-
Hello so-and-so
This is the distance on the google map from Beijing to New Delhi about 3700-3800 kms.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e02fc3d.jpg)
And this is the distance on the google map from Shangai to New Delhi about 4200 kms.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/1c06f22.jpg)
As we see that google saying us that Beijing to New Delhi is closer than Shangai to New Delhi. But the truth is saying opposite!
There is only one fly from beijing to New Delhi, the others are indirect. Look at the pictures.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/b1b275d.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/171861a.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/186ea55.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/18c04ac.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/19354b6.jpg)
As we see that that only one plane flying with about 1.100 kms route mistake. This caused by the map is wrong.
Lets see the other route: Shangai to New Delhi:
And the bomb is:
Google saying that Beijing-New Delhi distance is closer than Shangai-New Delhi route but planes usually standstill on Shangai when they are going to New Delhi from Beijing.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/19aa1ed.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/1a5c49a.jpg)
Care about the route: From Beijing to New Delhi stops on the Shangai. If Beijing-New Delhi is shorter than Shangai-New Delhi, Should not it be the opposite ? ;D
-
This is the distance on the google map from Beijing to New Delhi about 3700-3800 kms.
And this is the distance on the google map from Shangai to New Delhi about 4200 kms.
As we see that google saying us that Beijing to New Delhi is closer than Shangai to New Delhi. But the truth is saying opposite!
As we see that that only one plane flying with about 1.100 kms route mistake. This caused by the map is wrong.
And the bomb is:
Google saying that Beijing-New Delhi distance is closer than Shangai-New Delhi route but planes usually standstill on Shangai when they are going to New Delhi from Beijing.
Care about the route: From Beijing to New Delhi stops on the Shangai. If Beijing-New Delhi is shorter than Shangai-New Delhi, Should not it be the opposite ? ;D
Nope, it should not, and here's why: while the GREAT CIRCLE distance to Beijing is shorter than the GREAT CIRCLE distance to Shanghai, the FLIGHT distance is not. Because the airplanes have to fly around the enormous mountains in Nepal and Bhutan!! They're pretty big, better to go around than to try and go over.
Consider the analogy of driving distance. The GREAT CIRCLE distance from Green Bay Wisconsin to Eau Claire (171.5 miles) is about 60 miles longer than the GREAT CIRCLE distance from Green Bay to Traverse City Michigan (119 miles), but the DRIVING distance of 193 miles is nearly 60 miles shorter because you don't have to go around the geographic obstacle of Lake Michigan. Same thing with the mountains in Nepal.
-
This is the distance on the google map from Beijing to New Delhi about 3700-3800 kms.
And this is the distance on the google map from Shangai to New Delhi about 4200 kms.
As we see that google saying us that Beijing to New Delhi is closer than Shangai to New Delhi. But the truth is saying opposite!
As we see that that only one plane flying with about 1.100 kms route mistake. This caused by the map is wrong.
And the bomb is:
Google saying that Beijing-New Delhi distance is closer than Shangai-New Delhi route but planes usually standstill on Shangai when they are going to New Delhi from Beijing.
Care about the route: From Beijing to New Delhi stops on the Shangai. If Beijing-New Delhi is shorter than Shangai-New Delhi, Should not it be the opposite ? ;D
Nope, it should not, and here's why: while the GREAT CIRCLE distance to Beijing is shorter than the GREAT CIRCLE distance to Shanghai, the FLIGHT distance is not. Because the airplanes have to fly around the enormous mountains in Nepal and Bhutan!! They're pretty big, better to go around than to try and go over.
Consider the analogy of driving distance. The GREAT CIRCLE distance from Green Bay Wisconsin to Eau Claire (171.5 miles) is about 60 miles longer than the GREAT CIRCLE distance from Green Bay to Traverse City Michigan (119 miles), but the DRIVING distance of 193 miles is nearly 60 miles shorter because you don't have to go around the geographic obstacle of Lake Michigan. Same thing with the mountains in Nepal.
You are wrong.
It is not needed to across the high mountains.
The planes are flying about 30.000-40.000 feets already higher than the highest mountain on the world.
-
You are wrong.
It is not needed to across the high mountains.
The planes are flying about 30.000-40.000 feets already higher than the highest mountain on the world.
They avoid flying over the Himalayas for safety reasons. The main reason is that it is impossible to decrease to a safe altitude in case of depressurization.
All these threads about indirect flight paths are completely irrelevant. There are many reasons not to take a direct flight path. Some reasons include:
1. Available emergency landing sites
2. Weather, turbulence, jet streams
3. Military no-fly zones
4. Airspace agreements between countries
5. Air traffic routing
6. Radar coverage
-
You are wrong.
It is not needed to across the high mountains.
The planes are flying about 30.000-40.000 feets already higher than the highest mountain on the world.
They avoid flying over the Himalayas for safety reasons. The main reason is that it is impossible to decrease to a safe altitude in case of depressurization.
All these threads about indirect flight paths are completely irrelevant. There are many reasons not to take a direct flight path. Some reasons include:
1. Available emergency landing sites
2. Weather, turbulence, jet streams
3. Military no-fly zones
4. Airspace agreements between countries
5. Air traffic routing
6. Radar coverage
I don't see ambulance on the road to your home. If there is, NASA need it.
-
Hello so-and-so
THE MAPS ARE NOT WRONG! These posts are doing NOTHING to debunk Google Maps at ALL
They just make YOU look an ignorant know-it-all!
The routes the airlines choose to fly are determined by many factors that have nothing to do with Google (or OpenStreetMaps - the maps used by FlightAware!): - Political situation with Nepal, Tibet, China being quite touchy.
- High mountains - Himalayas.
- Distance from emergency services.
- Prevailing winds.
And probably many other factors that I am not aware of.
Airlines do not usually fly the shortest distance, they fly what they consider the best routes taking into consideration costs, safety, flight regulations, etc
These factors have nothing to do with the mapmakers and the sooner you realise it the better!
Just stop making yourself look so silly is the eyes of everyone reading these posts. If you want to argue Flat Earth/Globe then do that, but these posts of yours don't help your cause at all!
-
Hello so-and-so
THE MAPS ARE NOT WRONG! These posts are doing NOTHING to debunk Google Maps at ALL
They just make YOU look an ignorant know-it-all!
The routes the airlines choose to fly are determined by many factors that have nothing to do with Google (or OpenStreetMaps - the maps used by FlightAware!): - Political situation with Nepal, Tibet, China being quite touchy.
- High mountains - Himalayas.
- Distance from emergency services.
- Prevailing winds.
And probably many other factors that I am not aware of.
Airlines do not usually fly the shortest distance, they fly what they consider the best routes taking into consideration costs, safety, flight regulations, etc
These factors have nothing to do with the mapmakers and the sooner you realise it the better!
Just stop making yourself look so silly is the eyes of everyone reading these posts. If you want to argue Flat Earth/Globe then do that, but these posts of yours don't help your cause at all!
Take this post my sweet troll. :D
We see that Taiwan is incorrect placed. So we can find out where is it?
Just we needed correct the lines before they broken.
This is China To Taiwan corrected route:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/5392eb3.jpg)
This is from Vietnam to Taiwan route:
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/CAL782/history/20160418/0350Z/VVTS/RCTP
(https://i.imgsafe.org/806620e.jpg)
It's matched with the place that we found from route of China-Taiwan . How interesting. ;)
This is our 3rd trying another route to Taiwan. Istanbul to Taiwan. Go Turkish Airlines. :)
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/THY24/history/20160416/2320Z/LTBA/RCTP
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e7d0bf5.jpg)
Bingo. It's matched with others.
Try another one, Emirates from Dubai.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/c308aa1.jpg)
It's matched too. Thanks Arab brothers. ;D
This route from Hong Kong to Taiwan. This is one of the shortest airport to Taipei.
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/EVA802/history/20160417/0520Z/VMMC/RCTP
(https://i.imgsafe.org/0692c34.jpg)
Again it's matches with our result. Taiwan is in the same place!
Yes we got it!
As we see that Taiwan is actually on the place about 100-200 kms or above on the East and a few turned. This is the true life. Accept or not. The map is wrong. But planes flying true.
Please don't shouted slogans. How i'm talking with scientific way, please you use it too. :)
-
Please don't shouted slogans. How i'm talking with scientific way, please you use it too. :)
Please explain exactly what you are doing. From the little bit you write I have no idea at all of why you say Taiwan is in the wrong place. You do not say WHY you change the route from what the airline says. In any case, why is that a map problem? Where the airline sends its planes is their concern, nothing that the mapmakers can do about it.
But really, if Taiwan is in the wrong place on the maps, don't you think that thousands of people would have complained long ago!
You claim you are doing a "Google map debunk". You are not BECAUSE:
The map you are using in FlightAware is NOT a GOOGLE map.
Just look on the maps itself: - © 2016 FlightAware
- © OpenStreetMap contributors
- Weather: 28/04/2016 10:25
Look on your own maps. The same annotation is there!
You simply do not understand the factors that go into airline routing. We have tried to explain it to you but you take no notice.
But please believe us airlines rarely take the shortest route!
Now I am not shouting, but the maps are not wrong, neither OpenStreetMaps (the maps FlightAware use) nor Google Maps (that you only used to find the shortest distances).
-
Science saying opposite your talking.
Measure, test, calculate,...etc These methods show us the place of Taiwan is wrong. You are kidding to our mind.
-
Please don't shouted slogans. How i'm talking with scientific way, please you use it too. :)
Please explain exactly what you are doing. From the little bit you write I have no idea at all of why you say Taiwan is in the wrong place. You do not say WHY you change the route from what the airline says. In any case, why is that a map problem? Where the airline sends its planes is their concern, nothing that the mapmakers can do about it.
But really, if Taiwan is in the wrong place on the maps, don't you think that thousands of people would have complained long ago!
You claim you are doing a "Google map debunk". You are not BECAUSE:
The map you are using in FlightAware is NOT a GOOGLE map.
Just look on the maps itself: - © 2016 FlightAware
- © OpenStreetMap contributors
- Weather: 28/04/2016 10:25
Look on your own maps. The same annotation is there!
You simply do not understand the factors that go into airline routing. We have tried to explain it to you but you take no notice.
But please believe us airlines rarely take the shortest route!
Now I am not shouting, but the maps are not wrong, neither OpenStreetMaps (the maps FlightAware use) nor Google Maps (that you only used to find the shortest distances).
Is every problem continuously occurs on Asia and rarely occurs on Europe?
Look how is the routes on Europe is flat?
If you want to go to Athens from Amsterdam, you are almost certainly follow a straight line like this:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/f8ab9f5.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/f8ede10.jpg)
Did you see how is it a flat route? Didn't you?
So lets look another route. We want to go to Moscow from paris because they usually defend themselves partners.
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/AFL2461/history/20160428/2135Z/LFPG/UUEE
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/AFR1144/history/20160428/1730Z/LFPG/UUEE
(https://i.imgsafe.org/cf7ce32.jpg)
There is another one.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/d236d23.jpg)
there is another one.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/d0cca8e.jpg)
Did you see how flat is it? Didn't you? Ok.
We Turks like to go Germany so i want to look the route from istanbul to Berlin.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/62ab687.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/625446b.jpg)
Did you see how the routes like the other and how is it a flat line?
Now look to Shangai to Taipei in Asia.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e2f1b28.jpg)
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e3ac774.jpg)
Accept that the pilots are usually want to go on straight route as a line and nobody want to draw an "S".
But you want to deceive us. Shame on you mister shame on you!
-
Accept that the pilots are usually want to go on straight route as a line and nobody want to draw an "S".
In my experience, there is often a difference in the real world between what people WANT to do, and what they are ALLOWED to do. Such is the case here. The government of China is not to be trifled with. Well, OK, any government for that matter, but I think we can all agree that China is a special case. And when China says "No flying here, you must fly around", you know what you do?
You take your plane, and you FLY IT AROUND!!!
Flooding us with more and more and more and more and more and more maps will not convince us.
Is every problem continuously occurs on Asia and rarely occurs on Europe?
I think it is fair to say that whatever the current tensions are in Europe, they do not compare to tensions in Asia.
-
I think it is fair to say that whatever the current tensions are in Europe, they do not compare to tensions in Asia.
I think NASA (or google) started to map from Europe to Asia. So the mistakes started with 0 and inreased increased, at the end of the map is east Asia is completely wrong. Because the map shape and the earth shape isin't same. This is basic and understandable.
-
I think NASA (or google) started to map from Europe to Asia.
Those are both American organizations, why would they start in Europe?
So the mistakes started with 0 and increased at the end of the map is east Asia is completely wrong.
I disagree on that point, but for the sake of arguement, I'll indulge it for a moment to ask: if the map of Asia is completely wrong, why is it only you who seems to have noticed? Out of all the billions of people in the world, including millions of people actually LIVING IN ASIA, only you have noticed the map being 'completely wrong'? It can't be that lots of people have noticed but they've been silenced by (fill in your boogieman here), because if that were true then (boogieman) would have silenced YOU as well. But here you are, quite vocal, not silent.
-
I think it is fair to say that whatever the current tensions are in Europe, they do not compare to tensions in Asia.
I think NASA (or google) started to map from Europe to Asia. So the mistakes started with 0 and inreased increased, at the end of the map is east Asia is completely wrong. Because the map shape and the earth shape isin't same. This is basic and understandable.
I keep telling you that the map used by FlightAware is NOT GOOGLE and NOT NASA. The maps are from OpenStreetMap, and the information is "crowd sourced", meaning it is added to and corrected by input from private contributions.
Nevertheless these maps agree not only with Google maps, but with atlases 50 years old and maps that were made more than a century ago, long before your pet bogeymen were even thought of.
The maps are not wrong!
-
Also, are these direct flights? This is a commercial airline trying to make money, I'm sure the roundabout routes are to make stops at other airports along the way. Pretty sure there isn't anyone getting on in the middle of a mountain range...
-
Also, are these direct flights? This is a commercial airline trying to make money, I'm sure the roundabout routes are to make stops at other airports along the way. Pretty sure there isn't anyone getting on in the middle of a mountain range...
Yes, these are direct flights, not multi-hop routes. And we have given the reasons (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1738594/beijing-tests-flights-disputed-m503-air-route-over-taiwan-strait) and other reasons (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4949.msg95563#msg95563) for the longer-than-minimum flight paths, it's just that İntikam does not accept those reasons.
-
Also, are these direct flights? This is a commercial airline trying to make money, I'm sure the roundabout routes are to make stops at other airports along the way. Pretty sure there isn't anyone getting on in the middle of a mountain range...
Yes, these are direct flights, not multi-hop routes. And we have given the reasons (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1738594/beijing-tests-flights-disputed-m503-air-route-over-taiwan-strait) and other reasons (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4949.msg95563#msg95563) for the longer-than-minimum flight paths, it's just that İntikam does not accept those reasons.
Safety seems like the easiest to grasp, don't want to have an accident and people eating each other to survive again because they are crashed in a mountain somewhere.
-
Also, are these direct flights? This is a commercial airline trying to make money, I'm sure the roundabout routes are to make stops at other airports along the way. Pretty sure there isn't anyone getting on in the middle of a mountain range...
Yes, these are direct flights, not multi-hop routes. And we have given the reasons (http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1738594/beijing-tests-flights-disputed-m503-air-route-over-taiwan-strait) and other reasons (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4949.msg95563#msg95563) for the longer-than-minimum flight paths, it's just that İntikam does not accept those reasons.
Safety seems like the easiest to grasp, don't want to have an accident and people eating each other to survive again because they are crashed in a mountain somewhere.
Certainly in all these cases safety seems to be the obvious reason. Look at Malaysian Airlines MH17. They took the short route.
In the New Delhi to Beijing case the direct route is over the Himalayas (high and rugged) and over Tibet (rugged and politically unstable). The route flown carefully avoided all this.
What İntikam cannot accept is that the actual distance flown has nothing to do with the maps - ALL the maps agree, even old ones (pre-NASA!).
Imagine claiming the map is wrong because a ship logged 2,500 km instead of 2,000 km!
What is absolutely unbelievable is that all the FEers seem to swallow this stuff! At least they do not correct him.
I do not hesitate to correct a Globe earth follower who is giving incorrect arguments either for the Globe earth or against the Flat earth.
Mind I have been chided (by a FEer) for doing it!
-
Look how is it a perfect route.
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/ETH604
(https://i.imgsafe.org/833bed4.jpg)
Look to tracklog:
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/ETH604/history/20160430/2310Z/HAAB/ZBAA/tracklog
The plane flying at 39.000 feets like planes usually flying.
Why the plane goes up the Everest? Because the highest point of Himalayas is the Mount Everest is 28.900 feet, and the average altitute of planes is 39.000 feet. So there is no danger for planes.
-
Look how is it a perfect route.
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/ETH604
(https://i.imgsafe.org/833bed4.jpg)
Look to tracklog:
https://tr.flightaware.com/live/flight/ETH604/history/20160430/2310Z/HAAB/ZBAA/tracklog
The plane flying at 39.000 feets like planes usually flying.
Why the plane goes up the Everest? Because the highest point of Himalayas is the Mount Everest is 28.900 feet, and the average altitute of planes is 39.000 feet. So there is no danger for planes.
YOU might think YOU know the perfect route, but airlines fly the best route for themselves, taking account of safety, fuel use and government restrictions.
And of course I am guessing!
Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly.
There might be a lot more to it than simply the height of the mountains. You will note that the route taken keep the planes from overflying Tibet. Possibly there are few emergency facilities in Tibet, but I imagine that is a policy of the PRC government! Nothing to do with maps, flat earth or conspiracies.
Why don't you ask the airlines WHY they fly those routes, because it has nothing to do with me, you or TFES!
-
Even better, after you ask and they give the answer post it here and then we can have a real debate.
-
Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly.
Of course you can't. That'd require you to accept the truth.
Also, stop abusing formatting. Thanks.
There might be a lot more to it than simply the height of the mountains.
Yeah, like the Earth being flat.
Why don't you ask the airlines WHY they fly those routes, because it has nothing to do with me, you or TFES!
How do you know this for a fact?
-
Why don't you ask the airlines WHY they fly those routes, because it has nothing to do with me, you or TFES!
How do you know this for a fact?
Because until we hear from the airlines themselves why they do it, (whether that explanation is legitimate or complete BS), then anything about these routes is pure speculation. Until we hear the reasoning form the airlines themselves there is no real way to debate why they do it.
-
Because until we hear from the airlines themselves why they do it, (whether that explanation is legitimate or complete BS), then anything about these routes is pure speculation. Until we hear the reasoning form the airlines themselves there is no real way to debate why they do it.
It sounds like you agree with me. rabinoz's horrendously formatted statement about how this "has nothing to do with me, you or TFES" is bogus.
-
Because until we hear from the airlines themselves why they do it, (whether that explanation is legitimate or complete BS), then anything about these routes is pure speculation. Until we hear the reasoning form the airlines themselves there is no real way to debate why they do it.
It sounds like you agree with me. rabinoz's horrendously formatted statement about how this "has nothing to do with me, you or TFES" is bogus.
No I'm agreeing with him. Until this is taken up with the airlines themselves this has nothing to do with anyone but intikam and the airlines. We have a system to these things in our country. You cannot prosecute someone without giving them the opportunity to confront their accuser.
-
No I'm agreeing with him.
That's an interesting double standard. Pure unsubstantiated speculation on rabinoz's part is ok, but it's not ok when İntikam does it. The only possible explanation for such a distortion of intellectual integrity would be that you're somehow benefiting from supporting one, but not the other. Care to state your interests?
-
No I'm agreeing with him.
That's an interesting double standard. Pure unsubstantiated speculation on rabinoz's part is ok, but it's not ok when İntikam does it. The only possible explanation for such a distortion of intellectual integrity would be that you're somehow benefiting from supporting one, but not the other. Care to state your interests?
I actually fail to see why you are having an issues with this. The flight times and routes on their own mean nothing without some context. If we knew from the airlines themselves why they do it then we can could investigate and make sure they are telling the truth. Right now all inkitkam is doing is hand waving and so we offered possible answers to his dilemma that are very probable causes that don't even have to involve the shape of the planet. Since we do not have readily available information on why they do so then it is a moot point. No one is saying it is ok or not ok, just that EVERYTHING about this is pure speculation until he gets the airlines explanation. And since we are not the ones trying to prove something, none of us are going to go out of our way to find out and that is on him.
Now if he comes back with a response from them then I would have no issue with researching it to see if what they say lines up with reality.
-
You appear to have misunderstood something I said. Let me try to rephrase to make sure we're discussing the same subject.
İntikam says the following:
"These flight paths show that something strange is going on - likely to do with the shape of the Earth"
That is a purely speculative statement.
Your view on that statement is:
"This is a purely speculative statement. It is meaningless."
rabinoz then says the following:
"These flight paths have NOTHING to do with TFES!"
That, too, is purely a speculative statement.
I respond to it saying:
"That is a speculative statement. It is meaningless."
Yet you jump to rabinoz's defence.
You therefore defend speculative, meaningless statements when they suit you, but you attack them when they go against you. This is a double standard, and a clear sign of you having a vested interest in either defending rabinoz or attacking İntikam. My question is: which of the two is it, and what benefits do you receive from it?
-
You appear to have misunderstood something I said. Let me try to rephrase to make sure we're discussing the same subject.
İntikam says the following:
"These flight paths show that something strange is going on - likely to do with the shape of the Earth"
That is a purely speculative statement.
Your view on that statement is:
"This is a purely speculative statement. It is meaningless."
rabinoz then says the following:
"These flight paths have NOTHING to do with TFES!"
That, too, is purely a speculative statement.
I respond to it saying:
"That is a speculative statement. It is meaningless."
Yet you jump to rabinoz's defence.
You therefore defend speculative, meaningless statements when they suit you, but you attack them when they go against you. This is a double standard, and a clear sign of you having a vested interest in either defending rabinoz or attacking İntikam. My question is: which of the two is it, and what benefits do you receive from it?
Still failing to you see your issue. It isn't speculation that it has nothing to do with The Flat Earth Society unless you are saying that it somehow has something to do with planning airlines flight paths. It might having something to with Flat Earth Theory but that still has yet to be shown. Until then it has nothing to do with me, you, rab, or this forum.
-
Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly.
Of course you can't. That'd require you to accept the truth.
I don't believe I have seen such a stupid meaningless reply!
I made a quite innocuous statement and absolutely true statement "Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly."
Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense realises that the routes chosen are based on a lot more than just the shortest route.
True, there are routes in the Southern Hemisphere where the Globe and Flat Earth map give vastly different distances and routes, but as far as I know that does not apply on these routes.
Accept what truth? What ever has the routes like this got to do with flat/globe/concave or square earth.
İntikam was trying to prove the maps wrong, yet all the maps agree from Google, OpenStreetMaps back to quite old maps!
Also, stop abusing formatting. Thanks.
I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you don't like my formatting please be a bit more specific!
DO YOU MEAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
There might be a lot more to it than simply the height of the mountains.
Yeah, like the Earth being flat.
Flat/globe or whatever did not enter my head when I replied to İntikam. He is claiming that the pilots are failing in choosing to fly longer routes. I was quite reasonably pointing out that a lot more goes into route planning the simply the shortest distance! But you know better I suppose.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e02fc3d.jpg)
İntikam's Shortest Distance Route | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FlightRadar24%20-%20New%20Delhi%20to%20Beijing%20-%20light_zpsoiy3s6x0.png)
FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing |
On the right is the route actually flown, carefully avoiding the Himalayas and politically sensitive regions, flying over Bangladesh, the northern parts of Myanmar, still crossing a bit of mountainous area before entering the Yunnan province of China.
The route actually flown would seem to be the eminently safer one, though I was at pains to claim the the airlines make the decision not usually the pilots.
Now, I fail to see how my failing to see your truth would have affected my answer in the slightest.
Why don't you ask the airlines WHY they fly those routes, because it has nothing to do with me, you or TFES!
How do you know this for a fact?
What on earth could the choice of airline routes in that part of the world have to do with "me, you or TFES"? You are simply trying to stir of trouble - but I guess that seems to be your main aim in life so go to it.
Early in your post you claimed "That'd require you to accept the truth." Really, what TRUTH? For a start anyone who claims "THE TRUTH" is immediately suspect as an utter bigot!
I am supposed to accept the truth like:
- The FE says the sun rises in the NE in summer! I SEE it rise in the SE!
- The FE says the stars rotate only about Polaris. I SEE the stars rotating around a single point due south[/b]
- The FE model (without a lot of "magic") has the sun and moon drastically change size from rising to setting. I SEE the sun and moon keeping the same size from rising to setting!
- The FE model claims the sun and moon are always some 3,000 miles high! I SEE the sun and moon quite clearly rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon. Just like:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/25%20-%20Sunset%20at%20Barnhill_zpssg7be5xb.jpg)
Sun setting at Barnhill | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/26%20-%20Sunset%20to%20North_zpsytujy348.jpg)
Sun almost set at Barn Hill |
- The FE map has Australia vastly wider than it is high! But I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like the accepted Flat Earth Map!
Just take a look at:
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png) Australia on Gleason's Map | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png) Australia on Google Earth |
Measurement | | Gleason's | Garmin Nav |
West-East 30° Lat | | 8,700 km | 3,700 km |
Cape Yk-Wils Prom | | 3,200 km | 3,200 km |
I can assure you the FE map (yes Gleason's is exactly the same shape as the "UN" map) distances are nothing like reality.
I could go on and on to the more complicated technical stuff like gravity v. UA, Coriolis, tides, Sun and Moon distances, orbits of planets, phases of Venus and Mercury tec, but this will do for now!
Just what TRUTH am I supposed to accept. The stuff you peddle with no REAL evidence or what I see!
Now you can accuse me of abusing formatting, failing to accept the TRUTH and all the othe HEINOUS crimes I am undoubtedly guilty of!
And while you are at it get rid of you stupid idiotic avatar! No, on second thoughts KEEP it, it fits you perfectly, one big p....!
After this rant I expect a few Errors and Omissions, so feel free!
-
Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly.
Of course you can't. That'd require you to accept the truth.
I don't believe I have seen such a stupid meaningless reply!
I made a quite innocuous statement and absolutely true statement "Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly."
Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense realises that the routes chosen are based on a lot more than just the shortest route.
True, there are routes in the Southern Hemisphere where the Globe and Flat Earth map give vastly different distances and routes, but as far as I know that does not apply on these routes.
Accept what truth? What ever has the routes like this got to do with flat/globe/concave or square earth.
İntikam was trying to prove the maps wrong, yet all the maps agree from Google, OpenStreetMaps back to quite old maps!
Also, stop abusing formatting. Thanks.
I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you don't like my formatting please be a bit more specific!
DO YOU MEAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
There might be a lot more to it than simply the height of the mountains.
Yeah, like the Earth being flat.
Flat/globe or whatever did not enter my head when I replied to İntikam. He is claiming that the pilots are failing in choosing to fly longer routes. I was quite reasonably pointing out that a lot more goes into route planning the simply the shortest distance! But you know better I suppose.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e02fc3d.jpg)
İntikam's Shortest Distance Route | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FlightRadar24%20-%20New%20Delhi%20to%20Beijing%20-%20light_zpsoiy3s6x0.png)
FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing |
On the right is the route actually flown, carefully avoiding the Himalayas and politically sensitive regions, flying over Bangladesh, the northern parts of Myanmar, still crossing a bit of mountainous area before entering the Yunnan province of China.
The route actually flown would seem to be the eminently safer one, though I was at pains to claim the the airlines make the decision not usually the pilots.
Now, I fail to see how my failing to see your truth would have affected my answer in the slightest.
Why don't you ask the airlines WHY they fly those routes, because it has nothing to do with me, you or TFES!
How do you know this for a fact?
What on earth could the choice of airline routes in that part of the world have to do with "me, you or TFES"? You are simply trying to stir of trouble - but I guess that seems to be your main aim in life so go to it.
Early in your post you claimed "That'd require you to accept the truth." Really, what TRUTH? For a start anyone who claims "THE TRUTH" is immediately suspect as an utter bigot!
I am supposed to accept the truth like:
- The FE says the sun rises in the NE in summer! I SEE it rise in the SE!
- The FE says the stars rotate only about Polaris. I SEE the stars rotating around a single point due south[/b]
- The FE model (without a lot of "magic") has the sun and moon drastically change size from rising to setting. I SEE the sun and moon keeping the same size from rising to setting!
- The FE model claims the sun and moon are always some 3,000 miles high! I SEE the sun and moon quite clearly rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon. Just like:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/25%20-%20Sunset%20at%20Barnhill_zpssg7be5xb.jpg)
Sun setting at Barnhill | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/26%20-%20Sunset%20to%20North_zpsytujy348.jpg)
Sun almost set at Barn Hill |
- The FE map has Australia vastly wider than it is high! But I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like the accepted Flat Earth Map!
Just take a look at:
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png) Australia on Gleason's Map | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png) Australia on Google Earth |
Measurement | | Gleason's | Garmin Nav |
West-East 30° Lat | | 8,700 km | 3,700 km |
Cape Yk-Wils Prom | | 3,200 km | 3,200 km |
I can assure you the FE map (yes Gleason's is exactly the same shape as the "UN" map) distances are nothing like reality.
I could go on and on to the more complicated technical stuff like gravity v. UA, Coriolis, tides, Sun and Moon distances, orbits of planets, phases of Venus and Mercury tec, but this will do for now!
Just what TRUTH am I supposed to accept. The stuff you peddle with no REAL evidence or what I see!
Now you can accuse me of abusing formatting, failing to accept the TRUTH and all the othe HEINOUS crimes I am undoubtedly guilty of!
And while you are at it get rid of you stupid idiotic avatar! No, on second thoughts KEEP it, it fits you perfectly, one big p....!
After this rant I expect a few Errors and Omissions, so feel free!
you sir, just you're a liar.
-
Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly.
Of course you can't. That'd require you to accept the truth.
I don't believe I have seen such a stupid meaningless reply!
I made a quite innocuous statement and absolutely true statement "Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly."
Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense realises that the routes chosen are based on a lot more than just the shortest route.
True, there are routes in the Southern Hemisphere where the Globe and Flat Earth map give vastly different distances and routes, but as far as I know that does not apply on these routes.
Accept what truth? What ever has the routes like this got to do with flat/globe/concave or square earth.
İntikam was trying to prove the maps wrong, yet all the maps agree from Google, OpenStreetMaps back to quite old maps!
Also, stop abusing formatting. Thanks.
I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you don't like my formatting please be a bit more specific!
DO YOU MEAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
There might be a lot more to it than simply the height of the mountains.
Yeah, like the Earth being flat.
Flat/globe or whatever did not enter my head when I replied to İntikam. He is claiming that the pilots are failing in choosing to fly longer routes. I was quite reasonably pointing out that a lot more goes into route planning the simply the shortest distance! But you know better I suppose.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e02fc3d.jpg)
İntikam's Shortest Distance Route | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FlightRadar24%20-%20New%20Delhi%20to%20Beijing%20-%20light_zpsoiy3s6x0.png)
FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing |
On the right is the route actually flown, carefully avoiding the Himalayas and politically sensitive regions, flying over Bangladesh, the northern parts of Myanmar, still crossing a bit of mountainous area before entering the Yunnan province of China.
The route actually flown would seem to be the eminently safer one, though I was at pains to claim the the airlines make the decision not usually the pilots.
Now, I fail to see how my failing to see your truth would have affected my answer in the slightest.
Why don't you ask the airlines WHY they fly those routes, because it has nothing to do with me, you or TFES!
How do you know this for a fact?
What on earth could the choice of airline routes in that part of the world have to do with "me, you or TFES"? You are simply trying to stir of trouble - but I guess that seems to be your main aim in life so go to it.
Early in your post you claimed "That'd require you to accept the truth." Really, what TRUTH? For a start anyone who claims "THE TRUTH" is immediately suspect as an utter bigot!
I am supposed to accept the truth like:
- The FE says the sun rises in the NE in summer! I SEE it rise in the SE!
- The FE says the stars rotate only about Polaris. I SEE the stars rotating around a single point due south[/b]
- The FE model (without a lot of "magic") has the sun and moon drastically change size from rising to setting. I SEE the sun and moon keeping the same size from rising to setting!
- The FE model claims the sun and moon are always some 3,000 miles high! I SEE the sun and moon quite clearly rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon. Just like:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/25%20-%20Sunset%20at%20Barnhill_zpssg7be5xb.jpg)
Sun setting at Barnhill | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/26%20-%20Sunset%20to%20North_zpsytujy348.jpg)
Sun almost set at Barn Hill |
- The FE map has Australia vastly wider than it is high! But I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like the accepted Flat Earth Map!
Just take a look at:
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png) Australia on Gleason's Map | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png) Australia on Google Earth |
Measurement | | Gleason's | Garmin Nav |
West-East 30° Lat | | 8,700 km | 3,700 km |
Cape Yk-Wils Prom | | 3,200 km | 3,200 km |
I can assure you the FE map (yes Gleason's is exactly the same shape as the "UN" map) distances are nothing like reality.
I could go on and on to the more complicated technical stuff like gravity v. UA, Coriolis, tides, Sun and Moon distances, orbits of planets, phases of Venus and Mercury tec, but this will do for now!
Just what TRUTH am I supposed to accept. The stuff you peddle with no REAL evidence or what I see!
Now you can accuse me of abusing formatting, failing to accept the TRUTH and all the othe HEINOUS crimes I am undoubtedly guilty of!
And while you are at it get rid of you stupid idiotic avatar! No, on second thoughts KEEP it, it fits you perfectly, one big p....!
After this rant I expect a few Errors and Omissions, so feel free!
you sir, just you're a liar.
For a start I was replying to "SexWarrior" (I detest his name) and not YOU, so maybe HE should have been the one to reply not you!
No! Everything I posted was absolutely correct! Before you call someone a liar you need to check your facts!
Rather than simply claiming something like that you really must be able to say where was I wrong in any of that post?
So what about it!
-
Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly.
Of course you can't. That'd require you to accept the truth.
I don't believe I have seen such a stupid meaningless reply!
I made a quite innocuous statement and absolutely true statement "Look we cannot answer for the routes airlines choose to fly."
Anyone with the slightest bit of common sense realises that the routes chosen are based on a lot more than just the shortest route.
True, there are routes in the Southern Hemisphere where the Globe and Flat Earth map give vastly different distances and routes, but as far as I know that does not apply on these routes.
Accept what truth? What ever has the routes like this got to do with flat/globe/concave or square earth.
İntikam was trying to prove the maps wrong, yet all the maps agree from Google, OpenStreetMaps back to quite old maps!
Also, stop abusing formatting. Thanks.
I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. If you don't like my formatting please be a bit more specific!
DO YOU MEAN SOMETHING LIKE THIS?
There might be a lot more to it than simply the height of the mountains.
Yeah, like the Earth being flat.
Flat/globe or whatever did not enter my head when I replied to İntikam. He is claiming that the pilots are failing in choosing to fly longer routes. I was quite reasonably pointing out that a lot more goes into route planning the simply the shortest distance! But you know better I suppose.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/e02fc3d.jpg)
İntikam's Shortest Distance Route | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/FlightRadar24%20-%20New%20Delhi%20to%20Beijing%20-%20light_zpsoiy3s6x0.png)
FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing |
On the right is the route actually flown, carefully avoiding the Himalayas and politically sensitive regions, flying over Bangladesh, the northern parts of Myanmar, still crossing a bit of mountainous area before entering the Yunnan province of China.
The route actually flown would seem to be the eminently safer one, though I was at pains to claim the the airlines make the decision not usually the pilots.
Now, I fail to see how my failing to see your truth would have affected my answer in the slightest.
Why don't you ask the airlines WHY they fly those routes, because it has nothing to do with me, you or TFES!
How do you know this for a fact?
What on earth could the choice of airline routes in that part of the world have to do with "me, you or TFES"? You are simply trying to stir of trouble - but I guess that seems to be your main aim in life so go to it.
Early in your post you claimed "That'd require you to accept the truth." Really, what TRUTH? For a start anyone who claims "THE TRUTH" is immediately suspect as an utter bigot!
I am supposed to accept the truth like:
- The FE says the sun rises in the NE in summer! I SEE it rise in the SE!
- The FE says the stars rotate only about Polaris. I SEE the stars rotating around a single point due south[/b]
- The FE model (without a lot of "magic") has the sun and moon drastically change size from rising to setting. I SEE the sun and moon keeping the same size from rising to setting!
- The FE model claims the sun and moon are always some 3,000 miles high! I SEE the sun and moon quite clearly rising from behind the horizon and setting behind the horizon. Just like:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/25%20-%20Sunset%20at%20Barnhill_zpssg7be5xb.jpg)
Sun setting at Barnhill | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/26%20-%20Sunset%20to%20North_zpsytujy348.jpg)
Sun almost set at Barn Hill |
- The FE map has Australia vastly wider than it is high! But I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like the accepted Flat Earth Map!
Just take a look at:
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png) Australia on Gleason's Map | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png) Australia on Google Earth |
Measurement | | Gleason's | Garmin Nav |
West-East 30° Lat | | 8,700 km | 3,700 km |
Cape Yk-Wils Prom | | 3,200 km | 3,200 km |
I can assure you the FE map (yes Gleason's is exactly the same shape as the "UN" map) distances are nothing like reality.
I could go on and on to the more complicated technical stuff like gravity v. UA, Coriolis, tides, Sun and Moon distances, orbits of planets, phases of Venus and Mercury tec, but this will do for now!
Just what TRUTH am I supposed to accept. The stuff you peddle with no REAL evidence or what I see!
Now you can accuse me of abusing formatting, failing to accept the TRUTH and all the othe HEINOUS crimes I am undoubtedly guilty of!
And while you are at it get rid of you stupid idiotic avatar! No, on second thoughts KEEP it, it fits you perfectly, one big p....!
After this rant I expect a few Errors and Omissions, so feel free!
you sir, just you're a liar.
For a start I was replying to "SexWarrior" (I detest his name) and not YOU, so maybe HE should have been the one to reply not you!
No! Everything I posted was absolutely correct! Before you call someone a liar you need to check your facts!
Rather than simply claiming something like that you really must be able to say where was I wrong in any of that post?
So what about it!
You are continuesly doing same thing.
I'm repliying you but richarddis answering. I'm replying richarddis but Captain Magpie answer.
If you do that like that, you have no right to criticize me mister!
The measuremants turning around Antarctica about 40.000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape. You know this truth but hiding. So you are a liar.
-
Hey, İntikam? Rabinoz? You do know it is not necessary to quote entire replies, right?. You can either edit them down, as you can see from many of my replies, or you could simply reply without quoting. We will be able to follow the conversation, I promise you.
-
The FE map has Australia vastly wider than it is high! But I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like the accepted Flat Earth Map!
Just take a look at:
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png) Australia on Gleason's Map | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png) Australia on Google Earth |
Measurement | | Gleason's | Garmin Nav |
West-East 30° Lat | | 8,700 km | 3,700 km |
Cape Yk-Wils Prom | | 3,200 km | 3,200 km |
I can assure you the FE map (yes Gleason's is exactly the same shape as the "UN" map) distances are nothing like reality.
you sir, just you're a liar.
For a start I was replying to "SexWarrior" (I detest his name) and not YOU, so maybe HE should have been the one to reply not you!
No! Everything I posted was absolutely correct! Before you call someone a liar you need to check your facts!
Rather than simply claiming something like that you really must be able to say where was I wrong in any of that post?
So what about it!
You are continuesly doing same thing.
I'm repliying you but richarddis answering. I'm replying richarddis but Captain Magpie answer.
If you do that like that, you have no right to criticize me mister!
The measuremants turning around Antarctica about 40.000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape. You know this truth but hiding. So you are a liar.
No, as you very well know I (along with almost everyone else on the earth) believe the earth is a Globe and I am allowed my beliefs.
I have no idea where your 40,000 miles around Aantarctica comes from! It does not seem to fit with ANY Flat Earth or Globe map that I have ever seen.
So NO, I am NOT lying!
Your measurement of the circumference around "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape" does not show ANY world shape I have ever seen!
On the "accepted Flat Earth Map" the circumference at the equator is roughly 40,000 miles (39,270 miles is closer), but around Antarctica S 60° the circumference on that map would be about 65,450 miles.
See the map on the right! Where do you get that 40,000 mile measurement from? The only measurement near 40,000 miles on that is the circumference of the equator, NOT Antarctica - that is quite a different thing!
So, please make sure YOU know what YOU are talking about before YOU accuse ANYONE of LYING!
I could be mistaken, I could be wrong, but I do not think so, but what I am telling you is what I believe!
But, remember that I do NOT accept that the earth is flat! I honestly believe it is a Globe, and I have a lot of evidence to support that. | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Ice%20Ring%20Map%20Circumferences_zpssqfav1fe.png)
Ice Ring Map, Circumferences |
-
The FE map has Australia vastly wider than it is high! But I know the size and shape of Australia, I have driven over most of it. It is nothing like the accepted Flat Earth Map!
Just take a look at:
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/1892-new-standard-map-Australia_zpsbjox1mgg.png) Australia on Gleason's Map | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Australia%20on%20Google%20Earth_zpsy1w9phhs.png) Australia on Google Earth |
Measurement | | Gleason's | Garmin Nav |
West-East 30° Lat | | 8,700 km | 3,700 km |
Cape Yk-Wils Prom | | 3,200 km | 3,200 km |
I can assure you the FE map (yes Gleason's is exactly the same shape as the "UN" map) distances are nothing like reality.
you sir, just you're a liar.
For a start I was replying to "SexWarrior" (I detest his name) and not YOU, so maybe HE should have been the one to reply not you!
No! Everything I posted was absolutely correct! Before you call someone a liar you need to check your facts!
Rather than simply claiming something like that you really must be able to say where was I wrong in any of that post?
So what about it!
You are continuesly doing same thing.
I'm repliying you but richarddis answering. I'm replying richarddis but Captain Magpie answer.
If you do that like that, you have no right to criticize me mister!
The measuremants turning around Antarctica about 40.000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape. You know this truth but hiding. So you are a liar.
No, as you very well know I (along with almost everyone else on the earth) believe the earth is a Globe and I am allowed my beliefs.
I have no idea where your 40,000 miles around Aantarctica comes from! It does not seem to fit with ANY Flat Earth or Globe map that I have ever seen.
So NO, I am NOT lying!
Your measurement of the circumference around "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape" does not show ANY world shape I have ever seen!
On the "accepted Flat Earth Map" the circumference at the equator is roughly 40,000 miles (39,270 miles is closer), but around Antarctica S 60° the circumference on that map would be about 65,450 miles.
See the map on the right! Where do you get that 40,000 mile measurement from? The only measurement near 40,000 miles on that is the circumference of the equator, NOT Antarctica - that is quite a different thing!
So, please make sure YOU know what YOU are talking about before YOU accuse ANYONE of LYING!
I could be mistaken, I could be wrong, but I do not think so, but what I am telling you is what I believe!
But, remember that I do NOT accept that the earth is flat! I honestly believe it is a Globe, and I have a lot of evidence to support that. | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Ice%20Ring%20Map%20Circumferences_zpssqfav1fe.png)
Ice Ring Map, Circumferences |
As you know that i'm not reading and answering the writings that wroten irregularb like you write when you frustrated.
-
If you do that like that, you have no right to criticize me mister!
The measuremants turning around Antarctica about 40.000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape. You know this truth but hiding. So you are a liar.
No, as you very well know I (along with almost everyone else on the earth) believe the earth is a Globe and I am allowed my beliefs.
I have no idea where your 40,000 miles around Antarctica comes from! It does not seem to fit with ANY Flat Earth or Globe map that I have ever seen.
So NO, I am NOT lying!
Your measurement of the circumference around "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape" does not show ANY world shape I have ever seen!
On the "accepted Flat Earth Map" the circumference at the equator is roughly 40,000 miles (39,270 miles is closer), but around Antarctica S 60° the circumference on that map would be about 65,450 miles.
See the map on the right! Where do you get that 40,000 mile measurement from? The only measurement near 40,000 miles on that is the circumference of the equator, NOT Antarctica - that is quite a different thing!
So, please make sure YOU know what YOU are talking about before YOU accuse ANYONE of LYING!
I could be mistaken, I could be wrong, but I do not think so, but what I am telling you is what I believe!
But, remember that I do NOT accept that the earth is flat! I honestly believe it is a Globe, and I have a lot of evidence to support that. | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Ice%20Ring%20Map%20Circumferences_zpssqfav1fe.png)
Ice Ring Map, Circumferences |
As you know that i'm not reading and answering the writings that wroten irregularb like you write when you frustrated.
There is that better? See I am less "frustrated".
No, I do not like being falsely accused of being a liar. I honestly have no idea where you got your "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape" from, so how could I possibly know it and be hiding it?
So, now please explain exactly what you mean by "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape", and where you are supposedly measuring.
-
If you do that like that, you have no right to criticize me mister!
The measuremants turning around Antarctica about 40.000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape. You know this truth but hiding. So you are a liar.
No, as you very well know I (along with almost everyone else on the earth) believe the earth is a Globe and I am allowed my beliefs.
I have no idea where your 40,000 miles around Antarctica comes from! It does not seem to fit with ANY Flat Earth or Globe map that I have ever seen.
So NO, I am NOT lying!
Your measurement of the circumference around "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape" does not show ANY world shape I have ever seen!
On the "accepted Flat Earth Map" the circumference at the equator is roughly 40,000 miles (39,270 miles is closer), but around Antarctica S 60° the circumference on that map would be about 65,450 miles.
See the map on the right! Where do you get that 40,000 mile measurement from? The only measurement near 40,000 miles on that is the circumference of the equator, NOT Antarctica - that is quite a different thing!
So, please make sure YOU know what YOU are talking about before YOU accuse ANYONE of LYING!
I could be mistaken, I could be wrong, but I do not think so, but what I am telling you is what I believe!
But, remember that I do NOT accept that the earth is flat! I honestly believe it is a Globe, and I have a lot of evidence to support that. | | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Ice%20Ring%20Map%20Circumferences_zpssqfav1fe.png)
Ice Ring Map, Circumferences |
As you know that i'm not reading and answering the writings that wroten irregularb like you write when you frustrated.
There is that better? See I am less "frustrated".
No, I do not like being falsely accused of being a liar. I honestly have no idea where you got your "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape" from, so how could I possibly know it and be hiding it?
So, now please explain exactly what you mean by "Antarctica about 40,000 miles that actually shows what the worlds shape", and where you are supposedly measuring.
I told one of "Globe Earth Believer" said Antarctica about 40.000 miles it is not my idea.
I haven't any idea about how miles around Antarctica because i didn't measured it yet. When i measured or calculated it, then i say how miles is it. As you know that we FE's talks what we saw or calculated. We don't believe something said by someone as NASA, RSA, ESA or google.