On your page The Ice Wall you say that Sir Ross circumnavigated the Antarctic Coastline, but how would he not know the difference between a convex and a concave coastline? Even if you assume all the explorers after him who traversed Antarctica are lying, cartographers can tell which way a coastline curves. Even if you ironically say that the edge of the world is so round the curve isn't noticeable, you can still tell by straight line movement. A convex shore would cause the island to slowly slip away. A concave one would cause you to crash into the shore as it wraps around to meet you.
We know that Antarctica is an island, how can you so confidently say its a wall that wraps around a flat earth? This would be so easy for you to prove if it were true. Hop in a plane and circumnavigate the coast.
Even commercial flights do not impede upon the Antarctic coast.
This thread is a zero with a capital Z.
They don't fly over it, but there are plenty of flights that bring you within visual range of Antarctica.
Once again, providing an outright lie to the reading audience.
You cannot provide one single verified flight path of any commercial flight approaching the Antarctic coastline enough to bring it into visual distance.
A few seconds googling flight QF63 gives us this amongst others
Very cool video showing the ice near Antarctica.
For reference, here is a nice site that plots flight plans on both a flat earth map and on a globe.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Creating+Flight+Plans+for+Flat+EarthTry plotting a flight from Sydney to Johannesburg.
On the flat earth the flight is 14,590 standard miles, if the flight took the shortest path it would leave Sydney to the northwest to the west of Brisbane, and much of Queensland, then would fly over the south China sea and Papua New Guinea, it would then fly over mainland Asia, mostly China, then Saudi Arabia and fly over the eastern African countries. This flight would take just under 27 hours for a regular commercial airplane assuming 540 standard miles per hour and no head or tail wind.
Note that the shortest flat earth path would be over land the majority of the time. To fly a flat earth flight path almost completely over water would have to significantly adjust the path adding a lot of distance and time to the flight.
On the globe the flight is 6,860 standard miles, if the flight took the shortest path it would leave Sydney to the south west crossing the south east portion of Australia, north of Melborne. The flight would be over water the rest of the flight until nearing South Africa from the East. Passing nearest the coast of Antarctica roughly in the middle of the flight. This flight would take just under 13 hours for a regular commercial airplane assuming 540 standard miles per hour and no head or tail wind.
Note that the shortest globe flight path would not take the flight over Antarctica's land mass. It would bring it near enough that if there were ice floating on the water some distance away from the land mass you would seen it.
Now, this site just plots out shortest routes, it does not show the routes planes actually take, they have more detailed methods to plan their flights. It's useful to compare how a flight would be different on the different earth models.
totallackey, or others, now that we have an outline of what a flight would look like on each model, what would be an acceptable way to verify the flight path of a commercial flight?