Ok, I came across the website thanks to the BBC news site. I spent the last week or so reading through different forums, discussions, websites etc. I'm not going to even pretend to know the real answer, how can I? I have neither the first hand experience.
I'd like to say that I think this is an honest and noble attitude to take when genuinely confronted with uncertainty. I'll endeavour to address your post, bit by bit, as best I can.
However, I'm generally a logical person who bases his judgements on what is presented to me.....and I just don't see what you are getting at? In fact it seems nothing short of disproving your theory in the attempt you have made to prove it. (This is not meant to offend - it is just my view and I welcome a reply). What I mean is nothing appears consistent, nothing gels together. One forum one rule applies, another it doesn't. RE theory is at least consistent in it's approach. There are still many questions I would like to ask to try and clarify your actual theory and I can't begin to think of them all. A few for example:
Well, there are a number of prank Flat Earth websites which obviously produce false information (performance artist Kay Burns, suspected globularist, runs one such website, and there's another with "alaska" in it's URL which is also a fake), but there genuinely are a few different Flat Earth hypotheses, just as over the years there have been, and continue to be, disagreements between globular scientists. This disunity is not a mark of weakness - it is in part the process of validating one hypothesis over another which leads to more accurate science (though this is partly a theoretical approach).
In your explanation of night/day, images show that effectively, the sun and moon rotate above the earth upon an axis centred on the north pole, the diameter across the plane being sunrise/set line. (this may be me miss interpretation of it - so please correct me if that is wrong) During the seasons, as has already been noted, the north and south poles enter periods of complete darkness or complete daylight. What causes the sun's rotation to alter in that it is no longer providing light to these areas at given times of the year?
I'm not afraid to admit that I don't know. A zetetic friend of mine formulated a hypothesis of photoelectric suspension of the celestial bodies, which I'm afraid is outside of my expertise, and I cannot, with any confidence, profess to know why the paths of the Sun and Moon contract and expand seasonally as they do.
Your 'government is keeping this hidden from everyone' is, well, believable....governments have a habit of lying. But they also have a habit of not being able to organise a piss up in a brewery (excuse the language). A friend (or work colleague) of mine moved to the UK from the US where she worked within the White House, and she herself has said it leaves little to be desired in terms of organisation and secrecy (as with all governments). So this was countered by arguments that actually, governments are in the dark to the schemes of NASA and all national space programs. But then contradicted by the 'Government enforced minimum wage' as being part of the scam? Please can you clarify your position? It is either in or out? If it is out - surely it would have asked NASA by now, 'why is there a wall all around our planet? - You’re pictures don't look like that?'
Well, the important consideration to make here is that government and the Conspiracy are not synonymous. In fact, large swathes of the government are blissfully unaware of the true shape of the Earth (along with a great many other things, perhaps), and vast swathes of the Conspiracy have no direct involvement in the world's governments. Generally, we view the Conspiracy as an independent organisation which has influence in government but which does not comprise it, and is certainly a great deal more capable than it.
Satellites have been marked as fake on many occasions. How is an organisation such as Google able provide Google Earth Satellite Images of the world without them? (I have posed this question to another FE website and the response was that it was all done via aircraft. I can guarantee you it is not completely (some maybe) done by aircraft. I've worked within a large Intl Airport and regularly alongside NATS (UK National Aerospace Technology Strategy) and can confirm Aerial Photography was banned for certain areas across the South East in the UK for early versions of Google Earth by south east control and Heathrow/Gatwick approach control and so could not be undertaken (traffic reasons) - but yet became available via Satellite images?)
As a matter of fact, Google Maps have admitted to certain of their work being performed by plane, and on those grounds it is not unreasonable to suspect that the vast bulk of their photography has been performed by aircraft. Your claims about Heathrow certainly throw up a few red flags with that hypothesis, but I'm interested in some elaboration here - why was it banned if Google Earth is, in fact, produced by satellites?
Please advise how my father's recent flight between Sao Paulo and Cape Town was roughly the same time as that of one I made from the UK to Florida (RE shows roughly equal distances +/- a few) but yet FE shows a greatly vaster distance? Does this then mean to say that Commercial companies are aware of this or is the navigation system directing them so? If so, why? They may have the commercial advantage if one day a pilot realised his aircraft was indivertibly making slight turns all journey, and raised it as an area to look into. What’s the incentive? Also, if done by sight - i.e. a straight line, why did early airship flights take the same distance to reach their destination? Such as Berlin to New York as was travelled by many airships in the 1930's. Surely these pilots would have noticed the distance was vastly shorter than the RE maps said?
Observing the flight patterns of most aircraft in the Northern hemiplane reveals that they generally take an exaggerated geographical arc, which on a Round Earth would make little or no difference to distance (because of curvature) and is usually justified on the basis of jet streams or other trivialities, but which on a Flat Earth adds a great deal of distance. Obviously, we'd have to crunch some numbers to be more certain about this, but I think it goes some way towards an explanation.
Apologies it is lengthy, and I will not pretend it is the most difficult for you to answer - like I say, I am no expert. I do however have an opinion and I look forward to having it challenged.
(Also it would be greatly appreciated if ‘we do not need to prove the answers to this – you can’t prove RE Theory’ could be avoided. I am not claiming to even believe in RE – maybe I believe nothing at the moment – I am waiting upon some more conclusive information to convince me this FE theory has any merits, not to disprove RE).
Apology not needed. I can't tell you how enjoyable it is to answer a careful, well-reasoned series of fairly original queries regarding the theory. Your post has been better than 90% of the first posts I've seen. I certainly hope we'll be seeing more of you on the site in the near future.