To play devil's advocate, i don't think he's saying that a degree isn't a degree, but saying that the land positions that we accept as being a certain distance apart arn't necessarily at that distance. In other words, it's not that the longitudinal distances aren't a certain fixed distance apart, but more that the location of cities on those longitudinal lines isn't known.

What would be interesting is taking all those lines from the initial experiment, and "forcing" them to line up to a certain arbitrary point. That should then give you some supposed distances, or ratios of distances, between different points. That should be suitable to either start to draw a flat earth map, or in itself prove the impossibility of a flat earth map

But thats the beauty of using the measurement of the suns altitude at Noon. It is completely irrelevant what the longitude is!

Before the days of the marine chronometer to accurately measure time on a moving platform (ship) it was very easy to take lattitude by measuring altitude and using the suns declination to determine the latitude. Now given the latitude, and the suns declination it is easy to determine the altitude.

All completely independent of the knowledge of longitude, how far round the round earth you are, or along which spoke of the wheel you are. The altitude measurement is independent of time and longitude.

Tom does not seem to understand that simple concept.

As for Polaris “descending” towards the horizon as the observer changes latitude, that is correct, (but Polaris just doesn’t move, the observer does) but he has introduced a whole new and unexplained theory in there, namely that the rate of doing so is variable! Where did that one come from?

If the pole star is on a plane above the plain earth, i would love to know how moving along a flat earth away from it, makes perspective “variable” that is unexplained and rather daft.

He might as well say magic pixies move it around for each observer.

He is clutching at straws, and makes himself look a fool.