You should be able to find someone unbiased in southern Australia or New Zealand to time their daylight hours, but a quick search shows pretty much the same daylight above and below the equator. Measuring at about 41 degrees either way showed 15:10 being the longest day. In the emperor penguin movie I saw a long time ago, antarctica definitely had a summer where much ice melted, and a winter with harsh blizzards below -100F. If there is any difference, maybe the specific path of earth's orbit is the cause. Also, Antarctica is supposed to be land, so having a higher elevation could both block some light from reaching as much surface, and it would be colder at higher elevations anyway.

This problem cited by DL is not limited to Antarctica.  It's also true of various islands (compared to ones at similar latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere).  The differences in Southern Hemisphere climate manifest themselves well before getting to Antarctica proper.

Here's another clue that I find extremely telling.

So the FE map is similar to what's known as the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection map:


So the criticism from Globers about this map is that the Southern "Hemisphere" continents are way too large.

But that is coming from people who are familiar with only the Mercator projection.  In fact, a new projection was released, the Gall-Peters projection map, precisely because they argued that the standard Mercator exaggerated the size of the Northern "Hemisphere" continents and minimized the size of the Southern ones (Africa, South America, and Australia).  They claim that this Galls-Peters projection more accurately reflects the relative sizes of the continents.



Hmmm.  So suddenly South America, Africa, and Australia are a lot bigger (according to Gall-Peters, accurately so).  They do say that in making the continents true to size, they did a bit of violence to their shapes (all projections have to compromise somewhere).

So all of a sudden, if you enlarge the continents like this, it suddenly looks a HECK of a lot more like Azimuthal Equidistant Projection from the North Pole.  No more problem with enlarged Southern continents.  And look again at the North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant.  Anybody looking at that will readily be able to recognize the various continents and would agree that they're relatively close to their true shape.

But, now, let's look at an Azimuthal Equidistant map from the SOUTH Pole:



Apart from the continents of the Southern "Hemisphere", the Northern "Hemisphere" is so badly distorted and warped as to make it completely UNRECOGNIZABLE.  If you cut out the Southern "Hemisphere" portion, nobody could tell you what that which remains represents.  And, no the problem isn't merely with the FAR north, but anything above the equator is completely warped and unrecognizable.

Here's an online Azimuthal Map generator where you can center it anywhere you'd like. 

https://maps.ontarget.cc/azmap/en.html

Apart from pointing it to the North Pole, the only other place you could put it where you don't completely distort half of the total earth image is in Western Africa, but that's only because the Pacific Ocean is so large that it takes up most of the far half.

This to me clearly indicates that the Azimuthal Equidistant Map is the closest map to reality, and the problem of the Southern continents being "too large" (despite being easily recognizable) is based on the inaccurate Mercator projection that everyone learned in school.  But if you compare it to Gall-Peters, well, it would seem that the relative proportions between the Northern and Southern continents is in fact ACCURATE.  But how could that be, when an Azimuthal projection from the North Pole should wildly distort things as you go south.  You would see the bottom of South America and Africa getting progressively WIDER as they went south, where the overall outline of the continents would cease to be recognizable.  So the southern portions of Africa and South America should get progressively "fatter", where the proportions of the Northern section vs. Southern section of those two continents most certainly would NOT be retained.  By the time you got to the southern portions of Africa and South America, they should be almost as wide (or "fat") as the northern parts, making them resembles more squares than retaining something very close to their true proportions.

Another interesting point of note that I came across in O'Hanlan's excellent
The Earthmovers, was in chapter 5 discussing the early Astronomers Ptolemy and Hipparchus:

For example, if the sun moved in a perfect circle around the Earth, and at a constant speed, then it should retain the same apparent size and apparent speed at all times. But the fact is, as careful and accurate measuring shows, the sun does not retain the same apparent size; as it measures bigger and smaller during its annual orbit around the Earth. The ancients, however, were committed to all celestial orbits following a divine law of perfect circles and constant speed. - p. 86

Now, these astronomers devised the Eccentric system to compensate for this. But, alternatively, I thought back to the circuit of the sun over the earth and how it would appear smaller to those in the north when it is in the circuit toward the south, and vice-versa when in the north. It suggests, to me, that the eccentric could be due to the spiral-like shift as the sun moves from north to south along the tropics during the year.

Secondarily, it shows that the sun is not some massive body millions of miles away, but local and smaller than the earth; as a small shift of a few degrees of the earth on its "axis" would not change the perceptible size of the sun. This works for both FE and geocentrists.

O'Hanlon thinks the Earth is flat?

No.

I agree, that was a GREAT video.
I don't remember seeing it, even though I downloaded (and skimmed/watched) the entire "Taboo Conspiracy" Youtube channel of Dubay's.

What am I missing? Does Dubay have another channel or something?

And, yes, I agree that there's definitely something to the earth-moon projection theory.  I've seen where someone went to the trouble of finding earth locations on the moon image, and darn if they don't line up very closely with places and features on the earth.

Yes, that's Vibes of Cosmos, who I've been revisiting a lot lately. His model also provides "other lands" identified within the moon projection which honestly gives more credence to the "other lands" theory of FE because he actually has some concrete proof thanks to his theory about the moon map.

Now, my theory regarding why some of these other lands aren't around any longer (Lemurya, Atlantis, etc.) is that the projection of the moon is the foundations of these continents and islands. Therefore, if they were buried and submerged by the Deluge; that would not remove the imprint they leave on the "moon map" plasma projection. Secondarily, since they reside beyond the apparent Antarctic ice wall, it could be suggested that they constitute the frozen lands some speculate to reside beyond Antarctica and the circuit of the sun; specifically what he calls "Terra Vista". But, this gets into the more speculative end of FE, which, apart from what VoC presents and the proofs that the Convex earth crew presents, has very little basis.

But there are videos over dry regions (deserts) which show the sun getting noticeably SMALLER as it moves toward the horizon.  Really the only thing that would cause it to get smaller is that if the air above you had more moisture, so that as you looked up, the sun would be magnified due to atmospheric moisture, but then the air would get dryer as the sun approached the horizon, but I see that as being extremely unlikely.  And some of the videos that show the sun getting larger as it seems to approach are taken from the amateur balloons that are well above the clouds, where you wouldn't expect such differences in humidity.

Couple that with the fact that air is thinner at higher altitudes, and the "atmospheric moisture" explanation honestly goes out the window.