that climbing a mast causes distant objects to "rise" over the horizon as you would find with a ball Earth. As a former RADAR tech, I can tell you that putting an air-search RADAR antenna at the top of a 300' mast increases the range of the RADAR as compared to the same radar and same antenna on a 150' mast. That difference pushes the horizon back about 6 miles. Nothing crazy, but for an air search radar that is specifically looking above the horizon, it translates to 2,160 miles of previously unobservable sky. Also noticeable was passing over the equator on a sail around South America. I've seen the sky from two oceans, three if you count the Antarctic waters as their own ocean, and the change in scenery is precisely what you would expect to see standing on a ball spinning in space. The sun, the moon, the stars, the planets, the entire view of space is altered in exactly the way you would expect on a sphere. These are direct observations. I needn't offer special explanations for these observations, if I'm on a sphere. I would need to come up with a number of mitigating explanations to come up with standing on a flat Earth, to explain what I was observing. I choose the simple explanation. I choose the explanation that doesn't seem to have any skin in the game. Flat Earth seems to often be the theory of fundamentalists, required for a literal interpretation of the bible and other ancient texts. Fundamentalists require Earth to be flat so as not to have their worldview challenged. They have skin in the game. Something to lose. Flat Earth theories are nothing more than religious apologetics, and prime LARP material for trolling forums.