That's interesting. 

Well, in any case, there are two experiments showing that the flight path trackers are not accurate.

And he made it clear that he didn't claim that the map was an accurate depiction of the size of land masses.

Another issue is that a compass can only work on a flat earth:

5min 07sec
https://www.bitchute.com/video/VDQzesvb3ys2/

When the facts don’t support the theory, change the facts….

I'm sorry.  I don't understand what you mean.  ??

There are two scientific experiments that show a different reality from the flight trackers.

What does it mean?

What are the actual dimensions of the land masses?

What flight path were they actually taking?

I don't know.  Do you?

Do you know for a fact that flight trackers are completely trustworthy?

If they were on a different flight path, what would that be?

Can you track a flight path on a globe with a compass?

Do compasses even work on a globe earth?


Things to ponder...questions to explore.

You: “And he made it clear that he didn't claim that the map was an accurate depiction of the size of land masses.”



Quote from Lad:

“One objection is that Africa, South America, and Australia are "too big".  No they're not, actually.  That's based on the Mercator projection that everyone's been programmed/brainwashed with.  Galls-Peters came up with a projection they claim shows the ACCURATE size of the continents (whereas with Mercator the Northern Hemisphere continents were exaggerated) and on that projection the continent sizes match those of Gleason.  This is very solid evidence for Gleason being the correct map.  If Gleason were NOT correct, the Southern Hemisphere continents would be MUCH larger on a North Pole Azimuthal Equidistant map, and the Souther Tip of South America for instance, would be much "fatter" and would be nearly as wide as the top.  Same with Africa.

I'll do the math here when I have the time, but there's no doubt Gleason reflects reality.”


“FEs generally adhere to the Gleason map.  Gleason himself stated that it's accurate.”

We can argue all we want about maps.  There's some stuff that doesn't make sense for globe and some that doesn't make sense for flat.  Of course, FE don't have the resources and scientific apparatus to do the work necessary to develop our own model with complete accuracy.  Those resources are tightly controlled by the world Jєωocracy, and, of course, THE kicker that could either validate or falsify either paradigm has been strictly off limits since the 1950s when practically the entire world (even in the midst of the Cold War) signed on to the Antarctic Treaty.  Admiral Byrd's surveying suggested an incredible amount of natural resources down there.  Do we think the Soviets would have given a hoot about some Treaty?  So, the modern explanation is that it's to preserve the natural habitat.  Complete bovine excrement.  This was the 1950s, people, long before anyone gave a hoot about a few penguins.  There's something down there that they're all conspiring to hide.  I saw two different amateur videos, and it didn't even appear that the people were flat earthers.  One of them was of some guys in a boat heading down toward Antarctica.  I think they were just trying to see if they could get near there.  They were literally intercepted by a full-size battleship.  So we have battleships patrolling Antarctica to keep an occasional clown from going down there in a small boat with a few buddies to take some selfies of them drinking beer near the Antarctic ice wall, or riding a snowmobile across the ice and snow?  We have no better use for our resources?  In the other video, a couple guys were flying a plane, also with the intent of getting down over Antarctica.  They were intercepted by a fighter jet.  They were ordered to turn around and were escorted to a military base.  There, the guy making the video interviewed the commander and asked whether, if they had refused to turn around, they would have been shot down.  Base commander replied in the affirmative.  So it's not about protecting the civilians from a dangerous climate either.  Let's shoot them down so they don't get injured, eh?  So what is going on down there?  I don't believe there are alien bases or nαzι bases under the ice ... like some of the disinfo cօռspιʀαcιҽs claim.

Now, Antarctica could disprove FE by showing video of the 24-hour sun, which should in theory be impossible on the prevailing FE model.  Well, there have been two videos released claiming to docuмent the 24-hour sun ... and, shockingly, BOTH of them were proven obvious fakes.  In one, you could see identical clouds, to the inch, at the beginning of the video and then at the end, proving that the same footage was being shown twice.  On the other, supposedly from a camera at some station, you can see the shadows on these short flag poles, and they start to move around in a circle and then ... boom ... suddenly the video skips to where the shadow is in another quadrant of the circle, demonstrating that video had been cut out of it.  Why this fakery?  It would be very simple to just record a normal video for 24 hours, eh?  But none exist.  One FE made an entire lengthy video docuмenting tons of obvious and provable fraud from the Globers.  Why all the fraud?  For something that's so obvous and easy to prove?

It would also be easy to debunk FE for the cost of about 1 hour of NASA budget.  On globe model, the circuмference of Antarctica is about 10 thousand miles.  There are planes out there that can do that distance without refueling ... easily, probably some that NASA itself owns.  If not, they could certainly rent some from the military.  In fact, the long distance record for a commercial flight is about 11,000 miles (there's an Airbus model that can easily do 12,000 miles) ... and you know they didn't land on fumes but probably had at least 1/4 tank to spare, as anything else would be a safety concern (in case more fuel was consumed than expected for some reason).  Northrup Grumman's Global Hawk can do about 15,000 miles +, so plenty to go around and return to South America without refueling.  You take a plane, and then you invite a few of the leading FE groups to put some observers on the plane, and then you can post observers on boats at various point around Antarctica.  So observations and readings can be taken from on the plane and from at sea ... with objective unbiased observers on board both the plan and the sea vessels.  Depending on whether you're flying clockwise or counter-clockwise around Antarctica, you could plan the trip so that the snow/ice of the continent will always remain visible on the same side of the plane.  So with a simple flight like that, you could easil debunk FE and put it to bed.

Now, this picking away at the prevailing FE model is also disingenuous and a distraction.  It's disingenuous because FEs don't have the resources to come up with a thorough and scientifically accurate model.  Occasionally on various discussion forums, the GEs keep challenging FEs to go down there, ignorant of the fact that it's not permitted.  Someone made a video of the process required to be approved for a visit, and it's probably thousands of pages of paperwork, huge fees, etc. ... to keep King Penguin safe or to prevent the exhaust fumes from a single snow mobile form killing off half the penguin population.  Again, as if in the 1950s people gave a hoot about any of that garbage.  And it's not like people are talking about building a factory down there with 24/7 pollution.  Both the US and the Soviets would have been scrambling to exploit the natural resources down there and would have signed on to no such Treaty.  So this picking away at the speculative FE model is disingenuous.  It's also a distraction from the very solid evidence FEs have that cause serious problems for the Globe model and falsify it.

If you could offer me a credible explanation (I'm all ears) for --

1) why we can see too far.  We have hundreds of easily repeatible and consistent videos, photographs (often by non-FEs who don't understand the implications of their photos from nearly 300 miles away), and laser experiments ... all consistently demonstrating that there is no curvature.  To this the Globers throw excrement at the wall by pulling out a word "refraction".  All known examples of refraction are inconsistent, cause image distortion, happen randomly and fluctuate (as the conditions don't remain stable and are highly volatile), and do not and cannot operate at distance of 300 miles, where many miles should be hidden behing the curvature / bulge.  Pictures are too clear and too consistent for refraction to be remotely plausible ... except for being accepted via confirmation bias by the Globers, just like people accept the preposterous "evidence" for evolution only due to a combination of brainwashing and confirmation bias.  Most fatal for "refraction" are the following:  1) two-way laser experiments (if you have increasing density gradient in one direction, you'd have a decreasing density gradient in the other ... both lasers pointing in opposite directions CANNOT BOTH refract downwards, 2) video/photo from miles away that show a perfect line of perspective between wind turbines that are about a mile or two apart and the closest 10 miles away.  You'd have to have an identical refraction factor every single foot of the way for 10 miles for that to happen, 3) many videos taken in extremely cold / frigid conditions, sometimes on top of ice ... where refraction is almost impossible  4) many see-too-far videos where the horizon line is visible BEYOND the allegedly-refracted object (so refraction would erase the water bulge in front and then repaint it behind the refracted object.  I'm honestly open to it.  Come up with some PLAUSIBLE theory for this and I'm all ears.  Say that, oh, some pressure of ether is forcing the light waves around the globe at a consistent rate or, some kind of electromagnetic phenomenon.  But you can take your "refraction" and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  No glober has ever conducted experiments where this refraction was proven to be happening, where they took meticulous temperature and humidity readings, and made the mathematical calculations.  FEs have.  With their laser experiments and with all of Dr. John D.'s experiments, where he did all the math and took all the readings.  Globers merely shoot from the hip and sling the word "refraction" against the wall hoping it'll stick and that it'll be accepted by those who share their confirmation bias.

2) why the eath's atmosphere can be pressurized adjacent to a vacuum (without a container) and why it doesn't blow off into the vacuum of space.  Running the numbers, the forces involved simply cannot be explained by gravity.  It's ludicrous and violates numerous well-established laws of physics.  Again, come up with a plausible explanation other than "gravity" and I'm all ears.  Put a small vacuum on TOP of a container and open the top lid.  Gravity will not keep the air in the container, not even close.  In fact, in experiments conducted, they've had water at the bottom of the container, and the water sublimates into vapor and evaporates (boils away).  And the vacuum of space is exponentially (with many zeros after it, as illustrated by Dr. John D in one of his videos) and by orders of magnitude greater than anything we have ever been able to produce on earth.  So, again, come up with some explanation, ether pressure or electromagnetism or something ... but you can take your gravity and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  It's ridiculous and is only accepted by the brainwashed due to their confirmation bias.

Come up also with a plausible explanation for why Antarctica is locked down like a fortress by cooperation from all the nations of the world and their militaries.

So the proof and the evidece can fill VOLUMES, and it all falsifies the notion that we live on top of a globe ... unless of course it's a globe that's, oh, 50x bigger than we're told, as that would alter the curvature numbers and allow us to see for much longer distances.  Yet that still does't explain why our atmosphere doesn't blow off into space.

I skip over the absolutely compelling evidence that the earth is NOT in motion, but remains still and at rest, while the stars and "planets" move in relation to it, since that pertains strictly to geocentrism and not necessarily FE.  But the evidence for that is equally compelling.

This looks fascinating.  Unfortunately the website is down.  I wonder why, or, rather ... who.

So, I happened to catch a Twitter handle on one screen @airline_bound and did a Google Search.  As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"  It's nowhere to be found, but th FIRST search result that comes up is to Flat Earth Society Twitter, and you click on it and there's zero reference to airline on the entire page.  Why would an algorithm based just on words send "airline_bound" to Flat Earth Society?  This was a deliberately-manipulated search result.  FE Society is nearly universally rejected by FEs as a government operation (after its original founder died).

You said that Sungenis "thinks that nearly everything from NASA is legit and real ... except for the non-geocetrist stuff."  Fine, that is your opinion.  To have that opinion is one thing, but to substantiate it with facts which you have not done is quite another.

You're simply in denial.  I read the part of his book where he defends NASA.  He admits of one "foible" only and then asserts that the NASA evidence against FE is credible ... just because.  In the video in OP, he doesn't even do that, but simply defends NASA categorically against FE charges.  I've never seen Sungenis admit that NASA is filled with lies and fraud.  In everythig I've read, he has shilled for NASA.  Please find some citations to the contrary where it isn't directly related to his geocetrism.

In fact, just calling it a "foible" shows that he's shiling for NASA, minimizing it as much as possible.  No, this was clear-cut fraud and fakery and no "foible".

NASA and the scientific establishment are his enemy ... until of course it's convenient to have them as an ally (to attack FE).  It's like when Pilate and Herod became friends that day.  Sadly, he used some of the exact same arguments (such as from parallax) against FEs that NASA and the scientific establishment have used against his geocentrism.  NASA and the scientific establishment have ruthlessly mocked and ridiculed him, and he shows NASA deference and respect while joining in their ridicule of FEs.  It's disgraceful.

This reminds me of an episode on the playgrounds when I was a child.  There was a bully there who tormented this one kid.  But at one point this bully went after some OTHER kid, and the first kid (former victim) joined in on the bully's attack on the second kid.  So he joined his tormentor in attacking another victim.  One could speculate about the psychology.  Was he trying to make favor with the bully so that the bully would stop attacking him ... and then vent his anger on this new victim?  That's precisely what is going on here with Sungenis.  Join forces with the evil bully to attack someone else to curry favor with "respectbility" and the "scientific establishment".  In fact, in one interview, Sungenis states almost exactly that, that he set out to debunk FE so that it would not somehow get associated with him and give NASA ammunition against his positions.

It's a dead giveaway out of the gate when Sungenis admits that he set out to debunk FE.  He was commissioned in part by Kolbe institute (translation = "paid") to write this book against FE.  He did not go into it with an open mind, "I'll have a look at their claims to see what that's all about."

Lad, you constantly try to imply, if not out-rightly express, your contention that NASA and Sungenis are two sides of the same coin.  That is an extreme oversimplification of the truth.  Sungenis knows full well that NASA is major bad news in major ways.  He also believes that IF the Earth was actually flat NASA would be the first to try to get us to believe it was a globe.

Just as one example of how Sungenis looks at NASA: He believes they faked the moon landings and he has expressly stated this over the years in his work, both written and verbal.

Wouldn't that have been a very important and pertinent thing to note in his 700 page book intended to disprove the Flat Earth? Hm...

When was the last time Sungenis espoused lunar landing denial publicly?

If he does believe it he certainly managed to never tell me so in any of his docuмentaries, books, videos and articles I've read from him.

Is that just a coincidence or does he crave that all-important scientific respectability?

So his book portrays FEs as some conspiratorial loons but he neglects to mention he doesn't believe in the moon landing? GIVE ME A BREAK!

Well Lad, this is the map you posted as your model and vouched that it was more or less accurate. Frankly, it’s a complete and total mess. The size of the continents are all wrong, England it too north, the ocean sizes are absolutely ridiculous, and the distances between continents, which ARE accurately measurable, are preposterous. I won’t even get into how the sun and moon would work, but suffice to say, it’s *impossible* to reconcile on that model.

I will say again, you need to have a model that is remotely workable to get me, at least, to give this FE theory a second chance of being credible.

Also, as I said many times in past posts, *I* believe that this EF theory was promoted so as to belittle and sully geocentrism.

Are there any problems with the ball earth model?

Why would airlines waste money on fuel making these "great circle" routes which take them over the northern arctic?

Can you explain how a compass would work on the southern side of a ball?

Can you demonstrate how large bodies of water can stick to the outside of a ball? 

Can you demonstrate a large body of water without some sort of container to hold it?

Can you demonstrate a body (not just a drop) of water forming a curve? 

Can you explain why a plane flying upside down in the Northern Hemisphere would cause distress to the humans inside but it somehow doesn't cause distress to the humans in the Southern Hemisphere?

There are many, many ways the sun and moon are irreconcilable with the ball earth model such as the moon providing its own light.

Where is the firmament on the ball model?  (The firmament is in the Bible 23 times.)

Is Heaven beyond the firmament or is "outer space"?

The ball model appears to be a bit of a mess.

There are many more basic questions like these that need to be answered. 

Until there is a "remotely workable model" many people will not give this ball earth theory a second chance of being credible.
 

Not everyone asks the questions though.