So, I recall when I was a child and took a few flights over a couple years between Cleveland and Hungary (direct flight always with a full plane).  We always flew over Gander Air Force Base in Newfoundland.  After checking out a globe map, I asked my dad why that was, since that did seem to be really out of the way vs. a direct line.  He told me that regulations required that passenger planes always remain within a certain distance of land.  Not sure if he heard that somewhere, but I have since learned that this was entirely untrue.  While this route is not as bad as the Southern Hemisphere routes, if you plot a direct line between Cleveland and Hungary on a flat earth map, it's dead on a straight line between the two.

EDIT:  So I looked it up and it still show on a map as taking that route.  Again, not extremely pronounced, since there's much less of a difference in the Northern Hemisphere.  But still ... why?  Why would you take this curved route when you could just make a straight line ... and save some time and some fuel?

https://tinyurl.com/mr3vpcas

Put this on an FE map and it's a straight line.

That is interesting. The possibility that comes to mind is that they take advantage of the jet-stream. A stout tailwind could save a lot of fuel, even if the distance is longer.

Record-breaking jet stream accelerates air travel; flight clocks in at 801 mph

On Monday night, the river of air 35,000 feet above the New York City area, known as the jet stream, clocked in at a blazing 231 mph.
https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/record-breaking-jet-stream-accelerates-air-travel-flight-clocks-in-at-801-mph/509-a2c66763-4514-49b8-93e0-88892afd58fc

There's a booklet "16 emergency landings proving Flat Earth" -- and I agree. One of the biggest proof of Flat Earth out there. Globers can only stand with their mouths open, having absolutely no explanation to offer.

https://www.flatearthresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/covered16emergencylandingsprovingflatearth-191007025918_compressed.pdf

Re accessing Madagascar from Australia, there are direct flights from Perth to Jo'burg, with no stopovers to refuel, then a lighter plane from Jo'burg to Antanarivo. Then Perth's latitude is -31 while Joburg is -26.

Interestingly, the east-west flight takes 10hr 45min while west-east flight takes 9hr 20min over the same distance. An hr  25min difference, which is greatly appreciated if your travelling with a full load of passengers.

I do believe that there are practical concerns such a demand and marketing that play a large parts in necessary diversions, e.g. you cannot fly direct Sydney-Antanarivo simply because the demand is not there.

Not debating you specifically but just adding comments to yours:

Tail winds and jet streams can make a very big difference in flying times.  There are some very powerful jet streams in the southern hemisphere.  There are some good videos available on that topic.

However a 1000 mile per hour spin is not part of that equation and is really absurd when you consider that planes fly 500 mph.  If the earth spun below they could just hover and arrive at their destination. LOL  I don't think most people here believe in the spin though.  Yet some are incredulous to the idea of FE because "so many people would have to be in on it".  Well they fooled a lot of people with the spinning earth lie so why would FE be any different? 

As for flight routes: the commercial aspect of the strange flight routes is one thing but the emergency landings (see the vid I posted in earlier post) which only make sense on a flat earth are whole different story.

My ultimate "redpill" moment has been considering the globe earth math when looking at the horizon and the fact that buildings never lean away from each other as they "go over the curve".

The GE math is crazy ridiculous!  It's hard to believe that anyone actually believes it. ???

I don't think many people have actually taken the time to contemplate it very deeply.

Anyway, I feel like there is a kind of spellcasting to GE and that completely broke the spell.

I'm starting another thread on that one aspect of the discussion alone.

GE discussions are often like explaining apologetics to a Protestant.  Instead of staying focused on one topic, it goes to another and to another....  :)

Just from independent observations I can't accept FE. If anyone can explain how Starlink works on FE (with a working latency model that reflects user's pings IRL), how NVIS works with FE, some specifics about weather modeling (not going to self dox so we can discard this particular one ) I would be happy with the FE position. I'd gladly defend FE vs GEers because the smugness and condecension of GEers I don't like. Since nobody is able to explain these things to me in multiple threads on here (DL even asked on some other sites for me and wasn't able to get answers) I can't consider the position beyond being possible but not definitively true. Note I am only interested in testable hypotheses... No NASA, no space pics, no trickery, no weird sunsets or objects disappearing in certain parts of the globe or horizon analysis. I can only defend what I can observe.

Here is an interesting site that gives a basic explanation of Aristotle's ideas on FE vs. GE:

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~blackman/ast104/aristotle8.html

Just from independent observations I can't accept FE. If anyone can explain how Starlink works on FE (with a working latency model that reflects user's pings IRL), how NVIS works with FE, some specifics about weather modeling (not going to self dox so we can discard this particular one ) I would be happy with the FE position. I'd gladly defend FE vs GEers because the smugness and condecension of GEers I don't like. Since nobody is able to explain these things to me in multiple threads on here (DL even asked on some other sites for me and wasn't able to get answers) I can't consider the position beyond being possible but not definitively true. Note I am only interested in testable hypotheses... No NASA, no space pics, no trickery, no weird sunsets or objects disappearing in certain parts of the globe or horizon analysis. I can only defend what I can observe.

Mystery vs. contradiction. Same thing as the sede question.

Flat Earthers don't even have to provide a conclusive model, they just have to demonstrate it is not contradictory and it wins by default because it is according to the literal interpretation of Scripture.

I still have some questions about FE but I've found the globe debunked many times over in these couple of weeks of research.

Consider also, how easy it is to disprove a flat earth. NASA needs to provide just one genuine picture of the Earth, or film a flight over Antarctica, or photograph curvature, etc.

But every time they provide supposed evidence it ends up being falsified.

Long story short, the burden of proof is on the globetards and they haven't delivered.

Flat Earthers don't even have to provide a conclusive model, they just have to demonstrate it is not contradictory and it wins by default because it is according to the literal interpretation of Scripture.

I still have some questions about FE but I've found the globe debunked many times over in these couple of weeks of research.

Right.  I can't explain FE anymore than show people the picture of the "snow globes".  But I can poke holes in globe earth.


As Sherlock Holmes said, in a brilliant explanation of logic:  “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

Interesting thread!

My positions:


1) Globe vs flat: Globe
2) Geo vs helio: Geo
3) Young vs Old Earth: Young
4) Earth rotate vs Stationary: Rotate
5) Moon Landing: No
6) Aliens: No
7) Satellites exist: Yes (I can see them at night)
8) Evolution of species: No
9) Literal Genesis Creation: Yes
10) Worldwide flood: Yes
11) Scriptural historical accounts accurate: Yes
12) Scriptural inerrency limited to moral teachings: No

Most people mean by geocentrism that the Earth is in the center of the universe AND immobile.

I'm very interested to know how you have come to conclude geocentrism is correct but the Earth rotates since all the best proofs (like Michelson-Morley) prove geocentrism by proving the Earth doesn't move.

Are you aware of the following proceedings?

24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the
theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:
( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely
immobile in local motion.
( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not
immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.
All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e.
scientifically untenable] and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the
statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words,
the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”;
the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and
theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.
25th February 1616: Pope Paul V is officially apprised of this theological qualification and
confirms it, ordering Cardinal Bellarmine to summon Galileo and ( i ) warn him to
abandon the said opinions; should he refuse to obey, ( ii ) order him to abstain from
teaching, defending or treating of this doctrine and opinion in any way; and, should he
not acquiesce even in this, ( iii ) to imprison him.
26th February 1616: Cardinal Bellarmine summons Galileo to his home and before witnesses
transmits the Pope’s orders, commanding him in the name of the Pope and of the
whole Congregation of the Holy Office to abandon5 the position in question and no
more to hold, teach or defend it on pain of being proceeded against by the Holy
Office. Galileo promises to obey.

From John Daly's study which I attach.