[Woody]

Seems to me this would be necessary to advance and prove the theory the world is flat.

The measurements are already done of land masses, oceans and distances between them.  At least some of the distances would have to be incorrect if the Earth is flat. For the same reason you can not make a flat map based on the RE model with out using a projection.  Things would be distorted and the measurements would not add up.

If the distances between places do not reflect what is on the RE model then it is evidence the RE model is wrong.

The FE Society or any group wishing to prove the Earth is flat could start out similar to how it happened in history.  Start charting small areas and continue on from there.

I would suggest using data already available, but think many people who believe the world is flat would say it is false.  I would argue I have used that data successfully when I have sailed places using dead reckoning. By which I mean keeping track of my direction, time, and speed of travel.  This suggest at least some of the data is accurate.  I would imagine regularly used shipping lanes and air routes would need to be correct also.  If not fuel use, locations of landmarks and travel times would be inaccurate making pilots and ship captains question the validity of the information on their charts.   

As for why I think the FE Society or any similar group should do this and not go myself or any other group or person who believes the Earth is round?  I just wanted to answer that since I have seen many responses basically saying,"Why should we do _________ to prove the Earth is flat, you go do it". Well we are not making the claim the available data is false so that is the data we use to support the Earth is round.

[CableDawg]

This is related to the ice wall, circumference around the ice wall and lines/degrees of latitude.

I have not seen that FE proponents disagree with the measurement of one degree of latitude being 60 nautical miles or that there are 180 degrees of latitude in general.

With this information the radius of the FE model, from the north pole to the ice wall, would be 10,800 nautical miles.

From this the circumference can be found using a mathematical equation that I believe FE proponents accept, circumference is equal to Pi multiplied by the diameter.

The above measurements allows for a diameter of 21,600 nautical miles which allows for a circumference of 67,858 nautical miles.

This would be a very easy proof for FE proponents, as well as allowing them to accurately map the coast of the ice wall, yet this has never been attempted.

Neither has been attempted because the idea of a FE exists only as that, an idea.  Once the idea is put to verifiable and repeatable tests it falls flat.

[sandokhan]

There is a standard map, the one that I have brought to the FES years ago, the global Piri Reis map:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732

However, the UAFE will only use it when it suits their purposes (namely the southern circumpolar star map threads), and even then, they do not realize that it is incompatible with the solar orbit data posted in the official faq.

[Pete Svarrior]

Please note that sandokhan does not represent the standard Flat Earth Theory, and when he says "standard", he merely means to say that he thinks he's right and other aren't.

[sandokhan]

The standard FET is a total failure: it cannot explain the ring laser gyroscope, beam neutrinos and ham radio measurements threads.

I had to intervene and save the day for the "standard" FES each and every time for the past eight years.

There is only one standard FET: the one that includes the ether physics theory, without which each and every one of you, the UAFE, are clueless and helpless when it comes to explaining ANYTHING, any minute detail, relating to flat earth theory.

[sandokhan]

Now, so that everybody can understand what is going on, here is the ring laser gyroscope thread:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50860.0#.VgUGQ9Kqqko

A total demolition of the UA concept, one of the most beautiful arguments ever posed by the RE.

Yet, our friend sexwarrior says that his proposed theory, the one featured in the official wiki/faq, is the standard theory.


As usual, I had to restore the balance:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1255899#msg1255899



As if this wasn't enough, the RE posted the beam neutrino thread, the most devastating explanation ever launched against the flat earth society:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=27426.0#.VqyoGtJ961s




As usual, I had to restore the balance and provide an explanation (starts on page 12).


If the standard FET is useless in this most important case, why then is it still featured and defended by the other UAFE?


Here is another instance where the official, standard, FET was rendered useless by the RE:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3395.msg76893#msg76893

One very simple question:

How do you explain the measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon by laser beam measurements by astronomical observatories and by the amateur radio operators in their "Moon Bounce" operations of "bouncing" radio signals off the Moon ?

No answer could be provided by the standard theory; again, a most fundamental issue: how do you explain radio waves on a flat earth?

I had to restore the balance, and explain everything again.

[Thork]

One might equally ask, why not one standard view of the round earth?



At least we aren't being dishonest about not being sure. We aren't just making photoshop earths and passing them off as photographs.

[CableDawg]

One might equally ask, why not one standard view of the round earth?



At least we aren't being dishonest about not being sure. We aren't just making photoshop earths and passing them off as photographs.

So you're trying to conflate a standard view of a changeable system with a standard map that is readily accepted by virtually all countries around the world?

[Thork]

The earth is flat. We're just here to help if anyone wants to find that out for themselves.

[Woody]

The earth is flat. We're just here to help if anyone wants to find that out for themselves.

If you want to help I would start by answering questions backed by verifiable data obtained by reproducible experiments. 

By data I mean simple observations like me being able to watch a ship seem to rise above the horizon as it approaches into my view.  Why is that.  In the RE model we have an answer the curvature of the Earth.  Is it a mirage, something weird with how my eyes work that has not been discovered yet?

Why can a see stuff from further away when I am at a higher elevation?  In a flat earth model this should not be true.  What phenonomon is happening that causes this if the Earth is flat?

Why can you not produce a theoretical map that matches up with known distances?  Seems the maps that are based on a round earth have been getting people to where thy are going for a rather long time now.  If the earth is flat then the maps based on a round earth would not work.  I can take a globe of the earth and measure distances between any two places get a map projection and measure the distances and they match.  Why not offer proof this is possible if the world was flat.  All it would take is doing some math and while not proving you are right it will at least offer some evidence that you could be.

How if I am on a flat earth I can not see the sun all the time?  Should be something rather easy to answer with data.  I can buy navigation lights for my boat that have different ranges they can be seen from.  If a company that manufactures bulbs can figure out how far light can been seen and design lights based on data.  Data I am pretty sure the person designing the lights used. Using this data it will allow you to tell people how far away the sun should be visible.  If you are able to prove that if we would not be able to see the sun at a certain distance you just took a huge step in proving that a round Earth and the model of our solar system is just a theory.

How can I take some survey equipment and for some reason if I take measurements those measurements will show what I would expect them to show if I am on a round Earth?  I have seen one answer to this and it was light refraction does not exist, so when I take it into account the data I am getting is wrong.  The problem I have with that is I can conduct some rather simple experiments that prove at the very least light can refract.  I will also like to point out this is something Rowbotham failed to take in to account.

Lets consider Eratosthenes for example.  He was able to determine the circumference of the Earth.  He was able do this using simple observation and math.  I can shine a light on a globe, take two pins and stick them in it, measure the shadows and distance between them, and get an accurate measurement of the circumference.  I can do this time and time again. I can use different size globes, pins, move the light around and be able to get the circumference.  Somehow we can at least with the VERIFIABLE DATA support that he was right.  The math he used would not have returned to correct results if the Earth was flat.

How about explain to me how his method was flawed.  Prove him wrong.  Prove how the math would work both on a flat and round Earth.  Explain how on a flat earth shadows would also be different lengths. 

What causes the phases of the moon?  The answers I have seen it is hollow with light inside, it is a projection or hologram.  Proof?  Well if it was not then it does not support the Earth is flat.

Why can I not see the sun all the time?  What we know about how far light can travel is wrong.  Proof?  Well if what we are told is right then it would not fit into our theory.

Part of the scientific process not only involves looking for things that make your theory right, but also at those things that make it wrong.  There is a whole lot of DATA proving the Earth is not flat.  I have yet to have anyone supporting a flat earth model that was backed by any verifiable data.  The answers I get either just dismiss, call it a hoax, lie, conspiracy, flawed anything that does not support a Flat Earth model.

IMO certain fields are sacrosanct.  The science field is one of those.  It is where people should be able to turn to for answers and truth.  I think it is a crime what I see here.  Not that you think the Earth is flat.  It is when people call themselves an authority on the subject and calling it fact.  What you have is a theory that 2,000+ years of science and advancement suggest is wrong.  A good example most Scientist believe in evolution, yet evolution remains a theory.  Why?  Because they can not disprove or prove somethings.  It will remain a theory until VERIFIABLE answers are given for the questions that remain.

Seriously just publish one thing that supports a FE model that would also not be true for a RE model. 

[Pete Svarrior]

By data I mean simple observations like me being able to watch a ship seem to rise above the horizon as it approaches into my view.  Why is that.  In the RE model we have an answer the curvature of the Earth.  Is it a mirage, something weird with how my eyes work that has not been discovered yet?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Why can a see stuff from further away when I am at a higher elevation?  In a flat earth model this should not be true.  What phenonomon is happening that causes this if the Earth is flat?

It's a combination of a simple perspective effect and the fact that the atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.

Why can you not produce a theoretical map that matches up with known distances?

We can, and we did.

Seems the maps that are based on a round earth have been getting people to where thy are going for a rather long time now.  If the earth is flat then the maps based on a round earth would not work.

That's completely untrue. Most navigators use the Robinson or Mercator projections, neither of which has anything to do with actually representing the Earth's real shape.

Out of curiosity, though, which of the globes posted above by Thork would you use to get your distances from? Which one is the totally real one, and which ones are fake?

How if I am on a flat earth I can not see the sun all the time?  Should be something rather easy to answer with data.

Yeah, read the FAQ.

Lets consider Eratosthenes for example.  He was able to determine the circumference of the Earth.  He was able do this using simple observation and math.  I can shine a light on a globe, take two pins and stick them in it, measure the shadows and distance between them, and get an accurate measurement of the circumference.  I can do this time and time again. I can use different size globes, pins, move the light around and be able to get the circumference.  Somehow we can at least with the VERIFIABLE DATA support that he was right.  The math he used would not have returned to correct results if the Earth was flat.

How about explain to me how his method was flawed.  Prove him wrong.  Prove how the math would work both on a flat and round Earth.  Explain how on a flat earth shadows would also be different lengths. 

ok: https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

What causes the phases of the moon?  The answers I have seen it is hollow with light inside, it is a projection or hologram.  Proof?  Well if it was not then it does not support the Earth is flat.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

No idea who told you that the moon is hollow, or that it's a hologram. Perhaps you should read a bit about FET before going on a massive rant?

Why can I not see the sun all the time?  What we know about how far light can travel is wrong.

What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "how far light can travel". Again, off to the FAQ you go.

Part of the scientific process not only involves looking for things that make your theory right, but also at those things that make it wrong.  There is a whole lot of DATA proving the Earth is not flat.

Would you like to present some of that DATA, or do you just like to talk about how it totally exists?

IMO certain fields are sacrosanct.  The science field is one of those.

Okay, enjoy your religion. We'll continue focusing on things which are actually verifiable, and not suppress healthy scepticism by calling what you were taught in school "sacrosanct".

Seriously just publish one thing that supports a FE model that would also not be true for a RE model. 

ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

[rabinoz]

There is a standard map, the one that I have brought to the FES years ago, the global Piri Reis map: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732 However, the UAFE will only use it when it suits their purposes (namely the southern circumpolar star map threads), and even then, they do not realize that it is incompatible with the solar orbit data posted in the official faq. Your map would be a lot easier to follow if some latitude-longitude lines along with the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn and the Arctic and Antarctic circles. After that is how navigation is done, and with GPS is how we define a point on earth. Without these showing it seems that a flight from say Singapore to Los Angeles over the Pacific would take a weird route as would a flight from Sydney to Santiago.  These might be clarified if lat-long and some distance scale were provided.

[Woody]

By data I mean simple observations like me being able to watch a ship seem to rise above the horizon as it approaches into my view.  Why is that.  In the RE model we have an answer the curvature of the Earth.  Is it a mirage, something weird with how my eyes work that has not been discovered yet?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

Also again we have no data.  Here is what I am talking about:

Ignoring the effect of atmospheric refraction, distance to the horizon from an observer close to the Earth's surface is about

d \approx 3.57\sqrt{h} \,,
where d is in kilometres and h is height above ground level in metres.

Examples:

For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in) (average eye-level height), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).
For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
For an observer standing on a hill or tower of 100 metres (330 ft) in height, the horizon is at a distance of 36 kilometres (22 mi).
For an observer standing at the top of the Burj Khalifa (828 metres (2,717 ft) in height), the horizon is at a distance of 103 kilometres (64 mi).
For an observer atop Mount Everest (8,848 metres (29,029 ft) in altitude), the horizon is at a distance of 336 kilometres (209 mi).

So what you linked are observations with no known distances, height of the observer, height of objects being viewed, conditions nothing reproducible.  That information is needed to validate the claims.
While with on the side of the round Earth model it took me less then 5 seconds to find information that I can use to go out and validate it.

Why can a see stuff from further away when I am at a higher elevation?  In a flat earth model this should not be true.  What phenonomon is happening that causes this if the Earth is flat?

It's a combination of a simple perspective effect and the fact that the atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.

Why can you not produce a theoretical map that matches up with known distances?

We can, and we did.

Can you link it?  Can I use your map to travel from place to place reliably using dead reckoning?  Has the distances been measured and verified?

Seems the maps that are based on a round earth have been getting people to where thy are going for a rather long time now.  If the earth is flat then the maps based on a round earth would not work.

That's completely untrue. Most navigators use the Robinson or Mercator projections, neither of which has anything to do with actually representing the Earth's real shape.

Maps based on a round Earth that need to use those projections because you can not just flatten a globe to make a usable map. If the globe was flat projections would not be needed.

Out of curiosity, though, which of the globes posted above by Thork would you use to get your distances from? Which one is the totally real one, and which ones are fake?

How if I am on a flat earth I can not see the sun all the time?  Should be something rather easy to answer with data.

Yeah, read the FAQ.

Lets consider Eratosthenes for example.  He was able to determine the circumference of the Earth.  He was able do this using simple observation and math.  I can shine a light on a globe, take two pins and stick them in it, measure the shadows and distance between them, and get an accurate measurement of the circumference.  I can do this time and time again. I can use different size globes, pins, move the light around and be able to get the circumference.  Somehow we can at least with the VERIFIABLE DATA support that he was right.  The math he used would not have returned to correct results if the Earth was flat.

How about explain to me how his method was flawed.  Prove him wrong.  Prove how the math would work both on a flat and round Earth.  Explain how on a flat earth shadows would also be different lengths. 

ok: https://wiki.tfes.org/Erathostenes_on_Diameter

Why were the shadows different lengths?  He did not get the circumference by measuring the distance between two places and noting where the sun was.  He measured the shadows and the distance between the two sticks.

Please explain the formula used.  Why is 25*500*2?

Why does is the sun only capable of illuminating a circle with a 25,000 NM diameter?

What causes the phases of the moon?  The answers I have seen it is hollow with light inside, it is a projection or hologram.  Proof?  Well if it was not then it does not support the Earth is flat.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Phases_of_the_Moon

Take this information you linked and then explain why I can not see the sun all the time.  If the sun can illuminate the moon in your model then it stands to reason I should be able to see the sun at night.  Even if it does not illuminate where I am. Similar to when you see a car's headlights approach.  They may not illuminating the area I am at but I can see them as the car approaches.  In your model the sun illuminates the moon but I can not see it.

No idea who told you that the moon is hollow, or that it's a hologram. Perhaps you should read a bit about FET before going on a massive rant?

I will admit I do not know all the FE theories, but that is the answers I have been guided to so far said.

Why can I not see the sun all the time?  What we know about how far light can travel is wrong.

What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "how far light can travel". Again, off to the FAQ you go.

Of course the distance of how far light can travel and be observed needs to be determined.  In a FE model there has to be a limit it can travel or everyone would experience day and night at the same time.  If the earth is flat and it is light on one part of the world and dark in another light needs to behave differently then it does in the RE model and what is generally accepted.  Am I missing something?  There are several theories on different models is there a model where the sun is not about 3,000 miles above the Earth?  Is there a model where it would can be hidden by things like mountains or obstructed in any other way?

Part of the scientific process not only involves looking for things that make your theory right, but also at those things that make it wrong.  There is a whole lot of DATA proving the Earth is not flat.

Would you like to present some of that DATA, or do you just like to talk about how it totally exists?

Sure:

1. Can see varying constellations form different parts of the Earth

2. Gravity

4. Sunsets and Rises.  They do not happen in a FE model. No it is not explained because the Sun moves away it only appears to go below the horizon.  If that were true it would also appear to shrink in size or in your model the sun changes size.

5. Lunar and solar eclipses. Why not use one of your models and predict when the next one will be and where on the the planet it can be observed?

6. Observations of other planets and their moons. Why would Earth be different?

7. I witnessed the sun set today and only the bottom of the clouds were illuminated. Should not happen on a flat earth.

8. I use and have used celestial navigation successfully to determine my location as have sailors though out history.  It uses math based on on the earth being round if the Earth was flat it would not work.

9. The higher I am the further away I can see things as well as other people. That is why sailing ships had crows nest to spot land and other things further away then people on deck could.

10. Shadows getting longer and shorter at different times of the year. In the FE models I am aware of this should not happen unless the sun in one of those models changes altitude.

11. Seasons. I see the explanation for the FE model but no data again. Nothing supporting it except it would have to be something like this for Earth to be flat with seasons.

12. It is dark where I am right now and light somewhere else in the world. Have you witnessed someone use a flashlight?  You can see it regardless if it is illuminating the area you are in or not.  Which suggest that I should be able to see some hint of the sun right now if I look out my window.  Why can I not? Is what we are told about how far light is visible wrong?

13. I can use maps based on the RE model to reliably get distance and direction.  I can get estimated trip times and have that estimate be correct time and time again. Where is a FE map that I can use?

14. Space Flight I have observed the ISS and Satellites  through a telescope.  You can do the same thing. In your model these things would either need to holograms/projections or friction and what ever force you have that is like gravity would degrade their altitude. Actullay what is the theory that explains what is keeping the sun and mun from hitting the Earth in a FE model?  Is there one?

15. Observing weather patterns.  The FAQ has some of the things that effect weather listed but leaves out things that have a rather important affect on it.  Again ignoring things that do not fit the model of a FE.

16. Tides

17. Volcanoes.  Where is the data?  It exist for evidence the Earth is round with a molten core.
   
18. Seismic activity. http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/earth_int.htm See how DATA is given in this summary? Why are there not more things like this for FE theory that show DATA and not speculation?
 

IMO certain fields are sacrosanct.  The science field is one of those.

Okay, enjoy your religion. We'll continue focusing on things which are actually verifiable, and not suppress healthy scepticism by calling what you were taught in school "sacrosanct".

OK then verify with DATA, EVIDENCE, RESEARCH showing how you came to conclusions and your theories,REPRODUCIBLE EXPERIMENTS, offer evidence that NASA is part of a conspiracy.  Nothing you have linked me to is verifiable.  All it is we think the Earth is flat anything that does not support or theory is wrong.   Similar to the Bedford experiment and the wager with Wallace who correctly guessed why Rowbothan was getting the results he was.  Wallace being an experienced surveyor realized Rowobothan did not take density gradients of the air into consideration.  Wallace won the bet and lost a court case to get his winnings since wagers were not considered a legally binding contract.

Surveyors today still need to account for this and have very reliable tables to use.  You can go and do it yourself anyone can go out and give compelling evidence that the Earth is flat or round.  Why have there not been extensive research done by the FE society?  This would be a really easy and relatively inexpensive endeavor.  Go out side, do it, publish the results explaining your methods so it can be reproduced.  Viola you have evidence backed by real data that can be scrutinized and either supported or flaws pointed out with your method.  That is how you get a theory to be recognized and looked further into by others.  Just saying you are right, ignoring evidence to the contrary does not advance your theory.  It actually holds you back from discovery.

Seriously just publish one thing that supports a FE model that would also not be true for a RE model. 

ok: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Anomalies_and_discrepancies

You linked me to something basically saying there is something that effects gravity and we are not sure what it is.  It does not refute gravity, suggest it does not exist or we are completely wrong about it.

I agree not everything is known, I do not even put a FE out of the realm of possibility.  There is a whole lot of data and evidence that suggest it is in fact round.  What I put faith in is God and data.

If you think the information provided in the wiki, on this forum, and other places is substantiated evidence worthy of being called fact IMO you really need to reconsider.

[Thork]

What I put faith in is God and data.

I respect your right to believe anything you like. But do you not see the irony of that belief system. Where is the data for God? Where does God tell you to believe in data?

I might add almost all the data you get given is manipulated to give the result required. Take Climate change. We keep being told the world is warming up. And they provide data. But the data itself is fabricated, so what should you believe?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

Both data and God are things you learned from other men ... men with agendas. It is why we subscribe to the Zetetic Method.

[Saddam Hussein]

Climategate was a lousy manufactroversy that was debunked almost the moment it was first reported on.  But that's not the point.  The answer to the OP is simply that we have very limited time and resources, and can't be sending out expeditions to properly measure the continents and so on.  It would be great if we could, but for now, the best we can offer are our rough hypothetical maps.

[Pete Svarrior]

Woody, your most recent post is outright unreadable. You've jumbled up the things I said with your responses. Please re-format it if you expect me to actually go through it.

[rabinoz]

...............................................................

The answer to the OP is simply that we have very limited time and resources, and can't be sending out expeditions to properly measure the continents and so on.  It would be great if we could, but for now, the best we can offer are our rough hypothetical maps.

Mapping the Earth

You say that the TFES "can't be sending out expeditions to properly measure the continents and so on." That is understandable, but I simply cannot see why this is needed.

The early European seafarers from say Vasco da Gama and Ferdinand Magellan on, gradually built up data on the coordinates (latitude-longitude) of the various continents. Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.

Now, this data represents the shape and locations of most places on the real earth (flat or globe).

What I simply cannot understand is why the flat earth believers feel the need to repeat this huge amount of work in order to draw a "flat earth map". The locations have moved (more than an insignificant amount) since they were mapped?

With this data I would think that a rudimentary map could be fairly readily produced. I imagine the databases for this data is available.

In all this discussion,
I have assumed that locations on the flat earth are still identified by latitude and longitude and that these can still be determined by celectial and solar fixes. That is certainly the impression that I get from Rowbotham and from Tom Bishop's writings in the resurrected "archives".

[rabinoz]

One might equally ask, why not one standard view of the round earth? At least we aren't being dishonest about not being sure. We aren't just making photoshop earths and passing them off as photographs. I am no photo expert, but just why do any have to be fake.  They are purported to be photos of a Globe Earth.  In a single photo the area of a globe shown depends entirely in the distance away the camera was at the time (Perspective 101). Without knowing the focal length of the lens (or cropping done) there is no easy way of knowing. The images below show North America taken from simulated distances of 4,500 and 21,500 miles, showing quite different coverage. Then the orientation and continents shown will obviously depend on what part of the globe photographed and camera orientation.

North America - 4500 miles

North America - 21500 miles

So, no unless you get a forensic examiner onto the photos you may not know which are fakes, but all are quite feasible.
And, does NASA use Photoshop?  Maybe not Photoshop, but probably something similar to "pretty up" the photos, such as improve contrast and colour saturation.  Certainly a lot of earlier photos were stitched from low earth orbit satellite photos!  A distance of about the altitude of Geostationary satellites is needed to get even most of one hemisphere (say Eastern - over Japan, Australia and the South Pacific)

[Tom Bishop]

Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.

You put too much faith in map mapers and explorers. It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years RE maps depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States, despite being one of the most important frontiers and discoveries in the world at that time.

[rabinoz]

Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.

You put too much faith in map mapers and explorers. It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years RE maps depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States, despite being one of the most important frontiers and discoveries in the world at that time.

Oh, come I am hardly suggesting you use 300 year old maps.  It is now 2016 and the world has progressed since Rowbotham!
Of course you would pick up-to-date data - pre NASA if you must, but even by 1900 maps at least had good shapes for the continents.
Mind you, maps of Australia of 150 years ago are far closer to the shape of Australia I know than ANY FE map I have seen yet!

I fail to see how a movement that many (maybe not you, yourself) seem to think will "sweep the world" in the near future can be taken seriously with no accurate flat earth map for navigators, etc, to use.