I have already supplied you with a list.

Are you saying you came up with your data points by calculating them assuming a round earth?

Why would you be measuring based off the distance to the equator? This would be wrong.

I'm saying calculating the distance to the equator using the normal distribution of lines of longitude agrees with the distances given. If you disagree, please tell me how a flat km differs from a round km so I may adjust the calculations.

What would be wrong about using ASA trigonometry to find the height of the sun using the side as the distance from the point to the equator, which would have an angle of 90 degrees up to the sun on the equinox?

Also, are you referring to this?

Yes, the distance of the sun changes depending on the time of year. This is in our FAQ.

What is the source of this data?

The suns elevation, as labelled is incorrect. The angles as reported are incorrect. The distances as labelled are incorrect. What is this trash? Did you find it on the back of a box of cereal? Also, these locations do not lie along a straight line as you seem to claim they do.

Correct, the suns elevation cannot be correct because each locations angle demands it be in a different location.

The angles are correct according to every source I can locate, and all sources are correct when checked against my location. If you believe the angles to be incorrect, supply the correct ones and your source.

The distances are correct based upon simple lines of latitude and the regular distance between them. Once again, describe the difference between a km upon a round Earth and one upon a flat Earth and I will happily run things again using those corrected distances.

Those locations lie upon a nearly straight line, as the longitude of them suggest. This is easily verified by plotting them out upon a map. The slight difference does not introduce enough error to account for the issues in the final numbers.