Statistically speaking, three out of four Earths are flat.
Also, I love it how no one addresses my diagram anymore. Another victory for FET!
What, you thought we were done?
Hello,
The supposed inconsistency between the distances measured on the (supposedly round) Earth and the most commonly used model of FE has been a strikingly overused topic, especially lately. Need I remind anyone of TheJackel's "all I need is a time speed distance circular calculator you are pleading for credibility lol.. 
"? If so, I just have. If not, let us proceed.
The map considered for this solution is:
The solution itself bases on the fact that, due to bendy light, rays hit the Earth at different angles, and thus the projections of the same length on the surface will differ. They will be longer as we approach the rim. Thus, what we currently consider a metre will appear considerably longer, leading us to an illusion of RE distances. The definition of our units of length is at fault - it is an application of optics (which already assume perfectly straight light rays, hitting the round Earth at approximately 90 degrees). An actual unit of length should take Bendy Light into account, and thus consider an apparently longer distance to be - more or less - the same as something smaller closer to the pole.
The following diagram explains the problem in detail:
Are you saying the land itself will look stretched out from above?
Distances as seen from the ground itself will appear longer?
Both?
Do the supposed guards along the edge see their hands and feet 20ft ahead of them as they walk along the perimeter?
The sunlight hitting the ground at an angle will only make longer shadows just like in the late afternoon/early morning. The reflecting scattered light off objects after the sunlight hits it would have to be distorted in order to make things look longer.
Now, this would seem to be a baseless conclusion. And yes, you would be right, if it weren't for the fact that many RE'ers favourite map* - Google Maps - confirms it. Just have a look at these screens, both taken at the same objective zoom:
Oh, so 1000km is approximately the same as 200km in different places. How very peculiar. As you can see, it's the RE model that's inconsistent, not only with reality, but even with itself!
Google maps completely contradicts your 'flat earth' map that you chose. Your 'flat earth' image shows the south pole stretched around the edge, and everything northward getting smaller until the north pole is a tiny spot in the middle. Google maps shows the north and south poles stretched out to the same size, which is the reason for the varying distance scale.
Why does that distance vary? Because as I mentioned before, when the surface of a sphere is cut from one pole to the other, and then made to lay out flat in a rectangle shape, it's either going to rip to pieces, or stretch in a way that the poles (top and bottom of this sheet) get stretched until they are the same length as the equator.
Google Earth is a map that shows it as a sphere, along with the moon and Mars.
Google maps confirms nothing as far as your diagram is concerned. If it were an accurate representation of the Earth, Alaska would encompass an area almost the same size as the lower 48 states, and Greenland would be almost the same size as all of North America.
[/quote]
A round Earth is a geographical impossibility. That is all.
A round Earth is the only geographical possibility. (Just like every other planet, moon and star that is round)