No, what I'm saying is that (a) there are calculations, predicated upon a global earth, and upon heliocentrism (or "not upon geocentrism", which would be a better way of putting it in some cases, such as positions of stars and galaxies), that make sense, work the same way every time, and can be proven to be correct mathematically, and (b) if these make sense and arrive at the correct conclusions, such as precisely where and when a solar eclipse may be predicted to have totality, then is there a separate set of "true", "flat earth" calculations that arrive at the exact same conclusions, calculations that the scientists and astronomers are really using "when they catch everyone else's back turned", and that are also provable to be correct mathematically?

You point out that your contact "believes in the curve", and presumably uses the commonly accepted calculations, yet arrives at the conclusions that we can see, such as predictions of totality down to the second as we saw in 2017 with the solar eclipse.

Also, how do these "emergency landings" only make sense on a flat earth?  Do they sometimes take place in farfetched locations, instead of someplace over what one would expect to be a reasonable distance from the flight path they claim to be following?  Do they happen in places where you would expect them to on a flat-earth map with the North Pole at the center?

And as long as we're talking poles, how can a compass point south if there is no "South Pole"?

I have no agenda here, I'm just trying to think logically about the scenario.

Yeah, I really don't know much about the solar calculations and have questions on that as well.

What I was saying about my land surveyor is that since the earth should have an 8 inch adjustment every three miles (I believe?), did he have to calculate that in.  The answer was that he believed the adjustment definitely has to be made but he didn't have to do the math every time because they use formulas where it was already "baked in" so to speak.

So with the solar calculations are the scientists using calculations that were already made for them a long time ago and they never bothered to go through it and check the math?  This is similar to doctors using the PCR "test" without bothering to see if the "virus" was ever isolated or purified and if the test is really looking for what they think it is.  They just trust the science of the other "experts".

The thing that doesn't make sense about the stars with a spinning globe hurtling through space is that we see the same stars for thousands of years.

The emergency landings are way off course and don't appear to make sense.

Long distance flights generally follow great circles on the globe.

From your list I looked at:

For the first flight this guy talks about, he claims the flight on the globe should follow some path he shows with tape on a globe. That path doesn't look like a great circle to me.

Back to this video:

Yes, pilots use the jet streams when they can.  The video has a lot of silliness, such as saying planes fly upside down. The only thing I might look into is something he says about compass readings.

But on the topic of flights, here's one talking about this flight (start about 2:00)



In particular, at 2:20, the time for this flight is compared to the time for New York-London, which is a really short segment on the FE map.

At the end he talks about a "commercial pilot" claimed to support FE, but wasn't actually a "commercial pilot".
A video about that incident is here:

The Alaska landing wouldn't be a great circle either.  It would be wayyy off course.  

I think the upside down question is valid.  Why wouldn't it be upside down?  Gravity?  There are no silly questions really.  Fear of asking silly questions is the downfall of "science".

Don't know about that particular commercial pilot lying but I do know there have been other pilots who have spoken out but they can lose their jobs over it.

Flat earth is a lot like covid in that lots of small pieces of evidence add up over time but science is never "settled" and can always and should be re-evaluated.

Most stars are so far away - astronomical distances - that whatever local movement we have doesn't change the stars' appearance much.

But amateur astronomers can see the movement of the nearest stars relative to the more distant stars.

Barnards star is one of the nearest stars, about 6 light years away = 25 trillion miles. We can observe its movement over a couple years.

And according to historical descriptions, the "north star" was not Polaris a couple thousand years ago.

The stars are close enough to video.  I took a video of Venus with my p900.  Don't think my camera even has a trillion mile capability.

Also, I never heard back from you regarding the chemtrails being flat rather than rainbow shaped.  You said it would only curve one degree but one degree would be a large curve.

And I asked, if you had a broom handle curved 1 degree, could you tell by looking at it from the side?

Clearly not a solid body and not millions or trillions of miles away.

How is it "clearly" not a solid body? and "clearly" not X distance away?

Awesome video.


Here's another that someone filmed from a plane. The appearance of the stars reminds me of cymatics.

Absolutely fantastic.  Clearly not a "planet".  The most beautiful star, to me, is Serius.  I am waiting for a clear night and the opportunity to get a really good video of it and will post it when I do.   

Anyway, this topic if fun and interesting if people keep their ego out of the equation and look at the evidence for both sides without confirmation bias which is really hard to do.

You seem OK. I'm sure we could have a conversation.

Would you think calling those you disagree with "brainwashed simpletons" reflects on open mind or contributes to discussion?

Absolutely fantastic.  Clearly not a "planet".  The most beautiful star, to me, is Serius.  I am waiting for a clear night and the opportunity to get a really good video of it and will post it when I do. 

Looks like plasma with some electrical activity.  That professor who held the moon was plasma might have been onto something.  He was dead certain about it too and it would be nice to find his science regarding the matter.