How do flights that track west from the Americas end up in Asia? The only explanation is that they are departing into space.
What are you talking about... "into space"? What is "space" in your mind? 35,000 feet above land is "space" in your mind?
Is Earth the only flat planet? Why are all the other celestial objects oblate spheroids?
Earth is the ONLY "PLANEt". All the other "planets" were called "wandering stars" for millennia before the cabal took over our scientism edumacation. And there's literally ZERO PROOF that they are "spheres", unless you want to trust NASAs "artistic renderings" which they readily admit to. We can see these so-called "planets" with modern zoom lenses and telescopes and they look like "pulsating, twinkling lights" when we look at them, just like stars. Seems our ancient brothers were smarter than we thought.
There's literally zero evidence that anything we see in the sky is a "rock" or "ball of gas" or whatever other fan-fiction story we're told, including the sun and moon. Until proven otherwise, these are all some sort of lights, plasmas, projections etc. What we can say with absolute certainty is that there is no proof that these are "spheres". This is why you can only ever see "one side of the moon" and it never, ever changes in appearance. Because it's not a rotating, spinning rock suspended in a void by a magical force (schmavity).
Think it through. It isn't difficult if you use your basic common sense. Surely there would have to be periods when we could see different features of the moon using today's technology if it were spinning. But we never can. The "face" of the moon never changes under any circumstances. This is common sense. Or you can BELIEVE the lie that it's just so perfectly synched with the earth's alleged "rotation" that we can never see anything other than the exact same face. One of these explanations makes sense, the other strains credulity. You be the judge.
I am an ex-Pilot. Talking about Great-circle arcs, Rhumb lines and Lambert's conical projection maps at this point is a waste of my time as it's just too much theory that is going to be dismissed out of hand by you.
Well there are a shiteton of THEORIES and MODELS, which are mental abstractions and conceptualizations out there. As long as you see them for what they are you're one step ahead of the pack. And I see this is as the absolute #1 problem with convincing the more educated and technically trained folks out there. They need a PERFECT REPLACEMENT MODEL of heliocentrism before they'll even ENTERTAIN flat earth.
The heliocentric model is much like the germ theory model for doctors. Trillions of dollars, millions of minds and hundreds of years have gone into building both. Each are founded on one or more ASSUMPTIONS. And then from there, new explanations are built on these assumptions to deepen the ruse.
Flat earth researchers have really only been at it for about a decade now. And it's all been unfunded, independent work almost entirely. We can't explain EVERYTHING by any means. But we've shot down the lion's share of lies and deceptions. Can we explain pulsars and quasars and crab nebulae and black holes and singularities. We can't offer an alternative explanation to something that by all appearances is totally fictional.
But this "Model Replacement" conundrum stops millions in their tracks. Tonight one of the top FE researchers is going to debate a physics professor for the second time in a month. He couldn't answer a lot of questions he was asked a couple weeks ago but after having consulted with his "peers", he's ready to try again. And this guy is locked up on one single topic. Until we can explain what "gravity" IS, with absolute scientific precision, he's not going to budge. Just because the "math works" his "model" can't be destroyed. We all agree on 9.8m^2 as "working math", but this guy just can't GRASP that there's another explanation besides Einstenian gravity. It's astonishing to witness the cognitive dissonance.
And if you're a pilot, you can confirm that neither you nor your auto-pilot software ever "corrects for curvature". I believe that if you're traveling 500 MPH you would need to "nose down" a mile or two about every 5 minutes. Otherwise, you would indeed shoot off "into space" as you say. I've discussed this with several pilots and they all have basically come up with defensive postures effectively saying "gravity takes care of all that naturally". It's gravity to the rescue every time it seems. An unproven, unmeasurable, unfindable "force" that nobody knows exactly what it is - a particle? a field? But alas, this is where we're at with most pilots.
Just do me a favor and answer one question - "How do flights that track west from the Americas end up in Asia?"
Frankly I don't understand what you think you're trying to prove here? Flat earth maps show where the continents are located. Nothing complicated about this is there? Or is it that you BELIEVE that "west" and "east" are straight lines? That might be the problem, because they are not. West and east are CIRCLES and you can actually prove this to yourself on google earth. Traveling west or east for 25,000 miles is a giant circle around the non-rotating plane. Simple.
Why is Greenland the size of Africa on Mercator projection maps? How warped is Greenland? How big is Greenland really? The size of Africa? Why is it warped? What would that warping do to a straight flightpath on these maps?
Most of these questions aren't relevant to our discussion. I think you have your answer in my previous reply about "Magnetic Declincation" being a man-made fairy-tale. That should help you re-imagine the problem you're having with the maps as they've used it to project their globe lie.
Why are the flightpaths curved on the first air route map I sent to you? Do the pilots fly curved paths at the expense of fuel?
We've demonstrated how computer software "flight paths" have also been deceptively generated using these same projection techniques. How could you distinguish between the path you're traveling on versus the computer generated path anyway? You couldn't. You just have to take their word for it. The distances are too large.
Here's a video from a sailor explaining how and why magnetic declination is a fraud. Perhaps this will help breakdown the "model" --- NOT REALITY --- that you're mentally operating within:
You gotta wonder who all those ancient navigators sailed the high seas managing to get back and forth to their destinations without modern maps and GPS, eh? To think all they had with sextants and compasses.
And BTW, sextants absolutely DESTROY globe earth because they could have never been used unless they could reference FLAT 90 degree angles (which include the flat plane by necessity). If we were on a spherical globe they never would have worked. And also, they estimated the sun and moon to both be approximately 3000-3500 miles away when doing their calculations. Funny, a mysterious video allegedly made by a free mason suggests both the sun and the moon are 3300 miles away. There's that magical "33" again. Hmmmm?
So hypothetically, if magnetic declination is indeed a FARCE, what would that do to your flight paths and globe model?
What are you talking about... "into space"? What is "space" in your mind? 35,000 feet above land is "space" in your mind?
Earth is the ONLY "PLANEt". All the other "planets" were called "wandering stars" for millennia before the cabal took over our scientism edumacation. And there's literally ZERO PROOF that they are "spheres", unless you want to trust NASAs "artistic renderings" which they readily admit to. We can see these so-called "planets" with modern zoom lenses and telescopes and they look like "pulsating, twinkling lights" when we look at them, just like stars. Seems our ancient brothers were smarter than we thought.
There's literally zero evidence that anything we see in the sky is a "rock" or "ball of gas" or whatever other fan-fiction story we're told, including the sun and moon. Until proven otherwise, these are all some sort of lights, plasmas, projections etc. What we can say with absolute certainty is that there is no proof that these are "spheres". This is why you can only ever see "one side of the moon" and it never, ever changes in appearance. Because it's not a rotating, spinning rock suspended in a void by a magical force (schmavity).
Think it through. It isn't difficult if you use your basic common sense. Surely there would have to be periods when we could see different features of the moon using today's technology if it were spinning. But we never can. The "face" of the moon never changes under any circumstances. This is common sense. Or you can BELIEVE the lie that it's just so perfectly synched with the earth's alleged "rotation" that we can never see anything other than the exact same face. One of these explanations makes sense, the other strains credulity. You be the judge.
Well there are a shiteton of THEORIES and MODELS, which are mental abstractions and conceptualizations out there. As long as you see them for what they are you're one step ahead of the pack. And I see this is as the absolute #1 problem with convincing the more educated and technically trained folks out there. They need a PERFECT REPLACEMENT MODEL of heliocentrism before they'll even ENTERTAIN flat earth.
The heliocentric model is much like the germ theory model for doctors. Trillions of dollars, millions of minds and hundreds of years have gone into building both. Each are founded on one or more ASSUMPTIONS. And then from there, new explanations are built on these assumptions to deepen the ruse.
Flat earth researchers have really only been at it for about a decade now. And it's all been unfunded, independent work almost entirely. We can't explain EVERYTHING by any means. But we've shot down the lion's share of lies and deceptions. Can we explain pulsars and quasars and crab nebulae and black holes and singularities. We can't offer an alternative explanation to something that by all appearances is totally fictional.
But this "Model Replacement" conundrum stops millions in their tracks. Tonight one of the top FE researchers is going to debate a physics professor for the second time in a month. He couldn't answer a lot of questions he was asked a couple weeks ago but after having consulted with his "peers", he's ready to try again. And this guy is locked up on one single topic. Until we can explain what "gravity" IS, with absolute scientific precision, he's not going to budge. Just because the "math works" his "model" can't be destroyed. We all agree on 9.8m^2 as "working math", but this guy just can't GRASP that there's another explanation besides Einstenian gravity. It's astonishing to witness the cognitive dissonance.
And if you're a pilot, you can confirm that neither you nor your auto-pilot software ever "corrects for curvature". I believe that if you're traveling 500 MPH you would need to "nose down" a mile or two about every 5 minutes. Otherwise, you would indeed shoot off "into space" as you say. I've discussed this with several pilots and they all have basically come up with defensive postures effectively saying "gravity takes care of all that naturally". It's gravity to the rescue every time it seems. An unproven, unmeasurable, unfindable "force" that nobody knows exactly what it is - a particle? a field? But alas, this is where we're at with most pilots.
Frankly I don't understand what you think you're trying to prove here? Flat earth maps show where the continents are located. Nothing complicated about this is there? Or is it that you BELIEVE that "west" and "east" are straight lines? That might be the problem, because they are not. West and east are CIRCLES and you can actually prove this to yourself on google earth. Traveling west or east for 25,000 miles is a giant circle around the non-rotating plane. Simple.
Most of these questions aren't relevant to our discussion. I think you have your answer in my previous reply about "Magnetic Declincation" being a man-made fairy-tale. That should help you re-imagine the problem you're having with the maps as they've used it to project their globe lie.
Why are the flightpaths curved on the first air route map I sent to you? Do the pilots fly curved paths at the expense of fuel?
We've demonstrated how computer software "flight paths" have also been deceptively generated using these same projection techniques. How could you distinguish between the path you're traveling on versus the computer generated path anyway? You couldn't. You just have to take their word for it. The distances are too large.
Here's a video from a sailor explaining how and why magnetic declination is a fraud. Perhaps this will help breakdown the "model" --- NOT REALITY --- that you're mentally operating within:
https://odysee.com/@TabooConspiracy:c/no-magnetic-declination-on-the-flat:8
You gotta wonder who all those ancient navigators sailed the high seas managing to get back and forth to their destinations without modern maps and GPS, eh? To think all they had with sextants and compasses.
And BTW, sextants absolutely DESTROY globe earth because they could have never been used unless they could reference FLAT 90 degree angles (which include the flat plane by necessity). If we were on a spherical globe they never would have worked. And also, they estimated the sun and moon to both be approximately 3000-3500 miles away when doing their calculations. Funny, a mysterious video allegedly made by a free mason suggests both the sun and the moon are 3300 miles away. There's that magical "33" again. Hmmmm?
So hypothetically, if magnetic declination is indeed a FARCE, what would that do to your flight paths and globe model?