Flight times on the flat Earth map

As I remember the only flight that seemed to go against our idea of a flat earth map was the one that went from Santiago, Chile to Aukland, NZ (I think) - maybe there were others too.  I think it was also run by Qantas Air?  The other flights I looked at were quite bizarre on a globe, but made sense on a flat earth.  It seems that the flight path theory could be a strong one because it makes no sense on a spherical earth.  Perhaps we could find more information about those flights that don't make sense to us - flight times do not work out or flight paths for a FE?

I just watched the newest interview with Mark Sargent. He keeps repeating that the flights in the Southern Pacific Ocean are being hidden by the radars. I don't believe this is true at all.

First of all, the reason why you see less traffic there is because there are few cities between which you can fly. 99% of the traffic is directed north to Europe, Asia or North America. What is so strange about it? Should we expect to see 100 planes flying from Sydney to Santiago? No!

There are planes though and his point about disappearing the flights is actually made up. I watched QFA and I don't see anything disappearing at least not the way he says it does.

So, just because he believes the distorted North Pole Azimuthal map is correct now we should make up stuff about fake flights in the Southern Pacific Ocean?

Do you think this is reasonable? By focusing on these particular flights he completely disregards there are other flights to Antarctica.


Qantas Flights Status

I tested Mark Sargent on this, and using planefinder.net, the flights really do disappear.  I had a couple days when I was on the computer all day, and just kept the window open on the side, and tracked a few flights from Australia to South America, and they all disappeared once they got far enough into the ocean.  So at least on that site, he is right.  You only need to see one plane consistently go, even if there's not many flights.  On that website, they all disappear.

Maybe on another side they don't disappear.  I haven't tested it on any other site.

I asked Matt Boylan about this issue, and his response is that we need to start with the reality of the flights, and construct the map based on the reality of the flights, rather than start with a map and then try to fit the data into it. 

The only problem with this is, the sheer lack of non-stop flights makes things questionable on that point alone.

Maybe the land masses are "fatter" and closer together than the azimuthal equidistant tells us.  But that's just a guess.

Well like I said, I only tested it on the one website that he suggested.  I didn't test it on any other website.  You're using "flightaware"?  I haven't looked at that one. 

Well all of that is true.  He's not doing his homework on the matter.  Finding one website to make a point with, is useless if that point is contradicted elsewhere. 

So there's a problem, and this issue is the one that I considered the biggest problem overall, way back.  And nobody can answer it.  Eric Dubay can't answer it.  Matt Boylan can't answer it.  And Mark Sargent certainly can't answer it.

The flight times are throwing everything off.  And you can't just inverse the map and put Antarctica at the center, because now the northern hemisphere flights are messed up.  So that map is wrong too.

It leaves you with, not many choices.  And I'm throwing out there some choices, while not saying that any of these are correct, or that I believe any of them.  But just giving you the options:

1)  The supposed "direct" flights are phantoms put there to discredit flat earth research.   In other words, buy a ticket and take the flight for yourself, and see if it can be done, if it really exists at all.

2)  The "direct" flight is happening in that amount of time that they say, but, it is stopping to refuel secretly, and the route it takes is over the northern hemisphere, but the jet speed is so high, that it is easily able to make it in the time that they say.

3)  The map that "they" give you is so distorted, that we give up on the flat earth because the flight times just don't work.  In other words, the "establishment" that is hiding the flat earth, also gave you the map via controlled opposition principles, so that you will try to fit things on that map that "they" gave you, and it doesn't work (this is Matt Boylan's theory).

4)  The earth is a ball.

There's all you got, that I can think of.  If I were forced to choose among these, I'd be torn between 2 and 3.

But I'm not saying any of them are right.  I'm just saying that this issue is difficult for sure.

I was wondering - I know there are problems with some of the Southern Hemisphere flights, but in seeing the videos put out by some other people, what do you think about the flights that should go in a somewhat straight line, but take paths that seem to only be explainable by a flat earth?  Some of them are very exaggerated when on a globe, but make sense on a flat earth.  It does not solve the problem of the Southern Hemisphere flights, but does it weigh in enough to argue for some kind of flat earth?  Does that make sense?

And I will say that I still believe the earth to be flat.  But these flight times will need to be dealt with, if any person (Eric Dubay, Matt Boylan, Mark Sargent) wants to be seen as truly authoritative and not just doing interviews with internet conspiracy guys.

Jess, I actually liked your reference to the illuminati card game. Flat Earthers know only something We should figure out what it is. Anyway, a lot of the so-called FE researchers basically lie in order to remain popular. They don't want to admit when they make a mistake. That is not very different from disinformation.

I would like to point out to you that what you call a curve is not a curve but a straight line. If you look at the globe it is a straight line. What is curved is the surface of the globe. It is only visible as a curve when it is on a map projection which is obviously flat as maps are flat. The flight paths are not grossly exaggerated on a globe. Not at all. They are exaggerated when shown on a map. The map is not a globe. It is flat. Just because on the North Pole Azimuthal equidistant map the lines look more straight doesn't mean the map is not a projection. It is. Just saying.

They don't want to say they don't know. They want to be seen as super wise gurus who have secret knowledge of the universe. In my opinion, this is real disinformation. It gets people confused. A lot of people start repeating nonsense and using nonsense in arguments unthinkingly.

Yeah, lots of evidence, definitely making our belief more likely than the spherical earth belief. We have more evidence on our side, that is why we are flat earthers. Space travel fakery, flight routes... my watertight proof is the curvature formula not matching the horizon. A few will raise objections on this one (flight routes), but they still haven't raised objections on the curvature formula, especially on the lighthouses ranges. I only got ridicule and ad hominem attacks on the curvature formula on TFES. That's when I decided to leave it.

Well that's why I said, it isn't going to solve anything.  The flights need to determine the map, and not the other way around.

So, pretty interesting... if you add up the maps the totals are wrong and don't match the other maps. I am not surprised. Thanks for the information.

One relevant post from IFERS:
ifers.boards.net/post/3744/thread