You're wrong.
The simplest explanation is that the earth is flat because that is what is observed.
The simplest explanation is that NASA doesn't have all of these "amazing" technologies.
The simplest explanation is that the earth is accelerating upwards because that is what is observed. No one observes "graviton" particles or anything like that.
The simplest explanation is that the sun moves because that is what is observed.
The simplest explanation is that the stars are small because that is what is observed.
By all accounts the Flat Earth model clearly provides the simplest explanation for our experiences.
Just because this isn't one of the FE forums, I'm going to break character in order to tear all of these apart.
Your biggest problem (and TD shares it, apparently) is a lack of understanding of Occam's Razor. It asks which explanation makes the least assumptions, not which is simpler. For example, the notion that the Earth is so large that we can't see the curvature makes no assumptions. We know that the Earth is large enough that if it's curved, we wouldn't be able to observe the curvature. Furthermore, the curvature is visible, in the form of the horizon. FE can't get around this without making assumptions... either that the only published "scientist" to truly understand perspective was Rowbotham and everyone else is wrong, or the unproven and thus-far undemonstrated notion that light bends. So Occam's Razor actually favors neither explanation for the apparent flatness of the Earth, and when you throw the horizon and sinking ship effect into the mix it really favors RE.
You don't have to make any assumptions about NASA's technology; we see that it exists. You are actually making an assumption when you claim that NASA is lying about the technology existing. So Occam's Razor actually favors the explanation that the technology exists, not that it doesn't.
For the gravity question, let's forget about gravitons because it is a strawman. The question is, does mass appear to attract other mass in a way that is measurable? The answer is yes. I can't see Occam's Razor favoring the accelerating upwards model, as we don't really observe the Earth accelerating upwards; as with gravity, we are only observing the effect. In fact, when I drop something, I clearly observe it accelerating downwards to the Earth, not the other way around; the Earth appears to my eyes to not move at all. We'll call this one a draw. One thing that's certain is that Occam's Razor doesn't favor FET in this instance.
As for the sun moving rather than the Earth rotating to cause the appearance that the sun is moving, there's too much about the former explanation that just doesn't make sense. For example, if the sun is actually much smaller than RE says and moving while the Earth remains stationary in relation to it, then why does it not change apparent shape? "Glare" is an assumption. So far FET has yet to come up with anything approaching a rational explanation for the midnight sun. Therefore, Occam's Razor favors RE in this case as well. The
only thing we have to assume is that the Earth is rotating. The rest just neatly falls into place, unlike FE, where there are so many holes that a huge number of new, unrelated, and unsubstantiated explanations have to be assumed in order for it to work.
Again, it doesn't matter that we observe the stars to be small, and frankly it's a ridiculous argument. That objects appear smaller when they are far away is such an obvious fact that it's almost something we can recognize a priori. But just to prove it for yourself, Tom, try moving your hand back and forth from right in front of your eyes to at arm's length from your eyes. Do you notice how much less of your surroundings are obscured when your hand is at arm's length than when it is close? That's because from your eyes' point of view your hand appears much larger when it's close to your face than when it's far away. Since FET has no rational way to measure the distance to the stars, FET makes an assumption when it claims that they are small because they appear small. Again, FET fails the Occam's Razor test, or it can most generously be described as a draw.
Of course, none of this really matters as it regards this website, as Occam's Razor really does not provide proof of anything, and this website is really all about demonstrating the plausibility of FET. But you are mistaken when you claim that Occam's Razor favors FET. Far from it.