[rubberbands]

Junker: Are you suggesting that pilots (and sailors) blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are? Whether or not they have paper maps, in order to do their jobs properly and say, make an emergency landing in case of a storm, they need to know where they are at all times. I'm not sure why we're getting so caught up on this point.

SexWarrior: Wikipedia is firmly of the opinion that NK has nuclear weapons, and expresses no doubt as to that issue. The International Atomic Energy Agency shares that opinion. I haven't seen any sources that seem to doubt this, so I took that as an indication that it is well-known and well agreed-upon, at the moment. Nevertheless, this isn't even important to my argument. It was a throwaway comment meant to illustrate how many other nations have advanced technology among their higher-ups. I don't want to keep talking about this because it isn't important to my larger points.

And yes, planes and ships rely on maps that are based on a round Earth. They don't use globes, but they use maps which are projections of a round Earth. The distances you calculate on these maps are based off those that would be calculated from a globe. So yes, they are representative of RE.

[juner]

That is exactly what I'm suggesting. I'm sure from experience of flying particular routes repeatedly they gain an intrinsic understanding of their bearings. They aren't pulling out maps to chart courses in an airplane.

[rubberbands]

Even if they're blindly following GPS signals and are misled as to where they actually are (a big "if"), your notion still requires that pilots sometimes fly much longer distances than they would be led to expect, and that they somehow never notice this. The example on the Azimuthal Equidistant map that I provided above is just an illustration of this concept, as I've said. You simply can't create a flat-Earth map that avoids this problem. How stupid/oblivious do you think airline pilots are?

[Wezzoid]

Rubberbands has a point. It gets worse. Junkers can you, or anyone, explain how there can be direct flights from Santiago to Sydney in approx 12-14 hours, and the passengers report flying over the ice floes at the edge of Antarctica?

[rubberbands]

Here's a quick bit of evidence I found: a passenger on a direct flight from Sydney to Santiago (video of takeoff  here) took some pictures of the Antarctic ice that he could see outside the window on the way which you can see here .

Now of course, he could be lying about any one of these things, but why would he? Is he in on the conspiracy?

This further illustrates how unlikely it is for pilots to be totally deceived the way Junker believes -- they can see things like this that give them an indication of where they actually are. Even if their instruments were secretly programmed with FE-consistent maps unbeknownst to the pilot (again, to the best of my understanding, this is junkers explanation), they would certainly be able to tell whether or not they are above land that looks similar to where the navigation system says they are.

Just to be perfectly clear, I have now provided evidence that Junker's "deceived pilot" hypotheses is somewhat implausible. If you want to keep arguing that point, I'm going to want to see some counter-evidence suggesting that pilots really can be successfully deceived on such a massive scale.

[juner]

To be clear, you're claiming a random video is evidence supporting you claim, correct?

[rubberbands]

I'm claiming first, the fact that a person with no clear motivation to lie has posted pictures of Antarctic ice, which he claims to have taken from an airplane enroute from Santiago to Sydney, is evidence that planes actually make that flight, and that that flight passes over Antarctica. This is extremely hard to explain with the typical FE map.

Edit: for more evidence that these flights do happen (something Junker hasn't expressly denied, but others have elsewhere on this site) see this: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/australiasouth-america-airfares-under-pressure-20150422-1mr289.html


Second (and more importantly), this is simply an illustration of the fact that people on airplanes can see where they are a lot of the time, which is a fact that you didn't seem to be accepting. If a passenger can see they're over Antarctica, so can a pilot. And therefore a pilot can tell when they're *not* over Antarctica, but should be. Hence, pilots would have to be exceptionally oblivious or stupid in order to be taken down different paths by their navigation systems, as you seem to suggest.

Just to be sure, it was your argument that pilots blindly follow their GPS and don't actually know where on earth they are, so their GPS could conceivably be taking them on a different route than they expect -- correct?

[juner]

I never stated pilots blindly follow their GPS.

[Wezzoid]

I have an idea for settling this once and for all. 2 methods:

1: A trusted flatearther actually takes the direct flight between Santiago and Sydney and journals everything faithfully; times, regular photos out the windows on both sides. This is expensive but the Society could chip in.

2: Find two trusted flatearth supporters to help, one in Santiago or who can get there, one in Sydney. Get Sydney to find the flight (if it doesn't exist you've won straight away) watch it take off and note it's tail numbers. Get him/her to contact Santiago just before the flight plan says it's going to land; if it doesn't, RE is in trouble.
Cheap fun day project for all involved!

[rubberbands]

Okay, then what did you mean when I asked

Are you suggesting that pilots (and sailors) blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are?

and you replied

That is exactly what I'm suggesting.

Was I misunderstanding you -- were you saying that in response to some other question perhaps? I also haven't considered "GPS" to mean anything significantly different from "computer navigation system" for the purposes of this discussion -- do you consider them to have some difference relevant to the discussion? Otherwise I'm not sure what the difference between this statement and the previous one is. Could you clarify?

@Enlightenmental -- I like the idea, but it seems the FE community (or at least many members of it, including Junker) are not very committed to any one map, so while that would pretty effectively rule out the Azimuthal Equidistant projection as a literal interpretation of how the Earth looks, they could just resort to something else. I will emphasize again, however, that no matter what other map they resort to, it will necessarily have similar problems.

[juner]

I have an idea for settling this once and for all. 2 methods:

1: A trusted flatearther actually takes the direct flight between Santiago and Sydney and journals everything faithfully; times, regular photos out the windows on both sides. This is expensive but the Society could chip in.

2: Find two trusted flatearth supporters to help, one in Santiago or who can get there, one in Sydney. Get Sydney to find the flight (if it doesn't exist you've won straight away) watch it take off and note it's tail numbers. Get him/her to contact Santiago just before the flight plan says it's going to land; if it doesn't, RE is in trouble.
Cheap fun day project for all involved!

I'd be happy to take part if someone wants to arrange it. Thankfully, one of our fellow admins lives in Sydney and I've been meaning to pay him a visit. We just need one more person, and someone to fund and arrange. I can even GoPro the whole session to ensure all is accounted for.

[Wezzoid]

OK junker, can you propose it to the wider community outside this subforum? It'd get more attention coming from you.

[juner]

I'd be happy to propose it. I'm not sure who will listen, though.

[Wezzoid]

Well, give it a try. It's an opportunity to get some real kickass evidence.

[rubberbands]

I like the test idea, but I think at this point any further discussion of it would be better off in another thead.

 Junker, I still want to know why, when I asked

"Are you suggesting that pilots (and sailors) blindly follow their computer navigation systems to get from Point A to Point B and, in the meantime, don't actually have a clue where they are?"

you replied

 "That is exactly what I'm suggesting",

 but when I asked

"Just to be sure, it was your argument that pilots blindly follow their GPS and don't actually know where on earth they are, so their GPS could conceivably be taking them on a different route than they expect -- correct?"

you replied

"I never stated pilots blindly follow their GPS."

The two statements look very similar to me, so I'm wondering what the distinction is that made you say yes to the first and no to the second.

[edited formatting to make it easier to read]

[Hoppy]

How is it possible to orchestrate this 'round earth lie' for so many years among so many different stakeholders with no information leaks whatsoever?

I guess your answer is "That's very easy!", so just let this question for other people to reflect on.

There are information leaks, just because you disregard them doesn't mean they are not there.

[rubberbands]

Hoppy, do you have any examples? (Also, since I'm always interested in seeing the arguments presented by different flat-Earthers, do you have any thoughts on my argument that, if the earth is flat, pilots, along with others, must be in on the conspiracy?)

[andruszkow]

How is it possible to orchestrate this 'round earth lie' for so many years among so many different stakeholders with no information leaks whatsoever?

I guess your answer is "That's very easy!", so just let this question for other people to reflect on.

There are information leaks, just because you disregard them doesn't mean they are not there.

Where? By who?

[rubberbands]

Junker, are you able to answer my question? It's been well over a day and you've posted in response to other people in this thread, but you haven't addressed my most recent question. I feel like we're finally starting to get somewhere in this conversation, so it would be a shame if it just stopped in the middle here.

[juner]

Junker, are you able to answer my question? It's been well over a day and you've posted in response to other people in this thread, but you haven't addressed my most recent question. I feel like we're finally starting to get somewhere in this conversation, so it would be a shame if it just stopped in the middle here.

What is there to answer? They were in fact separate statements.