We should see it present against the moon, we don't.
That is not my quote.
It is from youtube.
Was it from a video you presented?
If so, and you knew it was wrong, why present it?
Now again, how about we deal with the OP?
The OP clearly indicating they are using an isosceles triangle. For the sun, 2 of the sides are k, the other is 1.3M which represents the size of the sun.
Draw a diagram to show this, clearly indicating how k is the direct distance to the sun rather than the diagonal.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong the entire time and that it wasn't my mistake.
Once you have failed to do that and admitted you were wrong, you can then move on to explaining quite clearly how that single photo magically showed the sun is only 10 000 km away, explaining in detail how you can determine it from that single photo.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that you can't tell how far away the sun is from a single photo.
After that failure you can move on to your claims of the 2 formulas being the same, even though they differ by a factor of sqrt(2-p^2).
Explain how sqrt(2-p^2)=1, when p=1.3.
When you are unable to, then stop lying, admit you were wrong and that even you disagree with the formula provided by the OP.
Then once you have had enough of those failings you can deal with the core argument, and explain how the ratio of angular sizes magically changes to the ratio of actual sizes, especially considering you have already admitted it doesn't.