I'd like to present a few proofs...

"This thread is about the inaccurate "proofs""... um, where did you get that? I think you misread the OP. If you actually read the link provided, this first part of the link says:

I'll read the rest of your drivel later.  But, this little jewel caught my eye.  Your roundie friend, and possibly low grade paid shill, posted a bunch of "proofs" and it was simple to make him look like an idiot.  Nothing he said were "proofs", nor did he disprove FET.  Like most roundies, he, and you, are very unintelligent, and only come on the flat Earth society forum in hopes of making yourselves seem to look smarter than someone else, yet you people only make yourselves look dumb.  I busted your buddy, and you can't stand it. 

Read my signature.

Read my signature.

I read your sig.  Are you dazzling us, or exerting energy on bull sh*t? 

Both, but it seems more and more the later... 

Welcome to the flat Earth society. 

You expect the good hard working Americans of this forum to believe a couple of pictures a 12 year old could have drawn?  It seems to me that you are misguided. Here is my personal website, a wonderful resource for anyone seeking the truth in the face of the crock of lies NASA tries to stuff down your throat. http://libertyjfreedom.wix.com/theearthisflat

Your website sucks.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:49:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 07:41:39 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:38:11 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 07:35:19 AM

Quote from: Soulblood on November 03, 2015, 07:28:17 AM

Indeed, claiming the win on an internet forum surely ends the argument and makes clear who succeeded. Well played, Sir!

Wait, the second win ... you, Sir, must be surely the king of the internet!

Sounds like the words of someone who has been defeated.  I will not claim this as a win, as I am starting to feel sorry for you.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 07:29:35 AM

I will GREATLY simplify geometry for you. You won't even need to know "spherical geometry". I will make it ONE line - not 3. Apparently, FEers can't do more than one thing at a time.

Demonstrate how a cruise ship from Ushuaia, AR can go in 3 days to S. Georgia Island (via the Falkland Islands no less) - a distance of 3500-4000 mi on a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png). The trip is 12/18/2015.

Do you think I have enough money in my bank account to perform this?  Perhaps you do not know what a demonstration is?  Or, maybe you are just confused?  You tell me.

Why do you have to go on the trip? The trip exists. Using a FE model, explain it.

You want me to explain your anecdote to you?  Are you serious, or are you just jerking me around?

Yes, I would like you explain it. I am serious.

Well, then, since I did not do it, and neither did you, that means I can just make up anything I want.  I choose...Time Dilation, for the win.

Yes, we know that you 'just make up anything' you want.

This is apparent in each and every post you make - it's ALL just made up, lol.

The round earth model is FACT, yet all of the flat earth model is just 'made up' theory.

Is there anything about flat earth theory that actually ISN'T made up?

Why aren't there any Flat Earthers Astronauts? That's a good question.

Not even muslims, who allegedly have to believe in a flat earth due to Qur'an. Talk about a conspiracy...

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 11:10:42 AM

"This thread is about the inaccurate "proofs""... um, where did you get that? I think you misread the OP. If you actually read the link provided, this first part of the link says:

I'll read the rest of your drivel later.  But, this little jewel caught my eye.  Your roundie friend, and possibly low grade paid shill, posted a bunch of "proofs" and it was simple to make him look like an idiot.  Nothing he said were "proofs", nor did he disprove FET.  Like most roundies, he, and you, are very unintelligent, and only come on the flat Earth society forum in hopes of making yourselves seem to look smarter than someone else, yet you people only make yourselves look dumb.  I busted your buddy, and you can't stand it.

I took this rather offensively. Just because I believe that the Earth is round, doesn't make me any less intelligent. I could argue the same way, except in the opposite direction and say that all you flat-earthers are very unintelligent for sticking to a 15th-century way of thinking. Secondly, I don't get paid "low grade shill", in fact- I don't get paid at all. I don't even have a job.  Finally, I didn't come here to make myself look smart. I came here to provide some RE proofs, so that we could have a calm civilized discussion about them, but both of you have managed to turn this into another argument.

Quote from: jroa on November 03, 2015, 11:19:00 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 11:10:42 AM

"This thread is about the inaccurate "proofs""... um, where did you get that? I think you misread the OP. If you actually read the link provided, this first part of the link says:

I'll read the rest of your drivel later.  But, this little jewel caught my eye.  Your roundie friend, and possibly low grade paid shill, posted a bunch of "proofs" and it was simple to make him look like an idiot.  Nothing he said were "proofs", nor did he disprove FET.  Like most roundies, he, and you, are very unintelligent, and only come on the flat Earth society forum in hopes of making yourselves seem to look smarter than someone else, yet you people only make yourselves look dumb.  I busted your buddy, and you can't stand it.

I took this rather offensively. Just because I believe that the Earth is round, doesn't make me any less intelligent. I could argue the same way, except in the opposite direction and say that all you flat-earthers are very unintelligent for sticking to a 15th-century way of thinking. Secondly, I don't get paid "low grade shill", in fact- I don't get paid at all. I don't even have a job.  Finally, I didn't come here to make myself look smart. I came here to provide some RE proofs, so that we could have a calm civilized discussion about them, but both of you have managed to turn this into another argument.

*pre year 0 way of thinking. The fuss of the 15th century was wether earth revolved around the sun or if everything revolved around the earth. People have known for a long time that earth is round.

jroa, check out "Flight times between Australia and South America" thread. This is by a real flight controller in New Zealand. This is reality. hmm... no replies...

"start to think critically instead of being sheep" - Fine, oh great critical thinker who is not spoon fed, "Why do you - critically - think the Earth is flat?

I'd like to see what map was used to determine that it doesn't mesh up with the flat earth model. I'm almost positive the map you're referring to is a projection of the round earth. In which case, you're trying to defeat yourself. I wasn't going to throw you the bone that you're interpreting the map wrong in this case, but there you go. Maybe you can find your missteps now.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 08:29:47 AM

jroa, check out "Flight times between Australia and South America" thread. This is by a real flight controller in New Zealand. This is reality. hmm... no replies...

"start to think critically instead of being sheep" - Fine, oh great critical thinker who is not spoon fed, "Why do you - critically - think the Earth is flat?

I'd like to see what map was used to determine that it doesn't mesh up with the flat earth model. I'm almost positive the map you're referring to is a projection of the round earth. In which case, you're trying to defeat yourself. I wasn't going to throw you the bone that you're interpreting the map wrong in this case, but there you go. Maybe you can find your missteps now.

Both are Round Earth maps and demonstrate what really happens with flights from Australia to S. America by a real air traffic controller.

His point in the link is - using a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png), you would need to go through N. America to do this (the shortest route). This does not happen.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 05, 2015, 09:58:23 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 08:29:47 AM

jroa, check out "Flight times between Australia and South America" thread. This is by a real flight controller in New Zealand. This is reality. hmm... no replies...

"start to think critically instead of being sheep" - Fine, oh great critical thinker who is not spoon fed, "Why do you - critically - think the Earth is flat?

I'd like to see what map was used to determine that it doesn't mesh up with the flat earth model. I'm almost positive the map you're referring to is a projection of the round earth. In which case, you're trying to defeat yourself. I wasn't going to throw you the bone that you're interpreting the map wrong in this case, but there you go. Maybe you can find your missteps now.

Both are Round Earth maps and demonstrate what really happens with flights from Australia to S. America by a real air traffic controller.

His point in the link is - using a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png), you would need to go through N. America to do this (the shortest route). This does not happen.

Fine. I gave you enough to figure it out on your own, but I guess I'll clear this up for you so you don't have to do any fingerwork. I'm on my phone, so I don't feel like doing pasta. The map you've linked is the equidistant azimuthal projection of a round earth, and you're misunderstanding the reason the longitudinal lines get further apart as you approach the southern rim.
Is that enough for you?

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 05, 2015, 10:44:33 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 05, 2015, 09:58:23 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 08:29:47 AM

jroa, check out "Flight times between Australia and South America" thread. This is by a real flight controller in New Zealand. This is reality. hmm... no replies...

"start to think critically instead of being sheep" - Fine, oh great critical thinker who is not spoon fed, "Why do you - critically - think the Earth is flat?

I'd like to see what map was used to determine that it doesn't mesh up with the flat earth model. I'm almost positive the map you're referring to is a projection of the round earth. In which case, you're trying to defeat yourself. I wasn't going to throw you the bone that you're interpreting the map wrong in this case, but there you go. Maybe you can find your missteps now.

Both are Round Earth maps and demonstrate what really happens with flights from Australia to S. America by a real air traffic controller.

His point in the link is - using a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png), you would need to go through N. America to do this (the shortest route). This does not happen.

Fine. I gave you enough to figure it out on your own, but I guess I'll clear this up for you so you don't have to do any fingerwork. I'm on my phone, so I don't feel like doing pasta. The map you've linked is the equidistant azimuthal projection of a round earth, and you're misunderstanding the reason the longitudinal lines get further apart as you approach the southern rim.
Is that enough for you?

Nope, I don't understand. Can you provide a flat earth map that is not based on a globe?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 05, 2015, 12:59:35 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 05, 2015, 10:44:33 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 05, 2015, 09:58:23 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 08:29:47 AM

jroa, check out "Flight times between Australia and South America" thread. This is by a real flight controller in New Zealand. This is reality. hmm... no replies...

"start to think critically instead of being sheep" - Fine, oh great critical thinker who is not spoon fed, "Why do you - critically - think the Earth is flat?

I'd like to see what map was used to determine that it doesn't mesh up with the flat earth model. I'm almost positive the map you're referring to is a projection of the round earth. In which case, you're trying to defeat yourself. I wasn't going to throw you the bone that you're interpreting the map wrong in this case, but there you go. Maybe you can find your missteps now.

Both are Round Earth maps and demonstrate what really happens with flights from Australia to S. America by a real air traffic controller.

His point in the link is - using a Flat Earth map (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Flat_earth.png), you would need to go through N. America to do this (the shortest route). This does not happen.

Fine. I gave you enough to figure it out on your own, but I guess I'll clear this up for you so you don't have to do any fingerwork. I'm on my phone, so I don't feel like doing pasta. The map you've linked is the equidistant azimuthal projection of a round earth, and you're misunderstanding the reason the longitudinal lines get further apart as you approach the southern rim.
Is that enough for you?

Nope, I don't understand. Can you provide a flat earth map that is not based on a globe?

I'm sorry, but cartography is not my profession, nor is it my hobby. Ask FlatOrange.

I like how the roundies try to change the subject when they have been made to look foolish.  Perhaps if you people want to talk about maps, you could do it in the thread that was actually made for that purpose? 

I like how the roundies try to change the subject when they have been made to look foolish.  Perhaps if you people want to talk about maps, you could do it in the thread that was actually made for that purpose?

The topic of this thread is what kind of proofs would you show someone on an island the Earth was round (in the link if you read it).
I said the plane trip from Australia to Chile (both ways).
th3rm0m3t3r0 brought up maps. He derailed the thread. Why are you jumping all over me? Why are you insulting me?

So, we are not able to bring up proofs? When we discuss these, we are changing the subject?

Fine, no explanation for th3rm0m3t3r0 - the plane trips stand as proof - no explanation needed obviously. th3rm0m3t3r0 - stop derailing the thread.

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2015, 07:30:05 PM

I like how the roundies try to change the subject when they have been made to look foolish.  Perhaps if you people want to talk about maps, you could do it in the thread that was actually made for that purpose?

The topic of this thread is what kind of proofs would you show someone on an island the Earth was round (in the link if you read it).
I said the plane trip from Australia to Chile (both ways).
th3rm0m3t3r0 brought up maps. He derailed the thread. Why are you jumping all over me? Why are you insulting me?

So, we are not able to bring up proofs? When we discuss these, we are changing the subject?

Fine, no explanation for th3rm0m3t3r0 - the plane trips stand as proof - no explanation needed obviously. th3rm0m3t3r0 - stop derailing the thread.

You brought up flight times- which I contested. Defeated, you accuse me of derailing.
As for the triple right triangle, it's a thought experiment at best.
If you want to try it, you can actually do it over a short distance. Why don't you try it out, and report back?

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 06, 2015, 08:53:35 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 05, 2015, 07:30:05 PM

I like how the roundies try to change the subject when they have been made to look foolish.  Perhaps if you people want to talk about maps, you could do it in the thread that was actually made for that purpose?

The topic of this thread is what kind of proofs would you show someone on an island the Earth was round (in the link if you read it).
I said the plane trip from Australia to Chile (both ways).
th3rm0m3t3r0 brought up maps. He derailed the thread. Why are you jumping all over me? Why are you insulting me?

So, we are not able to bring up proofs? When we discuss these, we are changing the subject?

Fine, no explanation for th3rm0m3t3r0 - the plane trips stand as proof - no explanation needed obviously. th3rm0m3t3r0 - stop derailing the thread.

You brought up flight times- which I contested. Defeated, you accuse me of derailing.
As for the triple right triangle, it's a thought experiment at best.
If you want to try it, you can actually do it over a short distance. Why don't you try it out, and report back?

See, random words "Defeated". How was I "Defeated"?

No, you brought up "I'd like to see what map was used to determine that it doesn't mesh up with the flat earth model. I'm almost positive the map you're referring to is a projection of the round earth". When I try to answer that, jroa accuses me of derailing. But of course, you are not derailing anything...

So jroa, how do you want me to answer th3rm0m3t3r0 without derailing the thread? Without answering his "which I contested", I am somehow "Defeated". Great debate tactic. Oh, yeah, you "win" yet another one - BS.

I swear to god, just shut up about "debate tactics" and "who won". I'm talking to all of you here. Especially you jroa. I will delete this thread if it gets too out of hand.

As I have said in other threads, the Eratosthenes experiment is flawed. You need at least 3 shadows to remove assumptions - preferably more to remove experimental error. The equipment must be calibrated precisely (length, everything being perpendicular, earth below it being flat, same time for the experiments, rotated around itself and between observers to eliminate equipment bias, etc.) Until this experiment is redone properly, it proves nothing. You get "the correct answer" depending on if you assume the Earth is round, flat or concave - a non-answer.

There are several threads discussing what you can actually see on/over the horizon. The jury is out on that one.

The 3 x 90° is theoretically true. The smaller the "triangle" to measure the sides and angles more precisely, the more it looks like a normal triangle and the more the terrain/ocean defects (hills, slope, waves, etc.) mess up the REAL measures. You won't be able to prove a round earth from that. Reality sucks.

My flight model directly proves this but discussing it derails the thread.
My 12/18/2015 cruise boat trip from Ushuaia, AR to S. Georgia Island taking 3 days directly proves RET, but I am sure it will derail the thread as well.

As I have said in other threads, the Eratosthenes experiment is flawed. You need at least 3 shadows to remove assumptions - preferably more to remove experimental error. The equipment must be calibrated precisely (length, everything being perpendicular, earth below it being flat, same time for the experiments, rotated around itself and between observers to eliminate equipment bias, etc.) Until this experiment is redone properly, it proves nothing. You get "the correct answer" depending on if you assume the Earth is round, flat or concave - a non-answer.

There are several threads discussing what you can actually see on/over the horizon. The jury is out on that one.

The 3 x 90° is theoretically true. The smaller the "triangle" to measure the sides and angles more precisely, the more it looks like a normal triangle and the more the terrain/ocean defects (hills, slope, waves, etc.) mess up the REAL measures. You won't be able to prove a round earth from that. Reality sucks.

My flight model directly proves this but discussing it derails the thread.
My 12/18/2015 cruise boat trip from Ushuaia, AR to S. Georgia Island taking 3 days directly proves RET, but I am sure it will derail the thread as well.

Again, you are incorrect. I've already explained why.
The triple right triangle would work, but unfortunately, despite how easy it would be, nobody has tried it.
I wonder why.
You don't need absurdly long distances either, as little as a mile might work if the land is consistent and you measure precisely.
If the angles sum to more than 180 degrees (by any amount), you've proved a round earth.
If they don't, you've proved a flat earth.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 06, 2015, 12:11:07 PM

As I have said in other threads, the Eratosthenes experiment is flawed. You need at least 3 shadows to remove assumptions - preferably more to remove experimental error. The equipment must be calibrated precisely (length, everything being perpendicular, earth below it being flat, same time for the experiments, rotated around itself and between observers to eliminate equipment bias, etc.) Until this experiment is redone properly, it proves nothing. You get "the correct answer" depending on if you assume the Earth is round, flat or concave - a non-answer.

There are several threads discussing what you can actually see on/over the horizon. The jury is out on that one.

The 3 x 90° is theoretically true. The smaller the "triangle" to measure the sides and angles more precisely, the more it looks like a normal triangle and the more the terrain/ocean defects (hills, slope, waves, etc.) mess up the REAL measures. You won't be able to prove a round earth from that. Reality sucks.

My flight model directly proves this but discussing it derails the thread.
My 12/18/2015 cruise boat trip from Ushuaia, AR to S. Georgia Island taking 3 days directly proves RET, but I am sure it will derail the thread as well.

Again, you are incorrect. I've already explained why.
The triple right triangle would work, but unfortunately, despite how easy it would be, nobody has tried it.
I wonder why.
You don't need absurdly long distances either, as little as a mile might work if the land is consistent and you measure precisely.
If the angles sum to more than 180 degrees (by any amount), you've proved a round earth.
If they don't, you've proved a flat earth.

Or something in between.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 06, 2015, 12:36:02 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 06, 2015, 12:11:07 PM

As I have said in other threads, the Eratosthenes experiment is flawed. You need at least 3 shadows to remove assumptions - preferably more to remove experimental error. The equipment must be calibrated precisely (length, everything being perpendicular, earth below it being flat, same time for the experiments, rotated around itself and between observers to eliminate equipment bias, etc.) Until this experiment is redone properly, it proves nothing. You get "the correct answer" depending on if you assume the Earth is round, flat or concave - a non-answer.

There are several threads discussing what you can actually see on/over the horizon. The jury is out on that one.

The 3 x 90° is theoretically true. The smaller the "triangle" to measure the sides and angles more precisely, the more it looks like a normal triangle and the more the terrain/ocean defects (hills, slope, waves, etc.) mess up the REAL measures. You won't be able to prove a round earth from that. Reality sucks.

My flight model directly proves this but discussing it derails the thread.
My 12/18/2015 cruise boat trip from Ushuaia, AR to S. Georgia Island taking 3 days directly proves RET, but I am sure it will derail the thread as well.

Again, you are incorrect. I've already explained why.
The triple right triangle would work, but unfortunately, despite how easy it would be, nobody has tried it.
I wonder why.
You don't need absurdly long distances either, as little as a mile might work if the land is consistent and you measure precisely.
If the angles sum to more than 180 degrees (by any amount), you've proved a round earth.
If they don't, you've proved a flat earth.

Or something in between.

Yeah, I suppose it would be more correct to say you've proven curvature of some sort.

I had to read this thread again.  I never get tired of watching the roundie's get their complete misconceptions about their "proofs of the shape" get crushed. 

Quote from: inquisitive on November 06, 2015, 01:27:26 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 06, 2015, 12:36:02 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 06, 2015, 12:11:07 PM

As I have said in other threads, the Eratosthenes experiment is flawed. You need at least 3 shadows to remove assumptions - preferably more to remove experimental error. The equipment must be calibrated precisely (length, everything being perpendicular, earth below it being flat, same time for the experiments, rotated around itself and between observers to eliminate equipment bias, etc.) Until this experiment is redone properly, it proves nothing. You get "the correct answer" depending on if you assume the Earth is round, flat or concave - a non-answer.

There are several threads discussing what you can actually see on/over the horizon. The jury is out on that one.

The 3 x 90° is theoretically true. The smaller the "triangle" to measure the sides and angles more precisely, the more it looks like a normal triangle and the more the terrain/ocean defects (hills, slope, waves, etc.) mess up the REAL measures. You won't be able to prove a round earth from that. Reality sucks.

My flight model directly proves this but discussing it derails the thread.
My 12/18/2015 cruise boat trip from Ushuaia, AR to S. Georgia Island taking 3 days directly proves RET, but I am sure it will derail the thread as well.

Again, you are incorrect. I've already explained why.
The triple right triangle would work, but unfortunately, despite how easy it would be, nobody has tried it.
I wonder why.
You don't need absurdly long distances either, as little as a mile might work if the land is consistent and you measure precisely.
If the angles sum to more than 180 degrees (by any amount), you've proved a round earth.
If they don't, you've proved a flat earth.

Or something in between.

Yeah, I suppose it would be more correct to say you've proven curvature of some sort.

"despite how easy it would be, nobody has tried it" - it is obviously not easy or someone would - REer or FEer.
As distances get shorter, the angle to prove gets smaller. On the equator and N.Pole, the angle is 90° - quite obvious. At a mile, it is almost 60°. You need VERY good equipment to measure the mile and the angle. Over land, how do you prove all 3 points are the same altitude? This is not easy. A simple protractor, yard stick and altimeter won't do it. Even surveying equipment probably won't. Over longer distances, other factors come into play as discussed in horizon arguments. Any surveyors out there that can do this experiment?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 06, 2015, 01:30:50 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on November 06, 2015, 01:27:26 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on November 06, 2015, 12:36:02 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 06, 2015, 12:11:07 PM

As I have said in other threads, the Eratosthenes experiment is flawed. You need at least 3 shadows to remove assumptions - preferably more to remove experimental error. The equipment must be calibrated precisely (length, everything being perpendicular, earth below it being flat, same time for the experiments, rotated around itself and between observers to eliminate equipment bias, etc.) Until this experiment is redone properly, it proves nothing. You get "the correct answer" depending on if you assume the Earth is round, flat or concave - a non-answer.

There are several threads discussing what you can actually see on/over the horizon. The jury is out on that one.

The 3 x 90° is theoretically true. The smaller the "triangle" to measure the sides and angles more precisely, the more it looks like a normal triangle and the more the terrain/ocean defects (hills, slope, waves, etc.) mess up the REAL measures. You won't be able to prove a round earth from that. Reality sucks.

My flight model directly proves this but discussing it derails the thread.
My 12/18/2015 cruise boat trip from Ushuaia, AR to S. Georgia Island taking 3 days directly proves RET, but I am sure it will derail the thread as well.

Again, you are incorrect. I've already explained why.
The triple right triangle would work, but unfortunately, despite how easy it would be, nobody has tried it.
I wonder why.
You don't need absurdly long distances either, as little as a mile might work if the land is consistent and you measure precisely.
If the angles sum to more than 180 degrees (by any amount), you've proved a round earth.
If they don't, you've proved a flat earth.

Or something in between.

Yeah, I suppose it would be more correct to say you've proven curvature of some sort.

"despite how easy it would be, nobody has tried it" - it is obviously not easy or someone would - REer or FEer.
As distances get shorter, the angle to prove gets smaller. On the equator and N.Pole, the angle is 90° - quite obvious. At a mile, it is almost 60°. You need VERY good equipment to measure the mile and the angle. Over land, how do you prove all 3 points are the same altitude? This is not easy. A simple protractor, yard stick and altimeter won't do it. Even surveying equipment probably won't. Over longer distances, other factors come into play as discussed in horizon arguments. Any surveyors out there that can do this experiment?

I've been to busy school and work. I'm sure if you cared enough a few miles would do it. Unfortunately also, I live in a valley and there isn't a flat stretch of land anywhere close to here.