I been thinking about this topic a lot lately, sorry for my late response.
Ofc shortly after my last post here, I realized that it makes sense for the sun (and moon) to rise 'further away' in Southern Hemisphere; the further away the more 'truly' you can see the orbit on a Flat Earth. Consider Antarctica; timelapses show the sun (and moon) moving horizontally; what you would expect to see in extreme Southern Hemisphere on a Flat Earth with a 'close sun'; you are seeing the actual orbit from an extreme angle, where the angle becomes apparent in the motion of the sun (and moon). Only in this manner does it make sense that you would see the 'sunrise' (and set) when the sun is 'farther away' in it's local 'geographical' center.
I'm having trouble finding all the examples I saw a few weeks ago online demonstrating the 'horizontal' orbit in AA, but here is one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E09X6us_ulUI can't find the one that had a clear depiction of the sun and moon multiple times. There are famously a lot of hoax time lapses of Antarctica, and that further complicates research on the topic. I found several obvious hoaxes just searching 'Antarctica time lapse'; some having obvious splices (watch the shadows), others having the stars move in the exact pattern and speed as the 'moon', etc. Lots of hoaxes, all obvious.
Any thoughts? I just remember in this thread someone said it was absurd that the sun is on the 'other side' of the world when it rises in Southern Hemisphere, and I had the time to mull it over and chew on it, and it makes sense now to me on a Flat Plane, if the sun is close it would be noticeable and observable in Southern Hemisphere. Tangentially, it would make sense that it is so much colder in AA; which it is. The global record low temperatures are all in the antarctic.
Anyway the shape of FE debates are always ad hoc, so improvised responses can be hard, I guess. Sorry for being so late with this, I had to put a lot of thought into it.