Just like with other matters, I prefer things that are self-evident, with a bit of logic and common sense, basic EASILY VERIFIED rules of physics, etc.

For example, an object always casts a shadow the same size or larger -- never smaller. (The moon is supposed to cast a pinpoint shadow during a solar eclipse. huh? Can you demonstrate?)

This video touches on another issue... there should be a "bulge of the earth shadow" projected onto the sky TWICE A DAY, EVERY DAY -- but yet we never see this. If the earth is really a spinning globe, you would absolutely see this.

It's a question of geometry and mathematics -- easily verifiable and testable. You can build models.

I'm rereading Aristotle's "On the Heavens" in anticipation of the lunar eclipse. I think everyone should watch it if this topic is of interest - Aristotle uses the lunar eclipse as one of his reasons for a spherical Earth - and it's something we can all see for ourselves.

But Aristotle wasn't infallible or omniscient. There is MUCH that Mr. Aristotle was ignorant of, or even positively wrong about. Moreover, Aristotle was a philosopher, not a scientist. He didn't even pretend to be a scientist in the modern sense (methodical exploration of the physical world, taking measurements, making experiments, creating abstract models, making predictions, the Scientific Method, etc.)

Just for starters, Aristotle lacked equipment such as the Nikon P100 camera which can bring ships back into view after they disappeared over the horizon. In the "olden days", men thought those ships were disappearing over the earth's curve. Today, with simple photographic equipment, we can "bring the ship back" by zooming in. It's a question of optics, perspective, and angular resolution -- not earth curvature.

The fact of the matter is, looking up to the sky and making conclusions about the earth is a "non sequitur" fallacy at best, and random foolishness at worst. See photo below.

And Aristotle, as a Greek, had to toe the line in regards to the prevailing ideas of the day.  If he hadn’t, he would’ve been killed like Socrates…

People (ie Catholics) have this romanticized view of the Greeks, that I’ll never understand.  They were pagan occultists who worshipped false gods (ie the satanic sun god, Saturn).  They openly practiced paedophilia.  And they tried to wipe the Israelites/Maccabee’s off the face of the earth (ie the true religion of the time).

This race of people were abominable.  All of their scientific “genius” is biased and agenda-driven, towards sun-worship, which was their RELIGION.  Ergo, Greek science was a religion.  Ergo, Catholics must question Greek science, not blindly accept it.

The lunar eclipses are explained by something called a “black sun” which is involved in lunar eclipses

Speaking of which --

When watching an eclipse, you don't see the moon in the sky approach the sun, cover the sun for a bit, then slowly move off it and you see the moon move away. No, it's literally a black disk, like the sun is being occluded by some dark body. But it's not the moon.
I watched a video months ago, where a man carefully tracked where the moon was each night, and basically proved the moon was elsewhere when it was supposed to be on a path allowing it to block out the sun. He proved, with observations, careful measurements, and basic geometry (arc path the moon takes) that whatever blocked out the sun that day, it wasn't the moon. I don't remember the name of the video. But I bet it could be found.

I will respond to your main points later (I have to finish preparations for Mass at our chapel here in a few hours) but I would like to give some big-picture stuff (for you and other readers):

What you need to understand is that I believed in the Globe earth model for most of my life. Not only that, I was a sci-fi nerd. I didn't embrace "flat earth" (much less the LABEL of a "flat earther") lightly. Long story short, I was *forced* to that conclusion by the preponderance of evidence. Not proof (like having God show me the whole cosmos as a big picture?) but "beyond a reasonable doubt" or "a preponderance of evidence", like in court.

There are many pieces of evidence pro- or against that are "inconclusive" to be honest. In other words, there could be another explanation. These I set aside into their own piles. Other points are hard to verify. But then there are some that are easily observed, some involving math or logic, which really make you think.

I will say this -- once you reach a point of suspicion about the "accepted model", you start looking everywhere for further evidence/corroboration -- and you find it. Like the turning point in The Truman Show. He suddenly starts noticing everything, because *he* decided to open his mind a bit. Maybe one or two things got his attention at first, but once he thought about it, or considered the possibility something was off, then he started to look at things more objectively and critically. Then the evidence really piles up. That's how it was for me.

I would also like to refresh your memory that I started out by believing in cօռspιʀαcιҽs, including the infiltration of the Church. That's probably the first prerequisite. Then I learned about the fake moon landings, and was convinced 100% NASA is capable of such a bold lie. But I still believed in their near-earth and robotic explorer missions. Then in the early 2010's there was Sungenis "Copernican Principle" and a similar video series "Galileo Was Wrong". In these videos, I learned so much I had been utterly ignorant about. I didn't know that no experiment had ever shown the earth to move, and that in fact the contrary had been unwittingly proven, necessitating all sorts of mental gymnastics and houses of cards to be built (namely, Einstein and his theory of relativity).

Just like with other matters, I prefer things that are self-evident, with a bit of logic and common sense, basic EASILY VERIFIED rules of physics, etc.

For example, an object always casts a shadow the same size or larger -- never smaller. (The moon is supposed to cast a pinpoint shadow during a solar eclipse. huh? Can you demonstrate?)

If the source of light is bigger than the object the shadow will be smaller depending on the distance between the source, the object and the observer. You can easily check this at home, best if done at night. All you need is a lamp (light bulb) on a table in the middle of a room and a teaspoon, or a small round fruit like a key lime pocked with a fork. With the light bulb on, put yourself at arm-lenght distance from it. Grab the teaspoon in a vertical manner, close one eye. If the spoon is closer to the bulb you will see the ring of light bulb around it and no shadow projected on your face. As you get it closer to your eye, the light bulb will be completely "covered" by the spoon and your kids can see its shadow on your face.
If you use the small round object, put it closer to the light bulb and a white sheet of paper on the back, almost touching it. The size of the shadow will be smaller than the diameter of the round object. This part of the experiment only shows that the sun needs to be bigger than the moon, and that the moon needs to be pretty close to the earth, and both the earth and moon close enough to the sun to project a shadow smaller than its diameter.
Another fun game is positioning yourself, arm extended, with the pocked round object at a distance where from your position the object "equals" the size of the light bulb (your own eclipse). Make 1/4 turn (90 degrees) either to the right or the left. From your perspective you see half of the object illuminated.  Make another 1/4 turn (180 degrees) and you will see a "full moon".

But Aristotle wasn't infallible or omniscient.

So, Aristotle's overall philosophical system, his epistemology, ontology, etc. ... they were spot on, and were adopted almost as-is by the scholastics (rightly so), although one might quibble over details.

But his science?  He lacked much of the apparatus to conduct real experiments.  So, for instance, he used the old ships disappearing from the bottom up argument as his primary reason for round earth, failing to take into account the laws of perspective, convergence with the horizon, waves that could obstruct vision bottom-up as the object becomes smaller, and just did not have the optics.  With today's zoom cameras we can and do watch ships appear to disappear from bottom up but then can zoom in with the right optics and see the ship return to full view, meaning that the cause of the bottom-up disappearance was being misinterpreted.

Also, BTW, very few point out that a spherical object casting a shadow onto another sphere actually results in a shadow that's a straight line, not curved ... and many ancient cultures believed there was another dark body out there that cast shadows, caused eclipses, etc.

Back in the day, Aristotle (nor anyone else) had the modern scientific concept of what "stars" are, considering them to be smaller lights.  If they had believed them to be distant suns, they would have remarked about how stars (and planets, which they considered wandering stars) can enter the darkened side of the moon, the one allegedly being occulted by the earth's shadow and REMAIN VISIBLE even though they should be BEHIND the solid mass of the darkened side of the sun.  This has been reported by professional astronomers in astronomy journals, as something "defying explanation" ... except if maybe the moon is something other than the solid rock they claim it to be.