Detailed flat earth map

Dude go to youtube and search for earth's view from 60,000 feet, tell me if you see curvature. The only people that supposedly see the curvature are the astronauts in space, and even that is questionable.

Oh sure, the absence of any good quality videos on Youtube fitting that exact search parameter means that there can't be any curvature? Tell me, if I search for Tom Bishop's buttocks on Youtube and don't find video of them, does that mean they don't exist?
BTW there is an excellent quality video showing curvature from 70,000 feet on Youtube. That may be above Concorde's range, but it's irrelevant as the curvature is well seen. It exists.

Any photo or video evidence in favor of the Earth being a sphere is considered fake just because it can be faked. However, on the rare occasion that a video or photo purported to show evidence of a flat Earth, it is hailed as pure evidence 100% no questions asked. This is a sad problem on these boards that is more common than I would like to think.

Pay for a cartographer? Pfft, your the ones with a theory to prove. Show us your conviction, and passion for this theory and pay your way, to prove to the world that the Earth is flat. If it turns to be true, wouldn't the money and fame you would get out do the loss from paying the cartographer? Or are you too unsure.

At times, I feel this debate is more about personal pride than actually proving anything.

Pay for a cartographer? Pfft, your the ones with a theory to prove. Show us your conviction, and passion for this theory and pay your way, to prove to the world that the Earth is flat. If it turns to be true, wouldn't the money and fae you would get out do the loss from paying the cartographer? Or are you too unsure.

At times, I feel this debate is more about personal pride than actually proving anything.

Second that. That's why they are to scared to go to Antarctica or to scared to move their sat dish 90 decrees in any direction. Because they know it will prove them wrong.

Quote from: Muxcomee on December 27, 2012, 01:44:45 AM

Pay for a cartographer? Pfft, your the ones with a theory to prove. Show us your conviction, and passion for this theory and pay your way, to prove to the world that the Earth is flat. If it turns to be true, wouldn't the money and fae you would get out do the loss from paying the cartographer? Or are you too unsure.

At times, I feel this debate is more about personal pride than actually proving anything.

Second that. That's why they are to scared to go to Antarctica or to scared to move their sat dish 90 decrees in any direction. Because they know it will prove them wrong.

Even if a full continent (as opposed to ice-wall), Antarctica is so big that simply "going" there wouldn't reveal the nature of its size or shape.  The reason I'm reluctant to go is because it's a freaking frozen wasteland, and doesn't seem like a whole lot of fun.

I don't have a satellite dish, but I do have satellite radio, and it flakes out frequently due to obstacles - buildings, trees, clouds, a bird, fruit flies, swamp gas... air...  it's not surprising that any tiny motion would cause the signal to be lost.

For the record, I do believe that satellites are possible, which I realize sets me apart from some of my colleagues here.

can i ask then, if you agree at least on satellites existence, where these satellites are located above the earth and how they stay up their? 
also then you understand how important the direction dish must be in receiving a signal. i ask because the inclination does infact point to 22,000 ish miles above the equator.

can i ask then, if you agree at least on satellites existence, where these satellites are located above the earth and how they stay up their? 
also then you understand how important the direction dish must be in receiving a signal. i ask because the inclination does infact point to 22,000 ish miles above the equator.

I concede that they may be possible, and that it's possible that some exist, albeit at a much lower altitude than that, something more along the lines of where the ISS is said to be.

The theoretical satellites would hum along in the UA just as we do, suspended in what some call the aetheric whirlpool.  Geostationary satellites situated in the so-called "Clarke belt," however, are a different matter entirely.  I know that the given figure is 22k miles (ish), but I suspect this is a falsehood, and that we are only told that there are satellites at this altitude because the maths involved demand that such a satellite would need to be there.

I do own a telescope, and while I haven't done so, I'd imagine I could verify for myself that something stationary is there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a satellite - I don't so easily swallow everything that's said to me.