[robinofloxley]

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

If the map is accurate, if Bing's measuring tool is accurate and I've used it correctly, then it shouldn't matter whether or not the specific route has ever been travelled.

Of course it would.

A map with a linear scale for distances between points exists specifically to aid in travel.

I'm not for one second claiming Bing's measurement tool uses a linear scale. I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points. What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.

If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.

If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.

I am confident in your ability to identify any of them.

Sure I can easily identify another 4 locations for you, but I'm confident if I propose another 4, you'll object to them as well and we'll just keep going round in circles. On the other hand I guarantee you if you can come up with 4 points at least 8000km apart with known distances between all of them (assuming we both agree the distances are correct - shouldn't be too hard), you'll get no objection from me and we can progress the discussion.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

What constitutes an actual journey? Air and sea journeys vary according to wind and current and there isn't a road straight enough or long enough to make this a worthwhile exercise.

Then why did you start?

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.

Not really, it's very similar to how flat earthers claim there are no photos from space, someone provides one and the response is the photo is not to be trusted, so it's then an argument about trust in the source, it's no longer about whether or not a photo exists. I've shown you a flat map (you say they're accurate) with distances which don't add up. You're casting doubt about these distances. I'm telling you these are what Bing gives you. You either trust Bing or you don't. Whether anyone in history has travelled this route is irrelevant if the map is trustworthy and Bing's distances are trustworthy.

Maybe for you.

Considering there is no way to verify an error of what you claim to be 18 percent, it remains just your opinion.

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.

[totallackey]

Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.

I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.

I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

Did Mercator or Piri Reis coin the word, "projection"?

Mercator, just like any scholar of his times, wrote in latin. Can you read latin? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercator_1569_world_map_sheet_01.png

If not, well, maybe the translation in the Wikipedia article can help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_1569_world_map#legend3

Can you read the post again and understand my question was quite specific and mentioned nothing of the language used, just specific words?

Thank you.

[totallackey]

Well you can choose to accept the figures I've given or follow what I did and independently verify for yourself that these distances are what Bing gives you.

It is the idea that none of the lines you drew on the Bing map match a traveled route of any sort.

If the map is accurate, if Bing's measuring tool is accurate and I've used it correctly, then it shouldn't matter whether or not the specific route has ever been travelled.

Of course it would.

A map with a linear scale for distances between points exists specifically to aid in travel.

I'm not for one second claiming Bing's measurement tool uses a linear scale.

Yet I was quite specific in what I wrote about maps that do make use of a linear scale.

I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points.

Purports being the operative word.

The fact you cannot confirm it is a measuring tool based on linear measurement might be a good clue...

What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.

No you haven't.

You said you did, but did that:

1. using lines representing distances that no one would ever be able to independently confirm as they don't represent actual routes of travel; and,
2. personally failing to confirm the type of measuring tool you purport represents reality.

If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.

Oh no...make no mistake...

I am clearly doubting you also.

If you can suggest 4 other locations on earth at least 8000km apart where the distances between all 4 points are accurately known, please do and we'll go from there.

I am confident in your ability to identify any of them.

Sure I can easily identify another 4 locations for you, but I'm confident if I propose another 4, you'll object to them as well and we'll just keep going round in circles. On the other hand I guarantee you if you can come up with 4 points at least 8000km apart with known distances between all of them (assuming we both agree the distances are correct - shouldn't be too hard), you'll get no objection from me and we can progress the discussion.

Well, a good place to start would be an identified route.

I'm sure you have access to the info.

If you accept the values I've given, then I guess you are then questioning Bing's ability to give you a distance to within 18% of the correct value. Feel free to pick a random journey and compare the distance you travelled to Bing's estimate. I'd be surprised to find an 18% difference.

I'd like for you to identify an actual journey.

What constitutes an actual journey? Air and sea journeys vary according to wind and current and there isn't a road straight enough or long enough to make this a worthwhile exercise.

Then why did you start?

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.

Examples of what?

8000 km air routes?

8000 km shipping routes?

You definitely know these things to exist.

I doubt you find a huge error, because all flat maps are pretty doggone accurate.

The differences between a projection on to flat surface and the sphere/spheroid it was projected from simply aren't measurable unless the projected map covers a significant proportion of the original sphere, so anything which would show a difference is bound to be on a scale where you'd say "highly convenient".

It is highly convenient when you pick lines that haven't been traveled in the annals of humakind.

You made a claim that "all flat maps fulfill this objective criteria". I showed you one which clearly doesn't, so you question the distances and you've shifted the goalposts and this is now about whether or not Bing is accurate.

No, you've done nothing of the sort.

You pulled some goalposts in off a playing field that has never existed.

Not really, it's very similar to how flat earthers claim there are no photos from space, someone provides one and the response is the photo is not to be trusted, so it's then an argument about trust in the source, it's no longer about whether or not a photo exists. I've shown you a flat map (you say they're accurate) with distances which don't add up. You're casting doubt about these distances. I'm telling you these are what Bing gives you. You either trust Bing or you don't. Whether anyone in history has travelled this route is irrelevant if the map is trustworthy and Bing's distances are trustworthy.

Maybe for you.

Considering there is no way to verify an error of what you claim to be 18 percent, it remains just your opinion.

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.

Nah...still just your opinion.

[AATW]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
And Google Maps is generally acknowledged to be accurate. People use it every day to get around.
So why do they do that? Are they "in on it"?
And this is the point. Flat maps, at a large scale, are NOT accurate.
The two lines on the Mercator projection are the same length and direction. But in real life those lines represent two very different distances.
Because the Mercator map is a projection which tries to project the reality of a spherical earth onto a 2D plane of a map.

Were the earth flat projections would not be necessary. And maps on large scales would be accurate.

[totallackey]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

[GreatATuin]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

[robinofloxley]

I make no claim whatsoever about how these distances are determined, I'm just pointing out that this flat map from Bing has a built in measurement tool which purports to tell you accurate distances between any two points.

Purports being the operative word.

The fact you cannot confirm it is a measuring tool based on linear measurement might be a good clue...

I don't really care how it works or what it's based on so long as it is accurate. Since I'm on the RE side of the fence, if I'm to believe the tool is accurate, I'm not inclined to believe it's based on a linear scale, but however it works, it's a built in tool being used on an indisputably flat map, which is what you want me to use surely.

What I have shown you is that using this tool in combination with the map gives you paradoxical distances which are impossible to reconcile if you believe this flat map is an accurate representation of reality.

No you haven't.

You said you did, but did that:

1. using lines representing distances that no one would ever be able to independently confirm as they don't represent actual routes of travel; and,
2. personally failing to confirm the type of measuring tool you purport represents reality.

I don't purport or claim anything here. Bing's tool claims accuracy and therefore purports to represent reality. You keep pushing this back onto me and what I claim and make out this is somehow just down to my opinion. I'm just reporting what I find here, if you don't like it then either I've made a mistake and reported falsely what I've found (certainly possible, although I assure you if that's the case, no deliberate intent on my part), or perhaps you don't believe Bing's tool is reporting correct distances, I'm not really sure quite what your position is to be honest.

If you doubt these distances, then you are not doubting me, you are doubting Bing's ability to measure accurately.

Oh no...make no mistake...

I am clearly doubting you also.

Fair enough, can you separate out for me where you doubt me? Have I misreported the distances from Bing? Is my mathematical analysis faulty? Something else?

Then why did you start?

I started because you made a generic claim about all flat maps and their accuracy. You added the requirement for this to be "an actual journey" afterwards. Part of the problem with this is that "an actual journey" is a very vague term and only you really know what you mean by it, I can only guess. Some examples would help.

Examples of what?

8000 km air routes?

8000 km shipping routes?

You definitely know these things to exist.

Sure. OK then, if I can find 4 airports, each with a direct flight to all the other 3 airports and 8000+ km apart, that satisfies the requirement does it?

Next problem is how to find the distances between the airports. I can just use Bing maps or Google maps, presumably that's out of the question, so what's your solution?

It's not my opinion at all. Opinion doesn't come into it, this is maths, pure and simple. The figures coming from Bing unambiguously show an 18% difference between Bing's measured distances and a calculated distance on an assumed flat earth, using pythagoras.

Nah...still just your opinion.

No sorry, not following you. I've reported some findings, no opinions involved. I've applied some mathematical reasoning to demonstrate that these findings lead to a paradox. That's just maths. What opinion(s) do you think am I expressing here?

The logical argument I'm putting forward here is simply this: If the measured distances are accurate then the surface cannot be a flat plane. The proposition (the measured distances are accurate) is either true or false. If it is true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion (the surface cannot be a flat plane) is also true. How is this my opinion?

[robinofloxley]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

The reason I tend to refer to Bing rather than Google maps in this forum is simply that when you zoom out with Bing you do actually end up with a flat map on screen (I believe it's a Mercator projection), unlike Google. And there's at least one FEr on here who thinks that makes a big difference and a zoomed out Bing map is trustworthy whereas a zoomed out Google map is not. Both have interactive distance measuring tools built in and surprise, surprise, they agree with each other.

[GreatATuin]

Necessary to use the word "projection," to maintain the illusion of globe.

I see. So cartographers down the centuries are in on all this too, are they? The earth is flat, maps are flat. So it should be fairly simple to make an accurate map of the earth. But no. They decided to deliberately distort it for...reasons? And they made up a whole lot of different ways of doing so? Sheesh.

I doubt cartographers have any input as to the writing content placed on their end product...

Did Mercator or Piri Reis coin the word, "projection"?

Mercator, just like any scholar of his times, wrote in latin. Can you read latin? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Mercator_1569_world_map_sheet_01.png

If not, well, maybe the translation in the Wikipedia article can help you understand: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_1569_world_map#legend3

Can you read the post again and understand my question was quite specific and mentioned nothing of the language used, just specific words?

Thank you.

You didn't even read, did you?

I'm not sure if Mercator used the word "projection" or its translation in latin. But it's not very relevant, as he did write: "to spread on a plane the surface of the sphere". How do you call that in English? A projection.

[iamcpc]

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any round earther can explain away the paradox of course.

CLAIM: Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

CLAIM: Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the red triangle is not a right triangles

CLAIM: Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL
TRUTH: This was debunked by the two facts listed above

[robinofloxley]

OK, so here's a flat map. It's Bing. I've dropped 4 pins on the map (just type the coordinates into the search bar) at specific positions (lat/long), a (45,60), b (45,-60), c (-45,60) and d (-45,-60). I've used Bing maps built in measuring tool (right click "Measure Distance" on Windows) to measure the distances between these points.

• It's a flat map
• Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
• Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
• Since it is a right angled triangle, cd² + db² = cb² (pythagoras)
• Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL

It's a flat map with impossible distances, it's a paradox. You can't make this work, it is not accurate. Any round earther can explain away the paradox of course.

CLAIM: Since length ab = length cd and length ac = length bd and length ad = length cb, this must be a rectangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

According to Bing, length ab = 8398km and length cd = 8398km. In my book that makes ab = cd
According to Bing, length ac = 10010km and length bd = 10010km. In my book that makes ac = bd
According to Bing, length ad = 15410km and length cb = 15410km. In my book that makes ad = cb

CLAIM: Since it is a rectangle, the red triangle is a right angled triangle
TRUTH: Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the red triangle is not a right triangles

Ok then, here's a riddle for you: I have a shape with 4 corners and 4 sides. The top and bottom sides are the same length, the left and right sides are the same lengths and if I connect top left to bottom right and bottom left to top right I find that these two diagonals have identical lengths. What shape am I describing?

Don't bother about scales, interactive or otherwise, what shape am I describing?

CLAIM: Length cb should be (according to pythagoras) 13066km, but according to Bing, it it 15410km. That's 2344km (18%) gone AWOL
TRUTH: This was debunked by the two facts listed above

[Tumeni]

Based on the interactive scale of Bing maps the distance represented by the line AB does not equal the distance of the line represented by CD

How do you know this for certain, and what distances do you think are represented by these lines?

[AATW]

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

I used two things. A flat map - the Mercator projection. And Google Maps which does, for the sake of accuracy, show the earth as a globe as you show out. I used it because the distances it gives are generally agreed to be accurate. But fine, if you want a mapping tool that doesn't do that - Bing doesn't. So here's a couple of screen grabs from Bing maps with roughly the same distances. I've attached the image till you sort out your computer.

These two lines are the same direction and length but according to Bing they represent very different distances.
Why is that? The answer is because Bing is projecting the 3D Globe Earth onto a 2D map. And there is no way to do that accurately at large scales. Google gets around that problem by representing the earth in its true form, the globe, at larger scales. Bing does it by changing the scale it shows depending on where you are looking.

On large scales maps are not accurate. The reason for that is there is no way to perfectly represent a 3D Globe on a 2D map. Something has to give. Different projections deal with that in different ways but each one has to be a compromise. And the only reason projections are needed at all is...because the earth isn't flat. If it were then you could easily represent the earth in its true form in a map.
The fact you can't should tell you something...

[totallackey]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

[robinofloxley]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

I can't distinguish any difference between a zoomed out Bing map and a scanned mercator projection paper map. So would you consider a zoomed out Bing map to be an accurate flat map?

[GreatATuin]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Please show one of the entire world.

Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth? No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.

[AATW]

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't. As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wow. Nearly all?
I'm going to have to change my sig again...

[robinofloxley]

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.
There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Not of the whole earth there aren't. As I said, Bing have to change the scale depending on what you're looking at. Why do you think that is?

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wow. Nearly all?
I'm going to have to change my sig again...

At the risk of a slap on the wrist for a low content post - this is absolutely priceless. Made my day!

[totallackey]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

I can't distinguish any difference between a zoomed out Bing map and a scanned mercator projection paper map. So would you consider a zoomed out Bing map to be an accurate flat map?

Not having the benefit of viewing a comparison of the two, I cannot answer this question.

I still do not agree there is just cause to label them as projections.

I think the word projection is a bunch of malarkey.

No one can truly know what shape a country is as a whole.

The important thing is to have accurate distance within a relatively small margin of error.

All flat maps accomplish this.

[totallackey]

Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.

Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.

Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?

Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Please show one of the entire world.

Why?

What is a legitimate purpose of a map?

Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.

As if you have any

PERSONAL

idea of the shapes of any country.

You don't.

As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth?

Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.

No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.

As if RE agrees on a world map...