(1) In the sense that Gleason's claims for his map in relation to sceptimatic's claims for his genius.
This attempt at explaining what you mean really doesn't help. I'm just going to guess what you mean, since you're unable to articulate yourself.
Gleason's map is pretty accurate, and unless you can name the original author of the projection in question, there is no one to plagiarise from.
(2) Reality ? It works every day where I have worked.
I see you decided to ignore my use of quotation marks. Your "reality" is very different from reality, and this is a great example of it. You see what you want to see, and only that.
(3)Glad to hear that. I've worked in the areas of using projections of maps , geometry and computers to some degree of being used skillfully. Or at least a lot of people have used them skillfully without resorting to "Satanism." Are you now acknowledging that maps are made from projections of the globe ?
No. This is, once again, a great example of you considering your religious convictions to somehow hold weight in the observable universe. They do not.
Gleason's map looks like and acts like a copy of the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the Globe but that doesn't mean it is a copy of the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection of the Globe.
Define "copy".
But the subject was Gleason's and Middleton's maps. They really are based on a projection even if they are claimed they aren't projections.Is denial the same as lying ?
Please substantiate or rescind this claim. We have no business dealing with unfalsifiable hypotheses here.
Gleason's Map is so obviously identical with the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection that one would assume he just copied it. He did include showing all the countries. Most of these maps just show land areas shaded green , brown, etc. You can argue whether he copied or not but it is identical to the projection. It was just curious that there was no note as to its true source.
Here is some information on the history of the Azimuthal Eqidistant Projection including the original source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projectionI think Middleton's Map even went to a statement that it was not a projection.
By reality I mean that the earth is a globe and there are projections and Gleason's map closely resembles one.
As for Middleton's map I don't see how anyone could consider it being accurate in any sense.
If you can prove that Gleason's map doesn't resemble the Azimuthal Equidistant Projection I would be interested in knowing your reason. That is where the suspicion lies. Gleason claimed it was J.S. Christopher's projection. I can see this debate is going the usual flat earth way.
I have evidence that the map is a copy but you have no evidence that it isn't. And if you can prove these projections are accurate in all details such as distances and shapes and sizes south of the equator I would be interested. If you can show me an accurate flat earth map of the entire earth I would be interested. Even the Flat Earth Society says there is none.
If you really have doubts or beliefs about the accuracy of Gleason's or Middleton's maps I would suggest you consult authorities on the subject if you question my opinions.
I'll just leave it at that. No further comments. I will leave any further research up to you.