That would not be conclusive evidence.
As you can see from the flat earth model below, a South Pole is not evidence of a round earth.
One more time. It is simply just another copy of one type of a projection made from a globe with the inherent inaccuracies and distortions of sizes and shapes. It is simply evidence of a projection made from a globe, which is evidence of a round earth. But this is in reality and reality evidently has no place on this website based on fantasy.
Let me add to your observation.
A South Pole is indeed evidence of RET. It was predicted and subsequently (according to Tom Bishop) discovered. I suspect that like Thork's lack of understanding of acceleration, he doesn't understand what scientific evidence is. I guess that he meant "conclusive evidence", which is hardly the point. In Science there is no strictly conclusive evidence anyway.
A South Pole does destroy EnaG, even though Rowbotham claimed that his conclusion that the "South Pole" was actually a large circle was beyond all contradiction, given the Zetetic Method.
The "model" in Thork's post is really quite silly. I challenge any FEer who supports this model to locate the Sun (what part of the model is it over) at 1200 ZT for any day in July and then explain how the Sun manages to illuminate the distant Australia but not the closer UK.