Gleason MAP, miles from Sydney, Australia to Santiago.
And just what are all those numbers meant to be?
It is quite easy to just post a bunch of numbers with no explanations and just magically have it work.
For example, you can just pick an arbitrary scale to force it to work.
You also seem to have cut off a very large section of it. Is that because it shows what you need to have it work rather than reality?
From the angle shown of 21.25 degrees, it seems like they are trying to use almost correct math, but they have a few major flaws. First, that angle isn't correct. It should be 20.94 degrees.
More importantly, Sydney is further south than Santiago, yet they show it to the north.
And even more importantly, if this map was accurate, you wouldn't need to do this math at all. Instead all you would need to do is measure the distance on the map and use a scale to convert it.
Lets see what we get when using this:
https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85zNote: I downloaded the master (full resolution, uncompressed).
Sydney has a position of (1295, 2802).
Santiago has a position of (2776, 4572).
This means they are 2308 px apart.
Now I would like to just go down and use the scale, but they don't have a scale as it isn't a flat map so the scale would be useless. So instead I will use the distance from the equator to the north pole, which is a distance of 5400 nautical miles.
The north pole has a y coordinate of 3407, the equator at its lowest is 4307. That makes 5400 nautical miles equate to 900 px.
That means 1 px is 6 nautical miles.
That means the distance between Sydney and Santiago, based upon the false claim of this being a flat map of a flat Earth is 13836 nautical miles.
That is 25624 km, nothing like reality.
So you still have big problems.
Now we can instead lie and force this distance to be correct.
To get your quoted 6319 nautical miles, all we need to do is reduce the scale, by a factor of roughly 2, closer to 2.19.
So if we pretend that 1 px is only 2.74 nautical miles then we get the distance to be 6324 nautical miles, close enough to the real value to pretend it is fine. The problem is that this changes the scale everywhere. That means the distance between the north pole and the equator shrinks to a tiny 2466 nautical miles, completely defying the original definition of a nautical mile, that of 1 arc minute of latitude.
So no, this does not get the distance correct. You have massive problems with this map. It is another blatant lie from dishonest FEers that have no concern for the truth and just want to pretend their flat fantasy works.
Many in the Globe community disagree with you. Learn from them and report back.
As a flat map of a flat Earth it is massively inaccurate.
As a projection of the globe, with known distortions and changing scale it is accurate.
Please take the second picture, draw a box the size of a football field to scale in relation to the size of Florida in the picture and as viewed from the alleged ISS. Let's really see if you can see it with the naked eye.
You mean something like this (note: I haven't bothered checking the scale and instead just gave the worst case scenario, based upon the limit of resolution of the camera, and remember, this is naked eye, not well resolved with binoculars):
Can you see the white dot?
I sure can.
As for doing it all properly, that is dependent upon the resolution available, and that image does not do the human eye justice. The human eye has a resolution of roughly 1 arc minute. That image has a width of 535 px. If that was the same as the human eye, then that equates to a FOV of ~9 degrees, much less than the actual FOV of humans and much less than the actual FOV of that camera.
So if you want a comparison with the naked eye, don't use such a crappy image.