Careful,You are gona make the moderator throw a cognitive dissonance fit. You can mention the moonlanding being fake and the ISS being fake. But start questioning images of the globe and he will go into a Reeeee spiral.
This guy was involved in the airline industry and their emergency procedures. His channel is loaded with video where commercial flights are plotted on a globe vs a flat earth map for comparison. The best example are flights between South America and Australia because they are on opposite ends of the flat earth, and they are much closer on a globe. The flight routes make far more sense on a flat earth map, check out the visuals on his channel. Often emergency landings give away the true route of the plane, because the airport they choose makes no sense on the globe route. For example I think one of the emergency landings was a flight from somewhere in east Asia to USA, and they stopped in alaska for a woman giving birth. On a globe alaska would have been far to the north, but on flat earth it was a small diversion. He wrote a book on the subject.
To see for yourself simply look up commercial flights between various airports in South America and Australia. Plot the route on Google earth app, and compare it the the route on a flat earth gleason map. Again these continents make it most obvious because they are opposite ends of the flat earth
They say we can't fly across antartica for environmental reasons (enforced by the Antarctic treaty) even though we fly very near the north pole which has far more biodiversity.
Try plotting Perth to Buenos Aires on Google earth. The (shortest) route goes almost directly over the south pole and should be roughly 7800 miles. This would be the most economical and straight path to take. Now search for flights between Perth and Buenos Aires and plot the route on Google earth AND the gleason map. The results will make you think.
I'm rarely an "early adopter" when it comes to new information, technology, anything else.
I've been far more open minded toward flat earth theories and evidence than most. Just because I haven't converted and accepted the theory yet doesn't mean i'm unread or lazy.
I don't think my question was stupid. I was merely envisioning the traditional "globe" map laid out flat on one of those big maps you fold 20 times to fit into a file cabinet.
There's actually many different competing flat earth concept maps dating back over 100 years. I just found one by Orlando Ferguson. They vary.
The most common flat earth maps I find show that a flight from LA to Japan is a tremendous distance unless one shortcuts over the Arctic.
Starlink allegedly has thousands of satellites orbiting the earth so I would expect them to have service everywhere from New York to the Gobi Desert to the middle of the Pacific. Clearly the satellites are more sparse at the poles so let's allow some leeway there. In this 3D chart the green hexagons represent general areas with coverage. The red dots represent ground stations, and the white dots represent starlink satellites. Why do all the coverage areas seem to correlate to ground stations? Why does alaska have some coverage despite having almost no satellites overhead? Why don't we have global coverage? Especially out at sea where there are no national laws to maneuver around for service? Could it be starlink operates like the rest of the internet? They rely on land based towers to transmit/receive, and they require land and sea cables to form a network? Why are most of these satellites useless when they are not orbiting over one of the few service areas on earth?
There is no such thing as Orbiting Satellites in space, and the earth is flat.
That picture of a globe earth is a cartoon. Debunked.
Find me a real picture of the globe earth. Or did NASA destroy those records too?
Careful,You are gona make the moderator throw a cognitive dissonance fit. You can mention the moonlanding being fake and the ISS being fake. But start questioning images of the globe and he will go into a Reeeee spiral.
I like the moderator.
How does one fly west from Los Angeles to Japan on a flat earth model? Shouldn't they hit the ice wall before they get to Asia's east coast?
No. Check out a Gleason map. LA to Japan would take you across the north pacific just south of Alaska on a flat earth map.
https://youtu.be/wVP8-mcpook
This guy was involved in the airline industry and their emergency procedures. His channel is loaded with video where commercial flights are plotted on a globe vs a flat earth map for comparison. The best example are flights between South America and Australia because they are on opposite ends of the flat earth, and they are much closer on a globe. The flight routes make far more sense on a flat earth map, check out the visuals on his channel. Often emergency landings give away the true route of the plane, because the airport they choose makes no sense on the globe route. For example I think one of the emergency landings was a flight from somewhere in east Asia to USA, and they stopped in alaska for a woman giving birth. On a globe alaska would have been far to the north, but on flat earth it was a small diversion. He wrote a book on the subject.
To see for yourself simply look up commercial flights between various airports in South America and Australia. Plot the route on Google earth app, and compare it the the route on a flat earth gleason map. Again these continents make it most obvious because they are opposite ends of the flat earth
Interesting. In going to have to research this.
I wonder what explanations globe theorists give.
They say we can't fly across antartica for environmental reasons (enforced by the Antarctic treaty) even though we fly very near the north pole which has far more biodiversity.
Try plotting Perth to Buenos Aires on Google earth. The (shortest) route goes almost directly over the south pole and should be roughly 7800 miles. This would be the most economical and straight path to take. Now search for flights between Perth and Buenos Aires and plot the route on Google earth AND the gleason map. The results will make you think.
I'm rarely an "early adopter" when it comes to new information, technology, anything else.
I've been far more open minded toward flat earth theories and evidence than most. Just because I haven't converted and accepted the theory yet doesn't mean i'm unread or lazy.
I don't think my question was stupid. I was merely envisioning the traditional "globe" map laid out flat on one of those big maps you fold 20 times to fit into a file cabinet.
There's actually many different competing flat earth concept maps dating back over 100 years. I just found one by Orlando Ferguson. They vary.
The most common flat earth maps I find show that a flight from LA to Japan is a tremendous distance unless one shortcuts over the Arctic.
Starlink allegedly has thousands of satellites orbiting the earth so I would expect them to have service everywhere from New York to the Gobi Desert to the middle of the Pacific. Clearly the satellites are more sparse at the poles so let's allow some leeway there. In this 3D chart the green hexagons represent general areas with coverage. The red dots represent ground stations, and the white dots represent starlink satellites. Why do all the coverage areas seem to correlate to ground stations? Why does alaska have some coverage despite having almost no satellites overhead? Why don't we have global coverage? Especially out at sea where there are no national laws to maneuver around for service? Could it be starlink operates like the rest of the internet? They rely on land based towers to transmit/receive, and they require land and sea cables to form a network? Why are most of these satellites useless when they are not orbiting over one of the few service areas on earth? There is no such thing as Orbiting Satellites in space, and the earth is flat.
thank you!