Just keep looking.  I was in a similar position to you for a couple of years, but the more I looked into it, the more convincing it became.

No, Flat Earth theory can't explain everything, especially with regard to the cause of eclipses.  Some ancient cultures believed in a third "dark" body that also circled the heavens to cause eclipses.

On the other hand, the "earth shadow" theory held by modern science is also full of holes.  Here are some issues with that theory:

1) it's been docuмented by astronomers, and there are videos out there showing, that one can see stars through the non-lit "face" of the moon
2) there was a scientist in the 1950s who claimed to have proven that the moon is made of plasma (which would explain #1)
3) eclipses take place during the day (the so-called selenelion) which cannot be explained by the earth's shadow theory
4) I've seen the video of an eclipse viewed from a plane where the shadow angles prove that the moon was way closer than 260,000 miles away
5) people can see Tycho's crater with a pair of binoculars, a feature said to be 80km in diameter ... from 260,000 miles away (you could not see something that small from that distance)
6) moonlit areas are actually colder than areas next to it that are not lit by moonlight
7) nobody's really come up with a workable explanation for the tides (even Newton admitted that the moon theory didn't work)
8) the fact that we see and have for centuries seen the exact same "face" of the moon.  I personally find the explanation that the moon rotates (to the second) at the exact same rate that it revolves the earth completely implausible.  Even if it were a second off, it would have changed its features over the years
9) I find it implausible that the sun and moon are roughly the same size (explained by the allegation that the sun is exactly 400x larger than the moon AND at the same time exactly 400x farther away ... and what about the fact that our distance from the sun allegedly varies)

While Flat Earth can't explain everything, since Flat Earthers don't have the budget to conduct more sophisticated experiments, there are literally dozens and dozens of problems with globe earth theory for which there's simply no credible explanation.

1) seeing "too far" ... just hundreds of videos docuмenting that you can see things farther than globe curvature would allow.  Only comeback to that by globers is a magical refraction that always bends light to follow around the curvature of the earth.  There's a book out there that does the refraction math and rules it out.  For some of the long-range laser experiments, they actually took temperature and humidity readings all along the path of the laser and did the math to rule it out.  Also, refraction would distort images.
2) various technologies, such as the nαzιs had during WW2, that had to be line of sight (based on the nature of the technology).  In fact, the British science minister dismissed the rumor of that tech saying that the curvature of the globe would prevent it from working at those distances.  Well, they got bombed with that technology (I can look up the details) -- and the US Navy's line-of-sight pre-GPS navigation system that also could not have worked over a globe
3) radio transmissions that go for thousands of miles ... the claim being later concocted that they bounce of the ionosphere even though there's no proof of that and is contradicted by the fact that people have deliberately bounced radio waves off the moon and gotten them back (how did they get through said ionosphere).  speaking of bouncing radio waves off the moon ... from 260,000 miles away? ... by the time the radio waves had travelled those distances, the rotation of the earth would have prevented them from coming back down to the same place (would have been miles away ... I've seen them math done)
4) fact that the earth's atmosphere doesn't get sucked off the planet by the vacuum of space (I use the term "suck" loosely because that's now how vacuum's work), but there's no way that would happen unless the atmosphere is enclosed by something (aka the firmament).  Also, you can't have air pressure without a container

I've seen an interview with an ex F-16 pilot who asserts that their targeting systems could not work on a globe, and interviews with people like an Army artillery officer ... and all the aviation manuals explicitly state that they assume a "flat non-rotating earth"

I could go on for hours, and I'll start compiling the evidence in the FE forum on some library threads.

Application of Gauss' law to "flat earth" 1) assumes the existence of gravity and 2) relates to the thickness/depth/mass of the earth.  Assuming that gravity is real (most of us do not believe in it, nor did Tesla, and then Einstein even dismissed it as a real thing), all it would speak to is the depth of the earth and would rule out 1) a hollow earth or 2) a flat earth that's some kind of thin disk.  That "thin disk floating in space" conception of the flat earth is a huge strawman that globers use to mock FE with.

Nobody in FE believes that the earth looks like this ...

Assuming that gravity is real (most of us do not believe in it, nor did Tesla, and then Einstein even dismissed it as a real thing)

Only flat-earth tards can say things like "Tesla didn't believe in gravity" or "Einstein didn't believe in gravity".

Einstein even proposed a theory of gravity.
Tesla is said to have mentioned a new theory of gravity, he was working on.

Why would they propose or develop theories of gravity, if they didn't think that "gravity is real"?


         

The solidity of this statement is somewhat lacking.

Do you doubt that some say such things about Tesla?

As for a disinfo campaign, by whom and for what purpose?  Cui bono?

It's a fact that Big Tech have been censoring Flat Earth more than even 9/11 conspiracy theory.  It's easier to find 9/11 truth videos out there using various search engines.

On gladius' thread, I posted videos docuмenting the fact that their Youtube channels are shut down for no reason, their likes and subscribers purged, etc.  There was even some woman from Google who spoke before Congress using "Flat Earth" as the example for something they censor.

Well the PTB benefit by discrediting the geocentric model. By doing this, the notion of an Earth centered Universe is marginalized and in turn leads to an atheistic centered society. Yes, they would definitely benefit by muddying the waters.

Honestly Lad,  I have never seen a theory pushed as much as the EF theory, ever. It was maybe five years or so ago that I first heard someone promoting FE. Now it is promoted everywhere. It’s exploding. Even the person painting my house this summer believes it! If it is suppressed, it is a devilishly calculated suppression.

Do you doubt that some say such things about Tesla?

What others claim was said by a long-dead man doesn't exactly carry much weight.  It is not that I don't believe that some, or even many, say such things about what he said/thought/did; it is that I DO NOT CARE, as hearsay about what a dead man did or did not say means nothing.

I could just as easily claim Tesla's entire motive, if he said/thought/did anything at all on the subject, was to explain the true nature of what men have mistakenly come to call "gravity."