Zhib Rhan

Yes, I see very well Zhib's point and he makes logical remarks.

I have said many times that both maps are distorted. Map projections are always distorted. This is by definition.


However, this Oslo - Anchorage example doesn't seem to work on his map either.

Also, Auckland, New Zealand- Santiago, Chile is much shorter on his map, when in reality it is not such a short flight.

Auckland - Santiago appears to be ~ 4 times shorter than Oslo - Anchorage on his map.

He should address that too. Not to mention that if his map were true they should fly over Africa and southern Argentina, because it is the shortest route from Oslo to Anchorage. Actually, I checked the flights on skyscanner and they are not direct flights. Most have connections in London or Paris, and then they fly Seattle to Anchorage. By the way, on his map the flight from London to Seattle should be over South America, but in reality it isn't.

His question why they are not done over the Arctic is still valid, but his version of the map doesn't explain why they don't fly over Africa or South America to get to Alaska. Look at the map below:



Here is the flight from Oslo to London - 1 h 47 m:



Here is the flight from London to Seattle - 8 h 58 m:



If you look at Zhib's map this flight doesn't make sense at all. Why don't they fly over South America but instead they fly over Greenland?


Here is also the flight from Anchorage - Seattle - 2 h 51 mins!



So, the conclusion is that from Oslo to Anchorage it takes around 14 hours (with two connections).


Let's see now what the flight route would look like on Zhib's map projection:



It looks like Oslo - Anchorage is about twice longer than Oslo - Antarctica. We already know that the total duration of the flight legs is about 14 hours. The question is if you can fly from Oslo to Antarctica in 7 hours? I don't think so. The map suggests otherwise.

I guess we should first understand what the term UTM grid zones means.







Can someone please explain why something based on the ellipsoid model of the Earth would prove that the Earth is flat and the North Pole doesn't exist? I think it absolutely doesn't.

It is not easy to make a new map. Personally, I don't have time to make one If you're good at cartography go ahead. Your idea is great! The problem is that we cannot trust the distances, the sizes and anything else pretty much if we should believe in flat Earth. That is the problem with flat Earth theory.
If we were to agree with the scientists about the continental sizes, shapes and correct locations, geographic coordinates etc, then it would mean the Earth is round as their data match perfectly.

Yeah, I saw this. Looks like Zhib lost his way a bit

In my opinion, Zhib Rhan is flat out wrong.  Pun intended.

new vid:

His obsession with the "non-existent" North Pole went too far. Now I think it is a ridiculous idea. No images from the North Pole? What is at the North Pole anyway? Nothing. So what kind of images does he want to see? Just by repeating 100 times "the North Pole doesn't exist" it won't make the statement true. On his "great" map of the world the distance between Oslo and the South Pole is two times smaller than the distance between Oslo and Anchorage, Alaska. Not to mention that there are commercial flights which fly over the Arctic, and I don't see any particular reason why the planes should fly directly over the North Pole just to satisfy Zhib's curiosity.

Congratulations on your first flat earth video.

I think you should expand the forum and just make flat earth one of the topics.   Flat earth is not going to attract a big audience.    Besides you sound like the kind of person who can work out for himself that the world is not flat, and be confidant and happy about it.  If you want to be part of an audience as forum owner there must be easier ways to succeed than flat earth.  Surely?

Zhib Rhan has some major issues.  A follower of Christ should know he should turn the other cheek rather than be calling somebody a punk and inviting him to a fight.  

I have spent some time over at flat earth society.org.   It is quite clear these people have no interest in an honest discussion and instead seek to frustrate and mislead.  Why i have no idea, but it seems typical of the flat earth community.

acenci if you believe satellites are demons, while amateur radio operators have been communicating via their own satellites in space for over 50 years as far as i can see you are going to find yourself more or less talking to yourself

aliveandkicking

Flat Earth is already just one of the topics. There are different categories. Anyone can discuss whatever they want. It doesn't matter if I can prove something to myself. The point is to encourage people to think and discuss and make their own conclusions. I made that video on Zhib, because the map projection he presents is just ridiculous. He claims it is the most precise map. Yet, the distance between Iceland and Alaska in reality is only 6-7 hours, but they are on the opposite sides of the disc on his map, but he makes fun of the UN flat Earth map without realizing the inaccuracy of his own favorite map projection. I can clearly see that both his map and the UN flat Earth map are wrong. I will make a video on the UN flat Earth map as well to show how that projection doesn't represent reality either. Map projections are never correct, because they are projections.

I think you can use your time to create videos of things that interest you and excite you that you like to talk about, rather than pointing out that a person on utube has some major issues and is making no sense at all.

I find you are very hypocritical.  While making no effort to verify your information you are blindly going around claiming other people are fraudsters.   According to the ideas you have created inside your own mind all of academia are scam artists involved in a massive conspiracy.