Can anyone refute these arguments that we live on the interior of a hollow Earth?

I found a web­site run by an in­ter­est­ing fel­low called ‘Wild Heretic’ and it seems in­cred­ibly in­tri­cate and com­pre­hen­sive. I’ve yet to see any other per­son ar­gue as well for half so rad­i­cal a claim. Think of this as an op­por­tu­nity to ex­am­ine ar­gu­ments for highly un­pop­u­lar views.

Wild Heretic be­lieves that we live on the in­side of a hol­low sphere, lit by a half-light half-dark Sun at its cen­ter (he claims that light bends in or­der to pro­duce the effect of ris­ing and set­ting), that the moon is an op­ti­cal illu­sion, that man­made satel­lites don’t re­ally ex­ist, that the stars are light ar­ti­facts pro­duced in the at­mo­sphere and can never be seen above it, and he has a bunch of ex­pla­na­tions for the other ce­les­tial bod­ies like comets and galax­ies.

It all seems shock­ingly in­tel­li­gent (aside from when he in­sists that the fact that the Earth doesn’t move un­der your feet when you jump dis­proves he­lio­cen­trism). He also has nine main pieces of ev­i­dence for his model:

1. Some early mod­ern maps have in­versed lat­i­tude and lon­gi­tude
2. Modern poly­conic maps show more ac­cu­rate sizes and shapes
3. 19th cen­tury bal­loon ob­ser­va­tions (that is, with­out an in­ter­ven­ing medium) gave the im­pres­sion of a con­cave sur­face
4. 4,000 foot plumb lines re­port­edly were farther away from each other at the bot­tom of a mine shaft
5. A laser shot be­tween two posts (over wa­ter) seems to curve down­wards
6. An old rec­tilineator ex­per­i­ment in­di­cates a con­cave sur­face (the ex­per­i­ment has been crit­i­cized here)
7. Radar and ra­dio wave hori­zons can­not be ex­plained on a con­vex ball
8. Ships dis­ap­pear­ing be­low the hori­zon are an op­ti­cal illu­sion
9. Light bends up­wards, which al­lows for the ris­ing/​set­ting illu­sion of the sun and moon

I would re­ally like to know what peo­ple here have to say about this, since the com­ments on the site it­self are very dis­ap­point­ing. (A lot of it does rely on a mas­sive con­spir­acy in­volv­ing sci­en­tists of many stripes, but it’s prob­a­bly best to over­look that.)