You can't compare a stagnant image with one scale to a moving interactive system with multiple scales. Of course they are different. They are different in every way.

I'm sorry, but you've lost me there.

You're argument is that because a line is X units long and because X units represents a different distance on Bing maps based on an interactive scale it is evidence that the earth is a sphere. Or that Bing maps is based on a sphere.

I'm not drawing a line on a map and measuring it myself, I'm simply taking multiple points on the map and then asking Bing to tell me the distances between those points. I neither know nor care how Bing is performing that calculation. However having collected all the distances, I find that the top and bottom of my shape, as defined by my 4 points, are the same length and the left and right side are the same length. If I assume the geometry is flat then the only possible shape that fits the bill is a parallelogram of some kind, however I also see that the diagonals are the same length too, which makes this a special form of parallelogram - a rectangle.

The only problem with this is that when I check the dimensions, I find that the two diagonals are 20% longer than they should be according to Pythagoras. The only possible conclusion I can draw is that my assumption is flawed and the geometry is not in fact flat.

I put the lines on the map to illustrate the point I was trying to make, but they really don't need to be there at all. What matters are the 4 points and the 6 distances Bing's built-in measuring tool gives me. Scaling zooming panning and an interactive scale aren't relevant. All that matters are the answers Bing gives me for the 6 distances involved.

I'm not stating as fact that the geometry is spherical, just that it cannot possibly be flat. I do however personally believe that it is spherical, simply because the results perfectly match a spherical geometry, but I'm just happy to leave it that it's certainly not flat.

Based on that logic the image below, because it has an interactive scale, is evidence that this hallway is a sphere or that the image below is based on a sphere

Well the underlying model if you will behind the image is certainly not flat, it's clearly a corridor with height and width and length. If this were a computer generated model with the ability to move around, something like a scene from a game, then you'd be able to move through it.

If this were an interactive image with its own measuring tool built-in and I could measure anything I liked, then I could perhaps work out the geometry of the model. If all the measurements I asked for were entirely consistent with a sphere or a pyramid or a doughnut, then I'd have to concede that's what it was. An interactive scale doesn't make it any particular geometry, you'd have to match the measurements up to confirm what it was.

What I've demonstrated to you is that you cannot lay these positions out on anything flat and make the distances work. What this means is that Bing's distance measurement tools cannot be using a flat geometry.

of course you can't The earth is not 2d. It's 3d.

Woah! The earth isn't flat, it's 3d? So Bing maps underlying model isn't flat either? OK, I'm wondering what this discussion was all about then.

When you say "stagnant image" are you just objecting to a screenshot from Bing?

A 2d drawing of triangles with three sides which are one unit long is not interactive. each side is one unit long. Putting that triangle on Bing maps is moot.

I've told you exactly how to do this, if you don't trust my stagnant image, fine, have a go yourself and tell us what distances Bing tells you.

I've been using bing maps, or maps which function very similarly to bing maps for the bettwer part of 15 years now and, with their interactive scale, they seem pretty accurate.

It seems strange to me that you're happy to trust Bing, which is a Microsoft owned product,

It's not that i'm happy to trust them. The general consensus here is that there is no map of the earth. That thought processes really does not sit well with me when i'm using a map of the earth almost every day. In thousands of years of technological progress we have not been able to make one freaking map??? Seriously?? To me this is something that is a big strike against these specific FE models. Here's a map, in which the earth is not specifically depicted as a sphere, (ad has the added bonus of being independently tested by millions and millions of users) why can't this be a map of the earth?

but when it comes to the Microsoft technical documentation on Bing stack has pointed out to you, you just reject it on the basis that anybody could have put what they liked in it. It's inconceivable that Microsoft would allow any unauthorized employee or worse an outsider to make changes to one of their pages, they simply wouldn't have the security permissions to be able to do that. The alternative is that an authorized employee wrote this and nobody at Microsoft has noticed or been made aware of this, or if they have, they simply don't care. How credible is that?

What do I need to do in order to move past this ad infinitum that is not a FE model that is a RE model because the website _____________ says it's a RE projection? How can we possibly discuss a possible FE model when that just keeps getting regurgitated over and over and over.

The only thing that I can think of is to use the Bing API, build my own website, and in the documentation of the website say this is a projection of a non spherical earth. Would that satisfy you? Would you be able to look at that website and say, ok the website says it's not based on a globe projection?

Well the problem with that idea is that you do not represent Microsoft (presumably) and your Website will not be owned, authored and administrated by Microsoft, so your "documentation" carries no authority whatsoever because you are not the author of the Bing API (again presumably).