South America

Hey! I have a question about South America.

Here's South America according to Round Earthers



This image wouldn't exist if it weren't for satellites of course, and I've been on this forum long enough to know that you guys don't accept evidence from satellites. So here's some maps of South America from the 1700's, 1600's and 1500's, respectively. Keep  in mind, these maps were put together prior to the advent of satellites.



And here's South America on the Flat Earth Society's map.



I rotated all these images, and picked two arbitrary points: The Panama Canal, and Cape Horn. I adjusted them so the tips of Argentina were all lined up with each other, and the Panama Canals were all lined up with each other.



Then I outlined it to make it less hard to look at.



As you can see, the Flat Earth Society's South America juts upward in a fashion the other maps do not. Also, the width of the bottom of Argentina is much greater than the other map's. If the Earth is flat, howcome older, pre-satellite, maps more accurately represent maps of the Round Earth than the Flat Earth?

How are you judging their accuracy? By how round-earthers tell you it should look?

How are you judging their accuracy? By how round-earthers tell you it should look?

Are you suggesting the old maps more accurately represent the FE map than the RE map?

How can you be sure that our current maps are 100% accurate? If the earth is flat and satellites don't exist, round earth images are just near representations based on the present technology, but not the perfect graphic rendering of the reality. The flat earth map also isn't totally precise. That's just the closest we can get to the real earth.

How can you be sure that our current maps are 100% accurate? If the earth is flat and satellites don't exist, round earth images are just near representations based on the present technology, but not the perfect graphic rendering of the reality. The flat earth map also isn't totally precise. That's just the closest we can get to the real earth.

If the earth was flat, the cartographers hundreds of years ago would have mapped South America in a way that somewhat represents the FE map, right? Well, obviously they didn't. Their maps look a lot more like the maps we've got right now. That's the point I'm trying to get across.

I'm no sailor, but it's a pretty fundamental mistake to not notice if Brazil sloped upwards or downwards.

The flat earth map also isn't totally precise. That's just the closest we can get to the real earth.

Well thank God for that, otherwise you might have to pick something and stick with it.

How are you judging their accuracy? By how round-earthers tell you it should look?

Um, the pictures of South America taken several hundred of years ago were not using satellites, or any RE stuff. (mostly)
Just some sun positions, and cartography skills. The FE map is bonkers, and you know it. You can't say, "it looks like this, it looks like this!"

Then when someone points an error, "Well, its not perfect!" No, it isn't. It is stupid as well as imperfect.

This is exactly why the FE maps can't be right. Everything south of the equator is all messed up. How could the early cartographers have been that far off? How can the Tropic of Cancer be so much longer than the Tropic of Capricorn, and no ancient sailor noticed? These guys would have had nothing to go on except what they could observe directly, and yet their maps are much more like the RE maps than the FE maps.

Perhaps... the Conspiracy goes even deeper than we imagined!

So many flaws and contradictions in this post. I actually appreciate the work that you did on this, but unfortunately you started from the wrong point. Let me make some statements:

1) There's no such thing as a flat earth map. What you see is a conceptual picture.
2) If you assume a round earth, what you're seeing is not accurate anyway as it has to be converted to a flat surface.
3) They already thought the Earth was round by the time they discovered the Americas.
4) In the old days, they determined their position using sextants, thus basing their maps on a flawed view of the nature of stars.

So many flaws and contradictions in this post. I actually appreciate the work that you did on this, but unfortunately you started from the wrong point. Let me make some statements:

1) There's no such thing as a flat earth map. What you see is a conceptual picture.
2) If you assume a round earth, what you're seeing is not accurate anyway as it has to be converted to a flat surface.
3) They already thought the Earth was round by the time they discovered the Americas.
4) In the old days, they determined their position using sextants, thus basing their maps on a flawed view of the nature of stars.

1) Then it's a very flawed concept, because there is no way to accurately depict the maps we have, which based on real world observations, on a flat disc. The only reasonable conclusion is that the Earth is not a flat disc.

2) We all know that flat, rectangular maps are distorted and we know how to deal with those distortions.

3) Yes, for a good reason! Anyway their notion of Earth's shape makes no difference to their measurements and the maps that came out of those measurements.

4) Use of sextants is only based on how the stars appear in the sky, what angle from what latitude, etc. What those stars actually are makes no difference. You could go out to sea with your own sextant and you'd get the same results.

So many flaws and contradictions in this post. I actually appreciate the work that you did on this, but unfortunately you started from the wrong point. Let me make some statements:

1) There's no such thing as a flat earth map. What you see is a conceptual picture.
2) If you assume a round earth, what you're seeing is not accurate anyway as it has to be converted to a flat surface.
3) They already thought the Earth was round by the time they discovered the Americas.
4) In the old days, they determined their position using sextants, thus basing their maps on a flawed view of the nature of stars.

How is travel even done if there does not exist an accuracte map in the world?

Quote from: muggsybogues1 on April 01, 2013, 02:08:04 PM

So many flaws and contradictions in this post. I actually appreciate the work that you did on this, but unfortunately you started from the wrong point. Let me make some statements:

1) There's no such thing as a flat earth map. What you see is a conceptual picture.
2) If you assume a round earth, what you're seeing is not accurate anyway as it has to be converted to a flat surface.
3) They already thought the Earth was round by the time they discovered the Americas.
4) In the old days, they determined their position using sextants, thus basing their maps on a flawed view of the nature of stars.

How is travel even done if there does not exist an accuracte map in the world?

Everyone involved with travel secretly knows the Earth is flat and they have their own maps which are super accurate! They just won't tell anybody how they do it.

Will these old flat earth maps help set your mind at ease?

In one map, Brazil curves upward

In the other, South America is one giant blob with no shape or definition.

So no, I can't exactly say these maps are accurate.

The Earth is not an euclidean space....

Woo wooo woooooooo