I have. It's a joke. Pick a section.
ENaG is riddled with errors, and his astronomical 'observations' are almost exclusively hearsay. He doesn't reproduce any of his observations in any way. Nothing that he writes can be verified, and to my knowledge it hasn't survived any meaningful peer review.
Perhaps you missed the journal Earth Not a Globe Review which ran for over 75 issues of 200 to 400 pages each.
Again, I understand that his friends were super keen on his ideas. The mere fact that he published a magazine (that's all it is) doesn't at all indicate that his work has withstood serious scrutiny. And, it still doesn't even come close to rivaling the scrutiny modern astronomy faces on a daily basis. It is reviewed daily by thousands of astronomers and students who test it, work through its proofs, and verify its predictions.
I've only been able to find a single copy of the ENaG Review, and I'm guessing that you're the domain owner:
http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/library/The_Earth_Not_A_Globe_Review_(Number_1_January_1893).pdfIf this issue is representative of the rest, then I can't imagine how you find it trustworthy. It's just a magazine. They said themselves that they created it to promote a literalist interpretation of the Bible. Its bias and agenda are stated explicitly in the introduction.
What speculation?
Direct claims and observations are given which demolish Round Earth astronomy. It is not "heresy". It is direct evidence that the Round Earth model is wrong. The observations are often corroborated by multiple independent observers.
So he says. It's entirely hearsay. He doesn't reproduce any of his own findings, and in most chapters he merely describes what someone else told him about an experiment or demonstration he didn't see himself. I have yet to see any reproductions of any of the tests or experiments in ENaG. By all means, point me to what I'm missing.
It's hard to be more specific without talking about particular sections. I'm happy to point out particulars if you'd like.
You will find that the FE'ers on this forum know far more about astronomy than the RE'ers who visit here.
That's obviously not the comparison I was making, but whatever. I would be shocked to find out that you've ever gazed though anything more powerful than a standard pair of binoculars. Maybe you've looked at the Moon with a Newtonian a couple of times.
Either way, I'm 100% certain you're unqualified to assert that "the stars and galaxies are tiny specs of light and chemical action in the sky," not only because that is literally impossible, but also because you have yet to display that your understanding of light, optics, or photography goes beyond what's written on Wikipedia.
Remember when you said that astronomy has no method to calculate the positions of the planets?