Here's an easy do-it-yourself idea. Read the news story and then look at a flat earth map and the stop in Alaska makes perfect sense. Then look at a globe map and you will see the problem.

Amazing moment a woman gives birth to a premature baby girl at 30,000ft on a Taiwan to Los Angeles flight with crew and passengers helping out

A China Airlines flight landed in Alaska with an extra passenger after an expectant mother gave birth to a baby girl more than eight weeks early.
The Taiwan to Los Angeles flight was forced to make an emergency landing on Thursday after a Taiwanese passenger's waters broke six hours into the 19 hour journey.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3270382/Caught-camera-amazing-moment-woman-gives-birth-premature-baby-girl-30-000ft-Taiwan-Los-Angeles-flight-crew-passengers-helping-out.html

There are many, many emergency landings which make no sense on globe earth.  

Lots of videos showing them and interviewing flat earth pilots coming out of the closet are available for those who want to find them.

Pilots use the flat earth map in the cockpit.

Not really meant to prove anything, but Vibes of Cosmos has a new video showing his moon-earth maps in an Atlas form. Pretty cool

That's fascinating.  Thanks for posting.  One of the better ones I've seen on this  subject.  While it's not necessarily perfect (it seems to be some kind of reflection onto a surface (convex, concave, who knows?) ... but it's way too much of a coincidence not to be related somehow.  I'm not 100% sold on the "Terra Vista" thing, though I don't rule it out.  Those "Convex Earth" people from Latin America came to the same conclusion without invoking the "moon map" phenomenon.

I've absolutely never bought the BS about how we've seen the same face of the moon for centuries because it rotates at EXACTLY the same rate as it revolves around the earth.  That's just ludicrous.  Even if it were a second off per day, we've see significant changes on the face of the moon within years, not to mention decades and centuries.  Scientists claim that it gets a bit farther away from the earth every year, and in that case it would have to proportionally change its rate of rotation for the same face to keep pointing toward earth.  And eclipses happen because the sun is exactly both 400x larger and 400x more distant from the earth than the moon.  Who are they kiddding?  It's one big joke.

Then there was that astrophysicist from the 1950s or 1960s, Professor Foster, who asserted that he had undeniable proof that the moon was made of plasma and was not a solid body.

I don't mind at all, Miser. I'm flattered that you liked my wonderful work of art here well enough to save it

That being said, after watching the video that explains how the sunlight can't go over the curve, and even looking at my above drawing, I don't quite understand why it wouldn't be able to go over the curve. After all, if you can still see the top part of the sun, can't the top part cast light on the water?





Maybe I misunderstood your point?? I apologize if so.

Try it with a candle and a roll of paper towels.  :)

No, I don’t trust google and I certainly don’t trust NASA, but whether it’s a google globe or the one in my living room, what I posted demonstrates, fairly accurately, what a global Earth would look like.

There is not a single model that any FE adherent has posted that even remotely demonstrates a workable FE. Sorry.

This guy mapped out the sunrise and sunset times on the FE map.



https://www.bitchute.com/video/P543CpzH3nDa/

Why do all of the top university scientists believe man evolved from apes?

Why do the top scientists and doctors believe the rona scam?

These are very opinionated topics, and I would probably disagree on your preestablished view on them. Bleeding edge research is going on at both of those.

But the globe is established since about two millenia. So if people disagree with this historic and contemporary consensus, there should be good, waterproof reasons for that. I think it's problematic that there is so little scientific ground to stand on for FE, so far. I think there are good reasons for why that is.

If there are opposing scientific hypotheses, usually there are proponents on both sides until the argument is settled. The problem I and many others are seeing with FE is that the quality of FE material is so low: Youtube videos, blog posts, essays at best. There is way too little high level scientific work going on, too little evidence, there just isn't much to show on this very important front for FE (a formalized model, research papers, studies, peer review, serious books, reputable scientists, etc.), even when taking into account funding, societal pressure and other obvious disadvantages, because these are modern developments, although the ideas of FE and GE are much older than that.

NASA's different globe "pics".  Take a look at the size of North America on the 2012 picture (vs., say, 1997). 

Perhaps this quite concise video will answer some of your valid doubts about the Blue Marble pictures:

This guy mapped out the sunrise and sunset times on the FE map.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/P543CpzH3nDa/

Some problems with this:
1. You cannot show angles or sun "circles" / "orbits" on an equidistant azimuthal projection of a globe. The EAP map is not a flat Earth map (no actual, usable, to scale flat Earth map exists).
2. The Sun changing it's radius over the flat Earth with the seasons would either require the seasons to be of different length (which they are not) or the Sun somehow dynamically changing speeds for the seasons. No such mechanism is known. The seasons haven't been (and can't be, in my opinion) explained on a FE.
3. There is no light propagation model that would allow 24h sunlight on either the Arctic circle or Antarctic circle, especially. Because for that to happen, the complete Antarctic circle has to be lit at the same time as the rest of the "day half" of the disc is lit - that impossible. That's why many FEers see themselves forced to claim that a 24h Sun does not exist in the Antarctic circle.

Not how all these problems dissolve perfectly when using a globe instead.

These are very opinionated topics, and I would probably disagree on your preestablished view on them. Bleeding edge research is going on at both of those.

But the globe is established since about two millenia. So if people disagree with this historic and contemporary consensus, there should be good, waterproof reasons for that. I think it's problematic that there is so little scientific ground to stand on for FE, so far. I think there are good reasons for why that is.

If there are opposing scientific hypotheses, usually there are proponents on both sides until the argument is settled. The problem I and many others are seeing with FE is that the quality of FE material is so low: Youtube videos, blog posts, essays at best. There is way too little high level scientific work going on, too little evidence, there just isn't much to show on this very important front for FE (a formalized model, research papers, studies, peer review, serious books, reputable scientists, etc.), even when taking into account funding, societal pressure and other obvious disadvantages, because these are modern developments, although the ideas of FE and GE are much older than that.

Bleeding edge research is going on at Universities regarding Intelligent Design?  It's well known you get fired for that.

No all the smartest of the smarties believe man evolved from apes. :P

Doctors and scientists questioning the rona scam are getting fired.

Flat earth pilots won't speak out until they retire or do so anonymously because they fear getting fired.

Scientists who question "climate change" are fired and ridiculed.

Peer review is another term for popular consensus. 

Want funding?  Don't step out of the lines.

Science is never settled and is not decided by peer pressure.

Questioning is not allowed.