The level of detail Tom gave, and his decades long dedication to the flat earth leaves any reasonable person no room for doubt of his intentions or honesty.
I would say how he posts here leaves no doubt of his honesty. I still find his intentions unclear. Does he actually support a FE, or is he just trolling?
Just because someone is dishonest for a long time, and is dedicated to it, doesn't mean they aren't dishonesty.
I'm saying an object moving away from an observer will appear to shrink towards the horizon, and eventually to be obscured by air.
But that isn't what happens with the sun, and perhaps even easier to see, the moon.
It doesn't shrink by any significant amount. The amount of glare can change, but if viewed through an appropriate filter the sun remains basically the same size.
Additionally, the required distance to make it get close to the horizon with its claimed 5000 km altitude is many many times the size of the known area of Earth. That would mean when it is on the horizon it could not be above any known region of Earth, even though it is.
In order to have the sun appear with a 1 degree angle of elevation (where it isn't even touching the horizon) with a 5000 km altitude sun you would need it to be above a point some ~286 000 km away. Compared to the size of the known Earth where the common FE map has it at a diameter of 40 000 km. So the sun would need to be above a point 7 times the diameter of Earth.
As for the second part, that is directly contradicted by countless observations.
While on days were it is difficult to see at all the sun can be obscured by the air, the vast majority of the time it is observed to be obscured by Earth as it sets beyond/below/into the horizon.
The first part is demonstrated in Earth: Not A Globe with regards to street lamps. The second is as self-evident as anything could reasonably be.
You mean the first part is supported by circular reasoning where they use street lamps on a round Earth, assuming Earth is flat to say this is what should happen on a flat Earth?
An honest analysis using a known flat surface (instead of Earth which is known to be round and claimed to be flat by FEers) it is shown that the angular position of something is based upon simple trig, and that as the object moves further away and gets closer to the horizon, it shrinks as well, and if an object moving at constant velocity travels away, it appears to slow down.
None of that is observed with the sun.
An honest analysis of the apparent motion of the sun and how objects travelling above a flat plane at a constant altitude appear, show the 2 are vastly different.
An honest analysis of the apparent motion of the sun, and how objects circling around an axis passing through a surface, which is not perpendicular to the surface shows that the 2 are comparable, with the exception being what happens at the pole.
More so, if this surface is curved, then it also explains why the angle of the axis appears to change for different locations on Earth, and if curved in the other direction, explains why different regions see the sun at different times.