Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: Matthew on August 14, 2023, 01:04:52 AM
-
Fascinating to say the least. These planes shouldn't have been anywhere near the locations they were forced to land in.
-
Yes, while not smoking gun evidence, these are very compelling. In an emergency, they can't continue to feign the flight path they're taking and their location. Also, for some reason, the "flight tracker" software does not function in the Southern "hemisphere".
I heard an interview with a pilot whose main route was between Australia and California. He could never figure out why his path took him near Alaska, as he could always see Alaska on his route. The he saw the FE map (well, the Gleasons approximation) and became a Flat Earther.
-
Here's a globe-based map --
(https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/GlobalEqualEarth.jpg)
Why would a trip from Australia to California takes him past Alaska?
Maybe it's because the real map is closer to this ...
(https://www.spacecentre.nz/resources/faq/solar-system/earth/flat/img/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection_2058x2058.jpg)
-
I skimmed over this PDF, and the first thing that jumped out at me, is that the closest path from one point to the other on a globe, is not necessarily east-to-west, or north-to-south, but a straight line. I'm sure anyone here knows this, but if you take a piece of string, put your thumb down on Point A, then pull the string taut to Point B, your string will track a route that, depending upon where Point A and Point B are, goes over the North Pole, passes Alaska, passes Iceland or Greenland, and so on. And as counter-intuitive as it seems, the closest point to Africa in the Lower 48 is not Florida, not Cape Hatteras, but... the coast of Maine.
And airliners stay within a few hundred miles of land if at all possible, even if it deviates a bit from a "great circle" path, to-wit, again, flying in an arc over Greenland and Iceland. I've done it twenty times myself (ten trips to Europe, round-trip). When you look down over Greenland, all you see is whiteness, no way whatsoever to tell distance.
Granted, flat-earth models centered on the North Pole would return similar findings.
-
The part where planes land in Moscow when they're supposed to be above the Middle East just wasn't interesting enough to mention.
Curved or straight lines have nothing ti do with this very simple problem. It's very, very simple man.
-
Yes, while not smoking gun evidence, these are very compelling. In an emergency, they can't continue to feign the flight path they're taking and their location. Also, for some reason, the "flight tracker" software does not function in the Southern "hemisphere".
I heard an interview with a pilot whose main route was between Australia and California. He could never figure out why his path took him near Alaska, as he could always see Alaska on his route. The he saw the FE map (well, the Gleasons approximation) and became a Flat Earther.
We once flew from New York to London. I never understood why we took the "Artic Route." We flew over ice for hours.
-
A question for FE folks: what would be 3 of the most compelling things (aside from any divine enlightenment) that would flip you from FE to GE?
-
We once flew from New York to London. I never understood why we took the "Artic Route." We flew over ice for hours.
Was it truly "Arctic", or did it just go near Greenland and Iceland?
Here's what New York to London would be, assuming a global earth. Note that you end up over open ocean for about 2000 miles. That's not good if you get out there and get in trouble. A kind of arc that goes over Labrador, Greenland, and Iceland keeps you fairly near land at all times. If a plane gets up there and gets in trouble, it would be better to land on ice and snow in Greenland, than to do an ocean landing, and rescue crews could be there, and on terra firma (relatively speaking), in short order, from Thule, Reykjavik, Gander, or wherever. Better that, than trying to rescue passengers floating in vests in the ocean.
(https://i.imgur.com/iRSYTP3.png)
-
A question for FE folks: what would be 3 of the most compelling things (aside from any divine enlightenment) that would flip you from FE to GE?
You asked this same question on the other thread, and I answered there.
-
If a plane gets up there and gets in trouble, it would be better to land on ice and snow in Greenland, than to do an ocean landing, and rescue crews could be there, and on terra firma (relatively speaking), in short order, from Thule, Reykjavik, Gander, or wherever. Better that, than trying to rescue passengers floating in vests in the ocean.
We flew direct from Cleveland to Hungary and went out of our way to Gander, and this is in fact the stock explanation for it, staying near land, but I don't buy it as there's no such concerns when flying across the Pacific, etc. There's no regulation along those lines, and the airlines are not going to incur the extra costs in fuel and travel times (lower customer satisfaction) for a once-in-a-blue-moon event like a plane crash over water. When's the last time we hear of a plane crash over the Ocean where passengers were being plucked out of the water? Whether a plane goes down onto land or onto water, in both cases the likelihood of survival is pretty slim.
-
We flew direct from Cleveland to Hungary and went out of our way to Gander, and this is in fact the stock explanation for it, staying near land, but I don't buy it as there's no such concerns when flying across the Pacific, etc. There's no regulation along those lines, and the airlines are not going to incur the extra costs in fuel and travel times (lower customer satisfaction) for a once-in-a-blue-moon event like a plane crash over water. When's the last time we hear of a plane crash over the Ocean where passengers were being plucked out of the water? Whether a plane goes down onto land or onto water, in both cases the likelihood of survival is pretty slim.
Over the Pacific, you don't have the luxury of being near dry land, as you do when you cross the North Atlantic. Assuming the airlines' explanation is true, it might be a case of "don't borrow trouble", IOW, why say "we don't have dry land near us when we're crossing the Pacific, so even if dry land would be nearby along a bit longer course in the North Atlantic, we won't use it"? And I'm referring to emergency landings, not crashes, where all they need is someplace to land relatively safely. With a crash, you're ****ed no matter where the plane comes down.
FWIW, even FE maps centered on the North Pole show basically the same trajectory. The closer you get to the North Pole, whether FE or GE, the less variable such point-to-point lines would be.
-
Over the Pacific, you don't have the luxury of being near dry land, as you do when you cross the North Atlantic. Assuming the airlines' explanation is true, it might be a case of "don't borrow trouble", IOW, why say "we don't have dry land near us when we're crossing the Pacific, so even if dry land would be nearby along a bit longer course in the North Atlantic, we won't use it"? And I'm referring to emergency landings, not crashes, where all they need is someplace to land relatively safely. With a crash, you're ****ed no matter where the plane comes down.
FWIW, even FE maps centered on the North Pole show basically the same trajectory. The closer you get to the North Pole, whether FE or GE, the less variable such point-to-point lines would be.
Well, I'm not buying the "near land" explanation for the Northern routes. In either case, however, this doesn't come close to explaining the Emergency Stops described in that book ... many of which were in fact over the Pacific, nor the retired pilot who couldn't figure out why he could see Alaska on his Australia to California route ... until he saw an FE "map" and became a Flat Earther himself.
-
In the days when I was an active pilot I had some relatively clear days, but never such "unlimited visibility" that I could clearly see the horizon.… but then I never flew over FL180.
-
Well, I'm not buying the "near land" explanation for the Northern routes. In either case, however, this doesn't come close to explaining the Emergency Stops described in that book ... many of which were in fact over the Pacific, nor the retired pilot who couldn't figure out why he could see Alaska on his Australia to California route ... until he saw an FE "map" and became a Flat Earther himself.
Did he pay attention to the compass? That should indicate no surprise if they see Alaska. Otherwise they could tell that they are following the lines of latitude. Maybe the airlines do what they do either as part of government safety regulation, or as an excuse to charge more, or maybe they pay the gov to make such regulations so they can charge more for certain destinations. If you had a little bit of imagination you can easily see how very widely the arc flight path to various destinations around a globe can vary a lot. Tilt the arc one way or another and it goes from a straight shot to following coastlines. Cali to Brazil is a much safer flight path than straight from Australia. It may also have to do with layover times and what flights are available and quickest, or what is most efficient for the airlines to connect the most people with certain destinations.
Look into AKL to SCL. It's 6000mi according to google. At 500mph it would take 12hrs, one flight advertises 11hrs. It is a straight shot across the Pacific.
-
A question for FE folks: what would be 3 of the most compelling things (aside from any divine enlightenment) that would flip you from FE to GE?
What would convince you that the Catholic Faith were false? Just hypothetically speaking.
Then you'll know how I feel, being asked that question.
It's like "Um... uh... we'd be in a whole different universe, so I don't know!" Sunrises and sunsets would look a lot different, we'd be in some nightmare universe that somehow made itself without God, there would be alien beings all over the place, probably some ruling over us.
So yeah, I wouldn't know where to begin on that question.
You seem to have it backwards. The reason is simple: If Flat Earth weren't true, I wouldn't believe it. I don't believe it first, THEN hope it's true and defend it to the death.
I'd drop Flat Earth like a bad habit -- with gusto! -- if I could find some evidence for the Globe Earth. It's not like I'd disappoint my family, friends, co-workers, or anyone else if I did so.
I wasn't born to be a "Flat Earther". I don't enjoy being a popular slang term for someone who is backwards, ignorant, and wrong. Look around you, listen to political speeches. Flat Earth is a parable of derision all over. It is an epithet worse than αnтι-ѕємιтє or Racist. No one in their right mind "wants" to be something like that.
-
A question for FE folks: what would be 3 of the most compelling things (aside from any divine enlightenment) that would flip you from FE to GE?
I'd love to go back to being a blissfully ignorant globetard, for better or for worse, however, I wasn't prideful enough to dismiss FE out of hand. Oh well...
-
A question for FE folks: what would be 3 of the most compelling things (aside from any divine enlightenment) that would flip you from FE to GE?
Holy Scripture.
Emergency landings.
Trying to book a flight from the southern tip of Africa to the southern tip of South America
-
Commercial Air Flights on a Flat Earth Work Perfectly
conspiracy (https://aplanetruth.info/tag/conspiracy/), curvature (https://aplanetruth.info/tag/curvature/), Experiments (https://aplanetruth.info/category/experiments/), FE Activism (https://aplanetruth.info/category/fe-activism/), FE Challenge (https://aplanetruth.info/category/fe-challenge/), Flat Earth (https://aplanetruth.info/category/flat-earth/), maps (https://aplanetruth.info/category/maps/), north pole (https://aplanetruth.info/tag/north-pole/), revisionist history (https://aplanetruth.info/category/revisionist-history/), Rotation (https://aplanetruth.info/category/rotation/), Scientism (https://aplanetruth.info/tag/scientism/), Spin (https://aplanetruth.info/category/spin/), Wisdom (https://aplanetruth.info/category/wisdom/) December 3, 2016 Comments: 46 (https://aplanetruth.info/2016/12/03/commercial-air-flights-on-a-flat-earth-work-perfectly/#comments)
Abu Dhabi to Fort Worth, Texas Flight Path (https://flatearthperspectives.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/abu-dhabi-to-fort-worth-texas-flight-path/)
This graphic shows the path of a flight from Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates to Fort Worth, Texas, USA. The top graphic shows how the flight appears as it is tracked on a globe map. The bottom graphic shows how the flight path would look on a flat earth map. As you can see, the flight path on the ball earth map appears to take a strange northern loop and pass unnecessarily over land in the high northern latitudes. Why not just go in a straight line? On the flat earth map, however, the flight path going over land in the northern latitudes makes perfect sense, as it is a straight line from point A to point B.
(https://flatearthperspectives.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/flight-path.jpg?w=682&h=863)
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map2.jpg?w=300&h=152) (https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map2.jpg)
If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.”— Eric Dubay 200 proofs Earth not a Spinning Ball
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map-2.jpg?w=300&h=256) (https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map-2.jpg)
“On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.”—Ibid
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map-4.png?w=300&h=103) (https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map-4.png)
“On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re- fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.” ~ Ibid
(https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map-5.png?w=300&h=300) (https://planetruthblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/fe-air-map-5.png)
According to the Federal Aviation Association, no air flights have gone the much shorter routes over the Arctic and Antarctic due to cold weather effecting flights as well as having to effect rescue over such inhabited areas (what about the oceans?!). Another reason that is given is that airlines would be required to carry special survival equipment (jackets, boots?), even though thousands of hours of flight time and fuel consumption would be saved by going direct instead of Westward and Eastward directions.
“If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.”
-
(https://flatearthperspectives.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/flight-path.jpg?w=682&h=863)
Is that top one actually a real picture from some flight tracker? If so, that about cements it. There's zero reason to go up there, and the usual excuses evaporate, such as staying closer to land or passing near major cities, etc.
-
Holy Scripture.
Emergency landings.
Trying to book a flight from the southern tip of Africa to the southern tip of South America
Yes, I've looked for such flights and there are none to be found.
-
Is that top one actually a real picture from some flight tracker? If so, that about cements it. There's zero reason to go up there, and the usual excuses evaporate, such as staying closer to land or passing near major cities, etc.
Shows how much you know. That's the same flight patch, just 2 different representations of the map. One is a circular map, the other rectangular. That's how the flight would look plotted on a rectangular map of a globe. You can see both flight paths go across the arctic.
-
Yes, I've looked for such flights and there are none to be found.
Year ago when I searched for flights from the southern tip of Africa to the southern tip of South America, I did find two such flights. One had a stopover in Dubai and the other had a stopover in London. Makes absolutely no sense on globe earth, but makes perfect sense of FE map.
found this on an old CI post
https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze
-
Shows how much you know. That's the same flight patch, just 2 different representations of the map. One is a circular map, the other rectangular. That's how the flight would look plotted on a rectangular map of a globe. You can see both flight paths go across the arctic.
:facepalm: No, it shows that you're a much bigger dummy that I had thought. OBVIOUSLY this represents the same path on two different projections or models. But the flight path makes zero sense on a globe projection but makes perfect sense on a flat one. NOBODY would fly up to near the North Pole on a globe to make that flight from Dubai to Texas. You evidently missed the entire point. WHY would a path "go across the arctic" on a globe? Answer: it wouldn't. Both origin and destination appear to be close to the same latitude, so you'd simply follow the latitude lines all the way across, probably to Senegal, then across the Atlantic, and on to Texas.
-
I agree Ladislaus, he completely missed the point and was utterly confused. These are the kind of problems, confusions, bad thinking, illogic, etc. that most Globers hold within them. It's not their fault though, it's what they were taught. They weren't taught to think for themselves at any point in their public school education.
If the flight path looked like the RED paths on this graphic (shown in both projections), it would be a piece of evidence for Globe Earth.
But if the earth is in fact flat, there is no "shortcut" across the globe. The shortest path between two places is a STRAIGHT LINE especially as the bird (or airplane) flies.
The path taken by an airplane is going to be the shortest path, get it? If you start out by heading north to reach a destination that's *supposed to be* in the East, according to the Globe model, that's a huge red flag.
TL;DR: Flat Earth confirmed.
-
:facepalm: No, it shows that you're a much bigger dummy that I had thought. OBVIOUSLY this represents the same path on two different projections or models. But the flight path makes zero sense on a globe projection but makes perfect sense on a flat one. NOBODY would fly up to near the North Pole on a globe to make that flight from Dubai to Texas. You evidently missed the entire point. WHY would a path "go across the arctic" on a globe? Answer: it wouldn't. Both origin and destination appear to be close to the same latitude, so you'd simply follow the latitude lines all the way across, probably to Senegal, then across the Atlantic, and on to Texas.
Latitude doesn't matter, distance and safe emergency landing sites do.
You guys don't seem to understand how globes work. You don't have to fly east to arrive at an eastern destination. Far enough north, and it may be faster to fly north and south to it. I am 100% thinking for myself right now as I'm trying to understand why you don't comprehend globes.
-
Latitude doesn't matter, distance and safe emergency landing sites do.
You guys don't seem to understand how globes work. You don't have to fly east to arrive at an eastern destination. Far enough north, and it may be faster to fly north and south to it.
Are you serious? Look at the picture attached to this post. Tell me which route is quicker. The dark red line, or the other one?
The north then south route is clearly "the scenic route" in the upper picture, the "Globe Earth" scenario.
Yes, they chose to fly north through the arctic that's because the earth is Flat like in the bottom picture! Get it?
In a Globe scenario (see top picture) flying north then south being shorter than a straight line between A and B would be insanity.
Compare the green upside-down U path, with the dark red SHORTCUT. Which one is shorter? The airlines went with the upside down U for some reason. Apparently the other isn't possible, because we're not living on a Globe.
-
You guys don't seem to understand how globes work...I am 100% thinking for myself right now as I'm trying to understand why you don't comprehend globes.
:laugh1: Has anyone used a compass in the "southern hemisphere"? Surely someone on CI lives in Australia or some such southerly location. Which way does the compass point? Why is there no such thing as "magnetic south"?
-
Those maps are 2 different 2D representations of a 3D image. Changes in scale must be considered. It's like drawing a picture of a sunset. The piece of paper you draw on is only 8"x11", but the foreground is drawn on the real life scale of inches representing feet, while the background transitions into millimeters equaling miles. It's about perspective and how to render a 3D object in 2D.
(https://i.imgur.com/HoBiW8G.png)
Don't mind the rest of this video, which is filled with a bunch of theories and math that likely just represents non-real things, but this 1 minute section helps to show how maps can be distorted depending on how you want to graph them.
15:02 to 15:52
https://youtu.be/6akmv1bsz1M?t=902
Actually, looking further into the video demonstrates how different perspectives or ways of plotting the same 3D (or in their case 4D) things is important depending on the goal. I used to have doubts regarding what scientists said about black holes as if infinite limits would be reached and nothing could truly enter past the event horizon, which is impossible, because if a black hole exists, stuff must be able to get inside. By changing the orientation of their graph, it became possible to plot a path into a black hole. It's kind of like drawing a picture of the horizon, where you can only see so far until everything gets infinitely small VS an overhead view where you can see everything.
-
I agree Ladislaus, he completely missed the point and was utterly confused. These are the kind of problems, confusions, bad thinking, illogic, etc. that most Globers hold within them. It's not their fault though, it's what they were taught. They weren't taught to think for themselves at any point in their public school education.
If the flight path looked like the RED paths on this graphic (shown in both projections), it would be a piece of evidence for Globe Earth.
But if the earth is in fact flat, there is no "shortcut" across the globe. The shortest path between two places is a STRAIGHT LINE especially as the bird (or airplane) flies.
The path taken by an airplane is going to be the shortest path, get it? If you start out by heading north to reach a destination that's *supposed to be* in the East, according to the Globe model, that's a huge red flag.
TL;DR: Flat Earth confirmed.
I like to apply what was said here to a 3d model. Please ask questions.
-
I like to apply what was said here to a 3d model. Please ask questions.
Please see pictures above.
For the case that is being discussed, in a globe (using a physical sphere) and a flat earth map for flight paths, both examples give the same result. This means that the comparison is inconclusive to tell whether the earth is flat or a sphere based on that particular flight pattern in the Northern Hemisphere.
-
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/im_on.gif) (https://www.cathinfo.com/pm/?sa=send;u=751)
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/DeepBlue/images/post/xx.gif)
Re: 16 emergency plane landings proving Flat Earth (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/16-emergency-plane-landings-proving-flat-earth/msg908214/#msg908214)
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2023, 12:25:11 PM »
- Quote (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/16-emergency-plane-landings-proving-flat-earth/15/?action=post;quote=908214;last_msg=948799)
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/up.gif)1
- (https://www.cathinfo.com/Themes/default/images/down.gif)0
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 13, 2023, 05:35:26 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/16-emergency-plane-landings-proving-flat-earth/msg908093/#msg908093)
Yes, I've looked for such flights and there are none to be found.
Year ago when I searched for flights from the southern tip of Africa to the southern tip of South America, I did find two such flights. One had a stopover in Dubai and the other had a stopover in London. Makes absolutely no sense on globe earth, but makes perfect sense of FE map.
found this on an old CI post
https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze (https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze)
-
Year ago when I searched for flights from the southern tip of Africa to the southern tip of South America, I did find two such flights. One had a stopover in Dubai and the other had a stopover in London. Makes absolutely no sense on globe earth, but makes perfect sense of FE map.
found this on an old CI post
https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze (https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-cpt-to-eze)
It could make business sense. There likely isn't enough of a market for direct flights between Buenos Aires and Cape Town. Yet route via one of those other interim cities and the airline is more likely to fill the plane on each leg. Similar to why so many domestic flights run through the Atlanta hub (to use one example) when it'd seem a wasteful detour between straight-line departure and destination points.
Not weighing in on FE vs. GE, more leaning toward FE as time goes by. Simply pointing out a pragmatic explanation for this particular flight path curiosity.
If instead we look for flight paths that'd have a more substantial market for nonstop, it'd be stronger evidence.
Thus I tried Cape Town to several Australian cities, as well as CPT to Mumbai, and CPT to Singapore. All stop in Dubai or Doha or other such places well north of a direct arc. Again, it could be economics, or it could be FE.
Has any CI member with firsthand working knowledge of aeronautics ever weighed in? Or linked to a third-party reference with that skill set?
-
(continued) There are direct flights between Auckland NZ and Santiago Chile (https://www.flightconnections.com/flights.php?origin=SCL&destination=AKL&outboundDate=2024-08-24&inboundDate=2024-08-31&adults=1&children=0&infants=0/#/flights/SCL-AKL/2024-09-23/economy/1adults). Duration is said to be 12 hours 35 minutes if anyone wants to do the math.
The flight path below (from elsewhere on the internet (https://www.airportia.com/flight-img/7814760/qf3877-akl-scl-qf-qfa.jpg)) displays the assumed GE curvature, whether for illustrative purposes or for ongoing propaganda, since (((they))) lie about everything anyway....
(https://www.airportia.com/flight-img/7814760/qf3877-akl-scl-qf-qfa.jpg)
-
Is that top one actually a real picture from some flight tracker? If so, that about cements it. There's zero reason to go up there, and the usual excuses evaporate, such as staying closer to land or passing near major cities, etc.
You've proved the GE without even knowing it.
First of all they've warped that map greatly minimising the extent of the North Atlantic Ocean etc... but Moscow and USA are almost on the opposite sides of the globe, so if you fly straight up from Moscow, you can go over Greenland and Canada to reach the USA... which is what that is showing in a 2D way and thus rather deceptive way... as your limited in what you can show with a 2D representation.
This is why the USA had Nuclear armed B-52's stationed in Greenland for the shortest path to Moscow during the Cold War which is nonsensical for a FE.
In fact the 2D Google Maps are rather annoying for this reason and perpetuate the conspiracy... the 3D Google Maps are much better.
God Bless
-
Compare the green upside-down U path, with the dark red SHORTCUT. Which one is shorter? The airlines went with the upside down U for some reason. Apparently the other isn't possible, because we're not living on a Globe.
Both those maps are wrong!
The first one is warped squashing the Atlantic Ocean and thus distance and the second one is the globe looking down on top and flattened for some massively warped 2D representation.
So you accept everything except the South Pole and you think we are surrounded by a circle of ice?
God Bless
-
Furthermore, if there is no South Pole/Antarctica... then we are surrounded by a circle of ice according to those theories and then how do you make sense of the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific Oceans? (In a circle I suppose lol) You are just taking the top of the globe and then smashing it flat like a tennis ball being run over by a car for some massively warped 2D representation. Furthermore, this is even more ridiculous when you get a telescope and see everything around you is a globe, the Moon, the Sun, the Planets etc.
Then when you know the sun rises in the east every day and sets in the west every day... it is not getting smaller in a distance, it is not going around in a circle around me, it is very clearly rising in the east, going over my head throughout the day and then setting below the horizon in the west... Then with time zones, where I am in the dark and those in Europe or America are in daylight, which we both know as we can speak to each other in real time thanks to modern technology such as the internet...
Like I said, I suppose 2D Google Maps and other 2D maps play into this a bit, because they are already warping the map a bit, so it's only one more step to smash it down like a tennis ball and warp it to the extremes you guys are doing for these conspiracy theories.
It's rather clever actually... because by making it all 2D and 'circular' your basically copying the globe and just tweaking it to deny the South Pole/Antarctica... but no such map is accurate because by flattening the Globe all such maps are massively warped and totally inaccurate.
Like I said though, everything around you in space is a globe (Sun, Moon, Planets)... even your 2D representations are a globe you've just smashed it flat like a tennis ball being run over by a car... like I said, 2D Google Maps helps you a lot with this conspiracy because they try to make it as accurate as possible in 2D format and you just take it a step further, but both are wrong.
God Bless
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
Greenland was a strategically important location during the Cold War precisely because the Earth is a globe and it provided them with the shortest path to Russia, namely Moscow.
God Bless
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
Greenland was a strategically important location during the Cold War precisely because the Earth is a globe and it provided them with the shortest path to Russia, namely Moscow.
God Bless
I think I need to find some common ground with the flat Earth people here so that I have a starting point to work with. Is there some consensus among the flat Earth people here at the closest approximation of a world map you have?
This argument above works if your thinking of the 2D Google Earth map and most of the flat 2D maps we use today... but it does not work for some of these other maps that are basically the globe but flattened in 2D, in which case, being in Australia I should be able to come up with some good evidence given that doing something like that will massively warp anything in the southern hemisphere.
So I need some common ground to work with and build on if anyone can offer some working theories so I can better understand your thinking.
God Bless
-
Josh, if you want to find common ground, then the simplest problem to solve is the lack of curvature of the earth. This is problem #1 for globers. Either the earth is flat or its size is a lie.
-
Josh, if you want to find common ground, then the simplest problem to solve is the lack of curvature of the earth. This is problem #1 for globers. Either the earth is flat or its size is a lie.
Pax, do you have a favorite forum discussion or video that shows this lack of curvature? Please post a link. Thank you.
-
Search “curvature” on this site. There’s probably 20+ videos already posted.
-
Thank you.
-
Pax, do you have a favorite forum discussion or video that shows this lack of curvature? Please post a link. Thank you.
I think this is a major problem because if we thoroughly understand something we should be able to explain it in our own words. This method simply swamps us with theories and videos to the point where you are stuck watching videos and reading articles to the point nothing gets solved... do we have to go back to the 1600's and study every single argument that ever existed both for and against? We would be reading and studying for ages and it'd still be futile if it can't be practically observed or explained to the average person IMO.
I have plenty of videos and articles I could link, but they'd all be denied and some arguments while good are simply not accessible to the average person... I can show footage of the South Pole or North Pole and they'd call it fake (such as the time-lapse video of the sun at these places which was already called fake by one poster here and can be explained away depending on your flat Earth theory which is there even any consensus on?) or I could go to some footage of Elon Musk and his rockets... but it'd be called fake and in this day and age of AI and indeed fake videos... it's difficult to use these resources for someone who adamantly denies it.
The second thing, as I've learned with other topics, you just get swamped with videos and articles and it goes around in circles as none of us have time to watch all these videos and read all these articles, do we have to go back over a thousand years and more and learn all of the models proposed of a flat Earth where these people had centuries to think about and come up with?
We have technology today that was not available to our ancestors so to properly debunk these flat Earth theories we need new practical arguments using this modern technology that is accessible to the average person IMO.
There are several I've already tied to use, such as Time Zones given we are on the internet sometimes speaking in real time from very different locations. Another is a cheap telescope can show you that everything around us is a globe, the moon, the sun, the other planets, we can see many of these ourselves first hand. Then you've got the shadow on the moon which if you use the 3D Google Maps you can see is very accurate given the location of the sun and the location of the moon, again with the internet speaking to people all around the world we can know this in real time.
God Bless
-
Time zones, gps, internet and moon shadows exist in either globe or FE. These examples prove nothing.
-
Time zones, gps, internet and moon shadows exist in either globe or FE. These examples prove nothing.
Declaring it does not make it so... Like I said, I don't even have a workable model consensus to even know what your all thinking when saying FE... how can I debunk something which there is no explanation or consensus on?
At first I'm thinking 2D Google Maps kind of thing, or some variation and therefore making arguments, then I see another image of a 2D image of the North Pole... okay so some of my arguments will not work for that and I instead need to focus on the Southern Hemisphere and how warped it will be with such thinking... so it changes massively depending on what your thinking and what kind of world map model or proposal your positing?
God Bless
-
Thanks to another forum member here I now have a really great case to prove to you the Earth is a globe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmJ7-hVeNPY
1) They are a hostile source, so they have no reason to be bias in my favour, so these are the best sources to make my case.
2) It's using modern technology so we are not stuck arguing like we are in the 1600's and it's a repeatable observation for a significant amount of people, as I don't have a camera as good as his but it's certainly possible for many people.
3) The answer to his question is simply that his calculations are wrong.
4) The irrefutable proof is that the water is higher in the distance at the horizon than it is at the base of the oil rigs, with 'Habitat' also being higher than 'Platform C' now if the Earth were flat than this is simply impossible, but if the Earth is a globe then this makes total sense, as there is an incline until we reach the horizon which is exactly what we see, he has simply got his calculations wrong somewhere in regards to the curvature and thus location of the horizon, but it's irrefutable proof of curvature and thus a globe Earth.
5) As an added extra, you can then get a telescope and take a look at the Moon and some Planets and see that everything around us is also a globe.
God Bless
-
4) The irrefutable proof is that the water is higher in the distance at the horizon than it is at the base of the oil rigs, with 'Habitat' also being higher than 'Platform C' now if the Earth were flat than this is simply impossible, but if the Earth is a globe then this makes total sense, as there is an incline until we reach the horizon which is exactly what we see, he has simply got his calculations wrong somewhere in regards to the curvature and thus location of the horizon, but it's irrefutable proof of curvature and thus a globe Earth.
Completely and utterly backwards. :laugh1:
-
Completely and utterly backwards. :laugh1:
How? Remember it's sea level... a body of water... it does not incline like a hill which is what we see (and at such a distance), the only explanation for that is the curvature of the Earth... He just got the calculations wrong somewhere for the Horizon... Then you look at the Moon, Sun and Planets around us and we are also surrounded by globes.
God Bless
-
The water, at some point, has to curve on a globe. Otherwise, a globe is impossible.
-
The water, at some point, has to curve on a globe. Otherwise, a globe is impossible.
Water by it's very nature does not and cannot 'curve' or 'rise like a hill' or whatever, it always sits flat without exception, it takes the path of least resistance and sits flat... any curvature or rise or whatever... can only be from outside sources such as gravity and the curvature of the Earth.
The water rising over that distance, with the base of Habitat higher than the base of Platform C and the horizon of water higher again... can only be explained by the curvature of the Earth... and like I said, we can even look outside to the Moon and other Planets and see they are also globes... we are surrounded by globes.
God Bless
-
Water by it's very nature does not and cannot 'curve' or 'rise like a hill' or whatever, it always sits flat without exception, it takes the path of least resistance and sits flat... any curvature or rise or whatever... can only be from outside sources such as gravity and the curvature of the Earth.
We are talking about the curve of water due to curvature of the earth. The nature of water is irrelevant because the curvature (supposedly) changes its nature.
The water rising over that distance, with the base of Habitat higher than the base of Platform C and the horizon of water higher again... can only be explained by the curvature of the Earth...
You obviously don't understand the curvature of the earth and how it works.
and like I said, we can even look outside to the Moon and other Planets and see they are also globes... we are surrounded by globes.
Irrelevant. The earth is unique to all other planets, just like humanity is unique to all other animals.
Let's abandon this thread to continue the discussion on the other one.
-
Let's abandon this thread to continue the discussion on the other one.
Okay.