it is not surprising there are similarities.
But we're talking more than mere "similarities" here, Jim. This is blatant ripping off.
I personally produced the map on the left using a tool from NASA that works based on spherical geometry.
The map on the right is the one on display in your FAQ.
the Round Earther's empirical maps can never quite add up to his spherical model. He must distort either the true size, shape or spacing of the continents to accommodate his faulty sphere. A flat empirical map which does not presuppose that the Earth is a globe is not subject to such constraints and can therefore be 100% accurate.
Utterly false. When viewed as a representation flat surface, the above map
is not accurate. If it were a 2D projection, then it could be relied on for distances between
any two points, but it can't. It
can however be relied on for any path that crosses through
the center.
In Flat Earth terms, only
one of these two maps can be correct (
this one or
this one). In reality,
both are correct when measuring through
the center. They have been successfully relied on for years.
Refer to my still-unanswered challenge:
I measure the distance from the center of that map to any other point on it; for example, let's say the southeastern corner of Australia. Now if I take a globe which has a circumference equal to the diameter of your map, and wrap a string from the north pole of that globe to the southeastern corner of Australia, the length of the string will be exactly the same measurement. This will work for a line from the north pole to anywhere else on the map. How do you explain this phenomenon?