[Captain Magpie]

Even better, after you ask and they give the answer post it here and then we can have a real debate.

[Pete Svarrior]

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?

[Captain Magpie]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Captain Magpie]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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?

[Captain Magpie]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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 flig^ht 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?

[Captain Magpie]

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 flig^ht 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.

[rabinoz]

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.

İntikam's Shortest Distance Route

FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing

OK, here is the shortest route on the left, going over the extremely mountainous regions of the Himalayas, then over the high country of Tibet, not only very remote from emergency assistance but also a rather politically sensitive region.
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:
  

  Sun setting at Barnhill

  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:
  

  Australia on Gleason's Map

  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!

[İntikam]

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.

İntikam's Shortest Distance Route

FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing

OK, here is the shortest route on the left, going over the extremely mountainous regions of the Himalayas, then over the high country of Tibet, not only very remote from emergency assistance but also a rather politically sensitive region.
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:
  

  Sun setting at Barnhill

  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:
  

  Australia on Gleason's Map

  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.

[rabinoz]

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.

İntikam's Shortest Distance Route

FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing

OK, here is the shortest route on the left, going over the extremely mountainous regions of the Himalayas, then over the high country of Tibet, not only very remote from emergency assistance but also a rather politically sensitive region.
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:
  

  Sun setting at Barnhill

  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:
  

  Australia on Gleason's Map

  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!

[İntikam]

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.

İntikam's Shortest Distance Route

FlightRadar24 - New Delhi to Beijing

OK, here is the shortest route on the left, going over the extremely mountainous regions of the Himalayas, then over the high country of Tibet, not only very remote from emergency assistance but also a rather politically sensitive region.
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:
  

  Sun setting at Barnhill

  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:
  

  Australia on Gleason's Map

  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.

[Rounder]

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.

[rabinoz]

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:

Australia on Gleason's Map

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.

Ice Ring Map, Circumferences

[İntikam]

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:

Australia on Gleason's Map

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.

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.

[rabinoz]

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.

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.

[İntikam]

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.

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.