I'm going to go with "jet streams" for the explanation. Along with "you have to have an accurate projection" as Ladislaus pointed out.

Not every point is conclusive in one direction, or easily explained/refuted.

This point does not "falsify" the earth being flat, much less does it prove we're on a wet spinning spaceball hurtling through an infinite universe.

It's basic logic.

First you need to start with a map that you consider true.

The default is what the Doctor of the Church, Venerable Bede, wrote in the 8th century:

“We call the earth a sphere, not because the circle of the circuмference is equally round in all directions, but because, by the compresence of all its parts, it is gathered into the shape of a sphere. Hence, it is that the stars of the northern hemisphere are not visible to the inhabitants of the southern, and conversely, those which are familiar to the southerners are unknown to the northerners."

You’re jumping ahead.  Concepts come before a working model.  FE proponents have proven that the globe model doesn’t work either (neither physically or scripturally).  

If you argue for the globe model given to us by atheists, then you deny Scripture because the modern globe model ignores the firmament, which is quasi-heresy.  So the result is that NEITHER the globe or FE view has a working model.  We’re left to discuss concepts and experiments. 

Support for Flat Earth within the Firmament was accepted by nearly all Church Fathers who addressed this issue, so what you say does not make sense. Do you have factual source? Or is this simply your own speculation erroneously stated as fact?

Here is what AI says about early Christian history:

"the early Christian scholarly tradition was not defined by a belief in a flat Earth. The consensus among the educated was to accept the spherical model, with debates focusing more on its theological implications (like the antipodes) than on its geometric reality. The flat Earth myth became widespread much later as a tool to portray medieval Christianity as opposed to scientific progress."


Venerable Bede, Doctor of the Church, wrote this in the early 8th century:

"We call the earth a sphere, not because the circle of the circuмference is equally round in all directions, but because, by the compresence of all its parts, it is gathered into the shape of a sphere. Hence, it is that the stars of the northern hemisphere are not visible to the inhabitants of the southern, and conversely, those which are familiar to the southerners are unknown to the northerners."

I posted this elsewhere on this forum perhaps today. Most flat-earthers are Protestants. People who tend to insist on geocentrism also go for the flat earth.

While this is true for the most part, geocentrism does not depend on a FE, but FEers necessarily believe in geocentrism. The geocentric model has never been proven wrong scientifically, aligns perfectly with scripture, and was the common belief among scholars until the last few hundred years (probably even less).

Same. No dog in fight but I often wonder why no pilots have come forward to prove/disprove FE. The only friend I have in real life who believes FE is a pagan/new age lady I met when we both protested against the covid lockdowns!

I do wonder though, what would the motivation be for governments and nasa to lie if earth is really flat? It seems a very complex cover up involving a lot of people for what reason? God either created a round earth or a flat one… just the same.

I think anyone who ventures to answer about the motivation will say the words "scripture" and/or "truth", but without any real details to support it.

Come on, Ladislaus, first things first. I am seeing you post lengthy new stuff around here, but this needs addressing.

So, despite your lies and nonsense, I explained quite clearly that an Azimuthal Equidistant Map comes closest to representing what's reality, and I explained at lenght exactly why.

But then ...

Which of 120+ "maps" is the real one for Globe, eh?  That Mercator that hung on the wall of every classroom for decades, or the Gall-Peters that said the one that had been considered the real map before was garbage and totally wrong, or the dozens of other projections, since they admit that no one projection is perfectly accurate or represents the "real" map, with the one they say is "closest", but again not totally accurate or real, being the "AuthaGraph" one.  Then Gleason released a map that's often used by FEs, and it claims to be completely accurate.  So there is no REAL Globe "map" either, and of course you dunces don't even know the difference between a map and a model.  So what you claim is reality is the Google Earth or something along those lines, and yet we simply have to take their word for it, right?  They admit that the Google Earth was stitched together from many linear passes of satellites, and in fact the place where there are anomalies in the model very much resembles the gaps you'd have if you tried to take straight pieces of paper and stitch them together to form a ball.

So, notice how your lies pile up, where you demand that I tell you THE real map of FE ... while you assume and beg the question that there is any single real map of globe, which there isn't, where you can't even meet the criteria that you claim must be met by the FE model.  I call the attention of readers to this deliberate mendacity, where you create a many-layered onion of assumed truths (begged questions), wrapped with distortions, which are then surrounded by various proofs that in circular fashion depend upon the questions they beg early on.

Now, the worst part of this whole campaign is that those of you who adhere to a globe model that does not provide an explantion for the Firmament with the properties described in Scripture, and as unanimously interpreted by the Church Fathers (which is, per Leo XIII, the rule of faith for interpreting Scripture), are in fact a bunnch of faithless heretics who worship modern atheistic science above the Sacred Scriptures.  Now, there are some geocentrist who do not do this, such as Dr. Sungenis ... where he takes Sacred Scripture seriously.  He started by claiming the Firmament was "space", but then realized this was contradicted by the properties that Sacred Scripture attributed to it and which the Church Fathers unanimously attributed to it, so then he moved on to explaining it by a "Planck Fabric".  When that too failed the test, he developed his ice ball theory, which knowing that said ice balls no longer exists, tried to demonstrate that the firmament on day 4 was different than the firmament on day 2, i.e. that it had changed, and that's why it's no longer currently present in precisely the same form that it was when first created.  Those of you who do not bring to the table the same attitude that Dr. Sungenis brings ... for which I give him credit even if I don't fully buy his explanations ... but the rest who simply claim that the firmament was just some poetic description of space, ignoring the fact that space cannot have the properties that Sacred Scripture attributes to it, and ignoring the unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers ... you're nothing but faithless heretics.

So, before you continue your campaign of lies and duplicity, why don't you answer your own question?  Which is the real globe map?

this? ...


this? ...


this? ...


Well, wait ... that one actually looks a lot like what an FE map might look like, or closest to it.

It's been mansplained to you numerous times that the core / fundamental feature of the current working FE model is that the North Pole is at the center.  Where it differs from the above is that Antarctica is NOT just a small land mass, but actually an icea wall around the perimeter.  So, FE is similar to the above, except that it's likely not entirely accurate because ... these projections are made on the assumption that the original model is a ball that has a continuously decreasing circuмference as you head further South, whereas the FE model would have a continuously increasing circuмference as you head South.

That's the primary point of contention between the two coordinate systems, and there's much evidence that the increasing circuмference is correct.  If you were actually seeking the truth rather than attempting to justify and promote your own heretical deparavity, you'd actually look into the evidence for this, check out the presentations made by Herve Riboni who says that they use magnetic declination to hide the deviations from this very expected reduction of circuмference as you head South, requiring them to make various adjustments, and he also points out how the timezones differ in the same latitudes North vs. South where they should be the same if in fact the circuмferences were clsoe to the same North and South.  He's actually conducted experiments by going out into the field and comparing his actual measurements to what Google Maps show and has pointed out significant discrepancies where the Google Map does NOT reflect reality, i.e. is not a real map.

But you dishonest liars and heretics will continue to just ignore all this and keep piling on the lies that are layered on top of begged questions.

So, not only do you ASSUME (without proving it, without meeting yourselves the burden you claim must be met by FE) that there's an accurate globe map (and have never told us which of the above or else 120+ other variations) is the REAL globe map (assuming idiotically and or mendaciously) that there is in fact a single one ...

but you continue to ignore the mountain of evidence from the FE camp that clearly falsifies the globe.  You won't touch any of that with a 10-foot poll, and simply ignore it, but then keep engaging in your campaign of lies and dishonesty. ... things like how you can very consistently and clearly see much farther than current globe geometry would permit, and things like how you cannot have a pressurized atmosphere adjacent to the almost-infinite vacuum of space, etc. (a problem solved by a Biblical firmament).  Pay no attention to that.  Just keep making up crap about FE not having a "model" or a "map" (while medaciously and falsely assuming that the Globe has one, ignoring the fact that the Globe had been falsified by all the arguments that you completely ignore).

I might be willing to consisder you honest if you didn't pile one lie and logical fallacy and begged question and rejection of Sacred Scripture on top of another ... but you're not honest and your'e not seeking the truth, and you prefer the modern atheistic god (science) to Sacred Scripture.  Shameful.