No. You need to show what observations, if any, that the calculator is based on. We have emailed timeanddate in the past and they refused to reveal their sources.
Don't need to show anything. Any day, any time, go out and perform an observation and compare it with timeanddate.
Have you done that? Have you any reason to believe what timeanddate (or Stellarium or any "calculator" we reference) is not accurate? If you don't, then the calculator IS documentation until you can prove it to be unreliable.
"Prove me wrong" is not a legitimate debate strategy and is instant disqualification. You need to prove your own self correct.
But you have to have a reason for rejecting the proof offered.
Why is a calculator with a proven history of accuracy not acceptable?
Do you trust clocks?
Your rejection of TimeandDate as failing to satisfy your demand for "documentation" is without merit, unless you can explain how it has merit.
Let me ask you this: in whatever flat earth "model" you choose, does the sun follow a path of the Tropic of the Cancer for one full day cycle? Because it doesn't in the globe earth model. It reaches the Tropic of Cancer for a moment and then begins to traverse back south in latitude. Only one location at the latitude of the Tropic of Cancer experiences a solar noon of 90 degrees elevation.
Do you have reason to doubt that? Is it different for a flat earth? Does the sun not move gradually between the Tropics on a flat earth? Or does it transcribe a path at a single, unchanging latitude for one day before migrating toward the equator? Do you distrust the calculator and require someone to be at that Tropic subsolar point and someone at a point on the Tropic later or earlier in the day documenting that they are not experiencing a subpolar point before you can believe it?
If so, how does anyone "debate" that kind of epistemology? If you have some valid reason for discounting a calculator as documentation, then that's something worth debating. But you're not debating. You're just gainsaying for the sake of gainsaying without explaining why.