[SteelyBob]

Each is equally valid as a starting point.

Indeed - both are equally worthless.

However, this is not what happened here - what happened here is even less useful. Rather than saying "If we assume RET/FET, then [...]", we've gone straight for "[RET assumptions] are reality, therefore [...]"

No, we have not done that at all. I've simply provided a source for my data. You don't have to accept it as truthful for the argument that follows to make sense, although I have provided several good reasons why I do consider it to be true. You're welcome to disagree with my treatment of google earth dimensions as truthful - it doesn't change the fundamental point that follows, which is that the FET monopole map shows a particular distance, in this case that between eastern Argentina and the Falkland islands, to be far greater than shown on conventional globes.

I think the debate would be far more interesting if you would come off the fence and say what you think about the southern hemisphere dimensions. I've made a pretty good point about a big discrepancy between the FET monopole map and the general consensus RE globe dimensions. What do you think? Is the distance from the Falkland islands to the east coast of Argentina greater or less than the distance from the southern to northern tip of mainland UK?

[Pete Svarrior]

I think the debate would be far more interesting if you would come off the fence and say what you think about the southern hemisphere dimensions.

Sadly, I'm not particularly interested in what you find interesting. My concern is with what is true and verifiable. I asked you a question to see if you have anything of value to offer for the veracity of your data, but it's all personal credulity. So be it.

[SteelyBob]

My concern is with what is true and verifiable.

And the distances between the southern and northern extremities of the UK aren't verifiable? Or the distance from Argentina to the Falkland islands isn't verifiable?

I asked you a question to see if you have anything of value to offer for the veracity of your data, but it's all personal credulity. So be it.

Me driving around the country and looking at an odo isn't solely personal credulity - it's backed up by millions of people making use of the same data sources, without complaint, every day. Likewise, that the pilots in the Falklands conflict were operating at the extremes of their aircraft's ranges is well documented and studied. And everything lines up with the distances Google Earth, and indeed every atlas and globe I've ever looked at, comes out with. The mission times, capabilities of their aircraft, speeds, interviews, everything - it all stacks up.

I can't claim to know your motivations here, but I'm offering up a very clear, verifiable discrepancy between the consensus view on the size and shape of the earth and a proposed alternative claimed by the wiki on this site. That you don't find this 'interesting' seems very odd indeed. 

[Tumeni]

Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.

Why?

... because it's used every day by millions upon millions, and if there were any major issues with its accuracy, someone, somewhere would have noticed by now?

[RazaTD]

My concern is with what is true and verifiable.

And the distances between the southern and northern extremities of the UK aren't verifiable? Or the distance from Argentina to the Falkland islands isn't verifiable?

Planet Earth is fairly well explored by now. Regardless of what shape you think it is, there is no doubt about the distances between certain points especially if they aren’t just some random points in the ocean. These distances are verified everyday by millions of people and thousands of industries that consume this information. The fact that some people are casting doubt on this basic information in such a modern world suggests they are unwilling to have an open mind or are being disingenuous.

[Tumeni]

Each is equally valid as a starting point.

Indeed - both are equally worthless.

Why?

[Pete Svarrior]

Why?

I just finished explaining that. You'll read it if you're interested.

[Action80]

Marker buoys are utilized frequently.

Are you actually proposing that in WW2 in the south pacific there were marker buoys and that naval pilots used them in order to safely return to their carriers?  I would love to see your citation for this.

And they are not based on a globe.

They are based on the celestial sphere.

Again, would love to see a citation for how marker buoys utilize the celestial sphere in order to work.

The marker buoys aren't based on the celestial sphere. Their placement is and was simply based on theatre of operations which was and is determined by seagoing charts and maps which is based on the celestial sphere.

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Jul/09/2001940267/-1/-1/0/H_BUOYS.PDF

The maps used by sailors are based on historic seagoing navigation, which was performed based on the celestial sphere from the very beginning. None of it has anything to do with a fictional globe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoy#:~:text=Marker%20buoys%20%E2%80%93%20used%20in%20naval,provide%20the%20flare%20and%20smoke.
"Military  - Marker buoys – used in naval warfare, particularly anti-submarine warfare, is a light-emitting or smoke-emitting, or both, marker using some kind of pyrotechnic to provide the flare and smoke. It is commonly a 3-inch (76 mm) diameter device about 20 inches (500 mm) long that is set off by contact with seawater and floats on the surface. Some markers extinguish after a set period and others are made to sink.
 
Sonobuoy – used by anti-submarine warfare aircraft to detect submarines by SONAR
 
Target buoy – used to simulate target (like small boat) in live fire exercise by naval and coastal forces, usually
targeted by weapons (medium size) like HMG's, rapid fire cannons (20 or so mm), autocannons (bigger ones up
to 40 and 57mm) and also anti-tank rockets."

[Action80]

What about the Falklands?

It does not matter where your point of reference lies.

If you are familiar with the lay of the territory and have markers placed in the ocean, you are going to know where you are at, regardless.

This whole RET stuff is for the birds.

Ok, since it doesn't seem to have sunk in, let's try this again, with pictures.

Here's Argentina and the Falkland islands, as shown on Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.



Here's a zoomed in view, showing the distance from a representative spot on the east coast of the mainland, where the Argentine strike bases were located:



For comparison, here's the UK:



So the UK is quite a bit bigger, north-south, than the distance from the mainland of Argentina to the Falklands.

Here's the monopole FE map, showing the same area, with the UK (shown in the red box), taken from the same map at the same scale, transposed to the same location and rotated so you can compare the distances:



So according to the monopole FE map, the Falkland islands are quite a bit further from the Argentinian mainland - quite a bit further than the north-south size of the UK, in fact. Hard to say exactly from the map, but I'd say about twice the length if we measure to the 60 degree west line of longitude - around 1000nm.

So, it's not so much the pilots getting lost I'm talking about - I'm sure it's pretty to easy to find the islands and then head west to get home again. However, if the range is wrong, you'd simply run out of fuel. So...how far is it from the Falklands to the east coast of Argentina around where I've drawn the arrow? Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm? You don't think they might, for example, have a pretty good understanding of speed - distance - time calculations, and their aircraft's performance figures? 

And that of course is just one example. We could talk about the Black Buck raids, flown from Ascension Island all the way to the Falklands and back - a masterpiece of air to air refuelling planning. All done based on round earth ranges and bearings. Or we could just talk about the obvious massive width distortion of Argentina - is it really so much wider than people who live there think it is?

I do not see your pictures, for one.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

[SteelyBob]

I do not see your pictures, for one.

Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing. 

[Action80]

I do not see your pictures, for one.

Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.

I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

[SteelyBob]

I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

The monopole FET map is though, isn't it? It says the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is a lot bigger than the size of the UK from north to south. Do you disagree with the monopole FET map?

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

To borrow a phrase from the youth of today...what does this even mean?

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

Yes, I am.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

Do tell. Which bit am I misinterpreting?

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Perhaps. But if you're running an air force, it's awfully handy to get your jets back after their first combat mission. If they all crash into the sea after running out of fuel the war tends to end very quickly.

[DuncanDoenitz]

I do not see your pictures, for one.

Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.

I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Ok; so lets suppose the warmongers are content with sacrificing their aircrews in one-off suicide missions.  Civil airlines are generally a little more considerate of their passengers.  Pop across to the other side of South America for a moment and, whilst I have been reading this, I've also been tracking LAN-Chile flight LAN 9578 (aircraft Registration CC-BBI if you want to look it up) which is just touching down in Sidney after leaving Santiago this morning.  It took a little over 14 hours.  Google Maps shows a global-distance of just over 7000 miles; ie, around 500 mph.  Seems about right for a 787.  Its notional maximum range, incidentally, is 7355 miles. 

The Monopole Map suggest that the distance from Santiago, Chile, to Sidney, Australia, is about 4-times the North-South size of South America, around 18,000 miles.  Lets round it down to 14,000 miles to keep it simple.  Any thoughts on how it could travel twice its maximum range, at supersonic speed of 1000 mph?  (Remember this is a 2-way service, so today's "anomalous" tailwind would be tomorrow's headwind).

[Action80]

I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

The monopole FET map is though, isn't it? It says the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is a lot bigger than the size of the UK from north to south. Do you disagree with the monopole FET map?

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

To borrow a phrase from the youth of today...what does this even mean?

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

Yes, I am.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

Do tell. Which bit am I misinterpreting?

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Perhaps. But if you're running an air force, it's awfully handy to get your jets back after their first combat mission. If they all crash into the sea after running out of fuel the war tends to end very quickly.

Perhaps you are misinterpreting all of it. I have no clue.

For instance, I do not see a scale on the FE monopole map that would specifically inform you or anyone else the Falkland islands "are depicted to be 1000 nm further out of place" than a map purported to be be based on a globe.

Theatre of operations is what concerns those fighting.

[Action80]

I do not see your pictures, for one.

Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.

I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Ok; so lets suppose the warmongers are content with sacrificing their aircrews in one-off suicide missions.  Civil airlines are generally a little more considerate of their passengers.  Pop across to the other side of South America for a moment and, whilst I have been reading this, I've also been tracking LAN-Chile flight LAN 9578 (aircraft Registration CC-BBI if you want to look it up) which is just touching down in Sidney after leaving Santiago this morning.  It took a little over 14 hours.  Google Maps shows a global-distance of just over 7000 miles; ie, around 500 mph.  Seems about right for a 787.  Its notional maximum range, incidentally, is 7355 miles. 

The Monopole Map suggest that the distance from Santiago, Chile, to Sidney, Australia, is about 4-times the North-South size of South America, around 18,000 miles.  Lets round it down to 14,000 miles to keep it simple.  Any thoughts on how it could travel twice its maximum range, at supersonic speed of 1000 mph?  (Remember this is a 2-way service, so today's "anomalous" tailwind would be tomorrow's headwind).

Why suppose it?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/kamikaze

Ah, the good ole, "I happen to be tracking a flight from Sydney to South America at the moment. I only have a moment to track it because the flight only shows up on the tracker after long periods of absent flight path tracking information on the screen, but trust me, it's exciting! I love science fiction!" line.

Get real.

[SteelyBob]

Theatre of operations is what concerns those fighting.

Yes, it does indeed. So for the Argentinian pilots, the theatre was the area from their bases on the east coast over to the islands. So how far is it from the east coast of the Falklands to the islands?

If we spend a bit more time on it, we can actually work the distortion more accurately. Let's model the earth as a sphere (ignoring its slightly squashed shape - won't make a huge difference for the kind of calculation here) we can say it is a ball with a radius of  about 3440nm. The circumference of any given circle of latitude is equal to the cosine of the latitude multiplied by 2 x pi x spherical radius. So at the Falklands, we have a latitude of around 52 degrees, so our circle of latitude is cos 52, or around 62%, of the equatorial circumference. The flat earth monopole model obviously sees the latitude circles growing all the way to the antarctic. If we take the standard 60nm per degree of latitude, then our circle of latitude at 52S would be a radius of 142 x 60 = 8520nm, giving a circumference of over 53,000nm. Compare that to the globe, where we reckon our 52S latitude circle to be a circumference of around 21,000nm. So at the Falkland's latitude, monopole FET has east-west distances of around 2.5 times those of RE. Which is why Argentina is so expanded, and why I was able to fit the UK in between the islands and the mainland. If it's about 350nm from google earth, your monopole FET map would probably have it at around 875nm. That's a massive, massive difference.

Are you seriously suggesting it's 875nm from the east coast of Argentina to the Falklands? At the same latitude, where RE maps have continental South America as being about 240nm, are you seriously suggesting it's actually more like 600nm? Do you not think the Argentinians and Chileans might have noticed this? Or would you like to counter with some different maths?

[Tumeni]

Ah, the good ole, "I happen to be tracking a flight from Sydney to South America at the moment. I only have a moment to track it because the flight only shows up on the tracker after long periods of absent flight path tracking information on the screen, but trust me, it's exciting! I love science fiction!" line.

You appear to be hinting that the flight operators, the booking agencies, the maker of flight trackers such as flightradar24, flightaware, and others, along with all the members of the public who provide data to the flight trackers, are all conspiring to conjure up some "science fiction". Improbable, at the very least.

[Action80]

Ah, the good ole, "I happen to be tracking a flight from Sydney to South America at the moment. I only have a moment to track it because the flight only shows up on the tracker after long periods of absent flight path tracking information on the screen, but trust me, it's exciting! I love science fiction!" line.

You appear to be hinting that the flight operators, the booking agencies, the maker of flight trackers such as flightradar24, flightaware, and others, along with all the members of the public who provide data to the flight trackers, are all conspiring to conjure up some "science fiction". Improbable, at the very least.

No, I appear to be relating factual data concerning the reliability of these publicly available flight tracking software applications.

And these flights are listed as being available, no doubt. But in threads that have addressed these flights, it has been pointed out these flights cost an exorbitant amount of money (which is non-refundable) and everyone here has yet to actually purchase and take such a flight.

Tell you what though.

I will take that flight, provided one of you go with.

Anyone willing to splash for their cost of the trip to get to Australia, then get to South America from Australia, go ahead and let me know. You buy your ticket first and reserve the booking for two years out. I will need two years to put together that kind of scratch. I will foot the bill from South America back to your home port.

[Action80]

Theatre of operations is what concerns those fighting.

Yes, it does indeed. So for the Argentinian pilots, the theatre was the area from their bases on the east coast over to the islands. So how far is it from the east coast of the Falklands to the islands?

If we spend a bit more time on it, we can actually work the distortion more accurately. Let's model the earth as a sphere (ignoring its slightly squashed shape - won't make a huge difference for the kind of calculation here) we can say it is a ball with a radius of  about 3440nm. The circumference of any given circle of latitude is equal to the cosine of the latitude multiplied by 2 x pi x spherical radius. So at the Falklands, we have a latitude of around 52 degrees, so our circle of latitude is cos 52, or around 62%, of the equatorial circumference. The flat earth monopole model obviously sees the latitude circles growing all the way to the antarctic. If we take the standard 60nm per degree of latitude, then our circle of latitude at 52S would be a radius of 142 x 60 = 8520nm, giving a circumference of over 53,000nm. Compare that to the globe, where we reckon our 52S latitude circle to be a circumference of around 21,000nm. So at the Falkland's latitude, monopole FET has east-west distances of around 2.5 times those of RE. Which is why Argentina is so expanded, and why I was able to fit the UK in between the islands and the mainland. If it's about 350nm from google earth, your monopole FET map would probably have it at around 875nm. That's a massive, massive difference.

Are you seriously suggesting it's 875nm from the east coast of Argentina to the Falklands? At the same latitude, where RE maps have continental South America as being about 240nm, are you seriously suggesting it's actually more like 600nm? Do you not think the Argentinians and Chileans might have noticed this? Or would you like to counter with some different maths?

No, you are the one seriously suggesting everything.

Further, you have no scale presented on which to base your distances, supposed RE or FE, on which to make any serious suggestions. You just spout off numbers like you have a clue, when in fact, you do not. Highly irresponsible of you.

Further, you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.

[Tumeni]

... you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.

Are you seriously suggesting or hinting that every historical account of every world event that took place should be disregarded if the person relating that account was not there?