I will add that nothing is stopping you from 'looking into this' yourself.
The thing with this topic is that you have to be able to hold conflicting views. I have admitted in the past that I don't have all the answers, and there are things that I don't have a good explanation for, like the 24 hour sun in Antarctica.
However, to pretend there are zero discrepancies within the heliocentric model is not honest by any stretch. Similarly, if an observation that contradicts the rate of curvature is repeatedly made, then you don't need a hypothesis to replace it with. Falsification is independent of replacement.
The primary reason I maintain this scepticism is because long distance observations are inconsistent with the claim of curvature. Something no one seems to want to address, especially once refraction has been controlled for.