Sydney(Australia) to Santiago(Chile): direct flight, 12hrs 30m

Please help me out, because I can't find an explanation for this, although I am still convinced of the earth being flat. The curvature formula vs. the photos and videos proves to me that the earth is flat, but this flight (the only one in contrast with our theory) poses a problem that we need to solve.

I wasn't aware of any photographic images showing unequivocally that the earth was flat.  Can you please post links to them?

No no, I am just a beginner. I am still exploring things. I coherently stand by my curvature formula and horizon videos / pics that prove to me the earth is flat.

This is the second time I've asked you to post the photographs that you claim prove your flat earth theory.  Where are they?

Did you know commercial airlines don't fly over the Antarctica?  Surely these routes would be much quicker (if we were on a ball earth).



They say the ETOPs regulations mean planes have to be near an emergency airport……so how many airports exist in the south pacific?   hehe (even though man can walk on the moon and send spaceships to mars, flying over some snow is far too dangerous…..heheh).
They say this is the routes for commercial planes…..



But do some plane searches between Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa, and Oz, you will be astounded at what you will find!  All with stop overs, and if you find a direct flight (very rare) the duration in the air doesn't add up!

From wiki Polar Route:   “Although direct flights between South Africa and New Zealand would overfly Antarctica, there never have been direct flights between those countries.”

Maybe just lack of demand.

But do some plane searches between Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa, and Oz, you will be astounded at what you will find!  All with stop overs, and if you find a direct flight (very rare) the duration in the air doesn't add up!

Astounded by what? How, specifically, does the duration not add up? 

Can you provide an example of a flight with a duration that "doesn't add up"? Are you still confusing direct flights with nonstop? They're not the same; learn the difference.

Maybe just lack of demand.

This would explain the number of direct flights.

The timing of which seems to work ok
7055 miles in 12 hrs 30 m gives an average speed of 560 mph

Are you suggesting this is in someway wrong Clk?

Alpha2Omega, maybe you should get your head around this question: how long would that specific flight last if they flew across Antarctica?

See picture above!

Acenci,

Although i don't know what you have found, i am very delighted with that information. So, how are we going to celebrate it?

By opening and drinking off a few glasses of a good french champagne?

Hilarious parody about the guy whose theories Saros blindly follows. It seems that Saros is the greatest fan of him. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Must see!

Fellas, I think I've got it figured out.

It's game over for the round earthers. Cikljamas, don't worry about it -- you were right about the fakery. The flight does not actually take place. Now we just need to find evidence to nail them.

I am sorry I cannot provide the evidence I just got. The reason is that if I do, they will add more fakery.

Let's get started working on the videos and the trip advisor comments, because now we need to find the fakery. Because they are fake, although I still have not found the fakery in those. I found the fakery elsewhere. It is blatant. I cannot tell you what it is, as I said. Otherwise you'll tell your colleagues to fake that, too.

Troll Meter:10.

This is obvious satire, or this is just how he thinks.

Acenci,

Although i don't know what you have found, i am very delighted with that information. So, how are we going to celebrate it?

By opening and drinking off a few glasses of a good french champagne?

Hilarious parody about the guy whose theories Saros blindly follows. It seems that Saros is the greatest fan of him. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"> Must see!

Just for the record, I never ever said I follow this guy, are you insane? You are either crazy or just lack any ability to understand what people share with you. That is just too much! You are seriously disturbed if you claim others do stuff which they don't. When did I say I believe this guy? Do you even have dignity or you simply like to claim bullshit about others for fun?

Alpha2Omega, maybe you should get your head around this question: how long would that specific flight last if they flew across Antarctica?

See picture above!

Which specific flight?

Why would any of the ones on the Mercator map (there are four) fly across Antarctica? Drawing straight lines between those locations on the polar map in the same post (an approximation of the GC route) doesn't suggest they should overfly Antarctica. The lines you put on the polar map don't correspond to any actual flights (Hobart, Tasmania to Johannesburg or Buenos Aires [or is that Montevideo]? Seriously?) Your offshore Buenos Aires or Montevideo to Christchurch, NZ approximates an actual flight (Buenos Aires - Auckland), but misses Antarctica, anyway. Using the actual origin and destination makes it miss by more. The rest appear to be random lines.

So, what are the distances and times for those four flights? What is the astounding problem? You tell us.

Ok, fellas, this is all or nothing:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28

I am following one of these phantom flights live. Let's all investigate further on this one, QFA28.

Show me it is really happening. I don't ask for anything better.

According to flightaware it is in the middle of the ocean. But I bet you anything the other two flight trackers will show me nothing in that spot.

Ah ah, I knew it! Bingo!

It is 5 hours into the trip, from Santiago to Sydney, according to flightaware but it is nowhere to be seen according to flightradar24.com.

Do you know why it is not on flightradar24 ?

Yeah, I'd like to know why one of the three flight trackers shows it, but the other two do not.

Find out how flightradar24 works...

As I said, the other two show nothing, and yet they show all the other flights, including those in the middle of Oceans (Atlantic AND Pacific, but only northern). So, you're not going to bullshit your way out of this one.

How does flightradar24 work?  Please explain.

Yeah, typical answer from you civil servants. Keeping us busy, with more questions ("please explain it again, for the tenth time", "please elaborate"... and so on). I am satisfied, the other flat earther is satisfied, and we're out of here. Go work on some other forum, such as on "The perpetrator was Lee Harvey Oswald" threads.

Find out about ADS-B.  Explains why aircraft do not show.

Now there is a flight from Auckland (new zealand) to Santiago, which for our purposes of checking things, is even better.

It is called QF321:

Quote

16:15
Auckland
Duration: 11h 20m   
11:35
Santiago
Stops: 0    This flight is operated by LAN Airlines
QF321

It happens every day at 16:15 local time. There's also a flight back, called QF322, departing at local time 23:05:
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/plan_timetable.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=FITimeTablePortlet&FITimeTablePortlet_actionOverride=%2Fstruts%2Ftimetable%2FScheduleResponse

They both fly every day, and they both take 11 hours. Let's convert these two times in Central European Time:
http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc

Auckland 16:15 in CET it is 8:15, because we have 12 hours less.

16:15 less 12:00 is 4:15, dear. Oops... 

It will fly for 11 hours and 20 minutes, from 8:15 4:15 until 19:35 15:35 , but now wait...; they say arrival "11:35 local time", which is our 15:35, so it is taking 4 hours less -- bingo, first discrepancy exactly as expected.

Santiago 23:05 in CET it is 3:05, because we have 4 hours more.
It will also fly for 11 hours, from 3:05 to 14:15, but now wait... they say arrival "4:15", which is our "8:15"16:15, so now it is taking 6 hours less which is about 2 hours longer. This plane (in theory) crosses the Pacific in 5 hours 13 hours 10 minutes instead of 11 hours. Bingo! Which is exactly what the timetable for QF 322 shows. That 11 hours I used for the return flight was wrong... never mind. 

They are making them up as they go, without worrying about the discrepancies. I made some dumb errors and saw something I liked without checking for errors. Sorry for the confusion.

Your errors (strikethrough) have been corrected (underline) in the above. You're welcome.

Is that it? Sheesh... 

[ProTip:] It may be better to convert all times to the time zone for one city or the other instead of to a third time zone. Fewer conversions means less confusion and less chance for dumb errors.

At any rate, all I have to do next is to stay up until 3 AM and visualize the flight from Santiago on the flight trackers or get up at 8 and track the one from Auckland.

Starting at 3 AM my time until 3:35 PM my time (CET) I will enjoy tracking these planes. I will take snapshots, too.
OK, we're set. End of the story.

Enjoy!

[Edit] typo.

Wow, genius.

So sorry. Yes, you are right. I am glad there are so many people looking for mistakes in what I write.

Good job. Their schedules are correct, and I converted the times incorrectly.

OK. So, I apologize for the horrible mistakes.

Still, no one has explained why the flight does not show on two of the three flight trackers. Not only that, but no flight in the oceans of the southern hemisphere is ever seen.

Land based receivers for flightradar24 with limited range, many in people's homes.

Great job Acenci! Thanks for your efforts!

Alpha2Omega is always on guard, so, he will nothing miss, don't worry about that.

However, i have also noticed (independently) mistake that you have done, but Alpha2Omega always has been much faster gunman than me, no doubts about that.

Only Alpha2Omega is on the wrong side from the beginning, and all mistakes that we do from time to time (and we are just humans, aren't we?) won't help him, because, at the end of the day we shall win (as always).

So, what is your answer (NASA shills) to this? Why two of three flight-trackers don't show this particular flight???

Your apology is accepted. Thanks for offering it.

If you tone down the attitude you'll get better results, as you just saw.

Great job Acenci! Thanks for your efforts!

Alpha2Omega is always on guard, so, he will nothing miss, don't worry about that.

However, i have also noticed (independently) mistake that you have done, but Alpha2Omega always has been much faster gunman than me, no doubts about that.

Only Alpha2Omega is on the wrong side from the beginning, and all mistakes that we do from time to time (and we are just humans, aren't we?) won't help him, because, at the end of the day we shall win (as always).

So, what is your answer (NASA shills) to this? Why two of three flight-trackers don't show this particular flight???

Explained above, limited range.

There's simply no demand for New Zealend - South America travel. If look look at a pie chart of New Zealend ethnicities, south american doesn't even show up. You could do it on a private plane though. No one is stopping you

Yeah, and above, in the rest of the oceans, it's all different. Odd, right?

Not conclusive evidence though. Definitely suspicious, but not enough evidence to be satisfied and close the case. Far less evidence than we have for the faked moon landings, and the fake ISS missions. I'd like to have a lot more.

Here's the Inmarsat-3 Satellite coverage map. Note the satellite footprints - the part of the Earth within line of sight of each satellite (the variously-colored ovals) and the beam coverage - where their system works (the darker-shaded areas).



Note the only parts of the satellite footprints that lack significant coverage? It's the southernmost reaches! Why? Is it a nefarious scheme to keep the "sheeple" in the dark about those transpacific flights, or Inmarsat, a commercial operation that makes its money providing communications services, concentrating its limited and expensive resources where almost all of the potential customers are?

Those flight trackers have to get their location data from somewhere, and for those long over-ocean legs the only practical communications choices are SATCOM and shortwave (HF) radio, which is generally poorly-suited for data. I honestly don't know if any of the flight tracking outfits use data transferred over Inmarsat, but I do know Inmarsat is the 500-pound gorilla in the trans-ocean commercial SATCOM market. At any rate, almost all the ocean areas except the very far north and mid-far south are covered by Inmarsat.

Instead of idly assuming a vast conspiracy is intentionally keeping everyone in the dark, why don't you investigate how those flight trackers get their data. "inquisitive" may be able to help; he seems to have a good knowledge of this. On second thought, it's much easier to simply declaim that you're being duped; that way there's no need to do any actual research (or learn anything) when what you want isn't simply dropped in your lap with little effort.

Acenci, I don't know why Alpha2Omega and inquisitive are still arguing with you when you totally ignore the presented facts.

There are flights between Auckland and Santiago on a regular basis flying over the Pacific. I am not sure what you're trying to prove, but it is bullshit. The flight cannot be fake. Anyone can get on that flight. You can follow it on flightaware too or any other website.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA322/history/20150225/0205Z/SCEL/NZAA

Boeing 777 has a cruising speed of 640 miles/hour = 1024 km/h

7400 miles (11840 km) comes in at around 12 hours.

Try to find this route.

It doesn't exist.

It can't!

The closest i came was a one connection flight with a 3 hours layover.

The total flight time was 20 hours.

20 hours, take away 3 hours, it's 17 hours, not 12 hours!!!

Go ahead, try yourself...

You may find 1 NON-STOP (flight), but even then, the strangeness doesn't end there, because the speed is wrong...

17 (hours) * 1024 km/h = 17 408 km, NOT 11 800 km!!!

AND HE DIDN'T EVEN FLY, THIS WAS JUST AN ATTEMPT OF BOOKING FLIGHT!!!

Listen once more : #t=5m21s" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">#t=5m21s

Acenci says: But I think our flat earth map is still slightly wrong, otherwise the trip should have taken almost 4 times as long as on a spherical earth.

No, it would take about 2 times more than on a spherical Earth

Compare the distance between LA and Rome using this map:




SAROS, BE PREPARED, WATCH THIS :

Just because of the curvature formula? Well, you haven't even begun to read and ponder over the best FET arguments which are real deal here...Do you even know anything about my ZIGZAG argument and all other arguments that i have presented within my GLOBAL CONSPIRACY thread?

I am glad there are so many people looking for mistakes in what I write.

We have to... there's so many LOL.

Their schedules are correct, and I converted the times incorrectly.

And as I said earlier on, one mistake leads to another.  Any of your future claims will obviously need rigorous scrutiny—especially any relating to the purported geometry of the earth.

THIS IS GOING TO SETTLE THE MATTER...LET'S GO STEP BY STEP...

STEP 1 :

Did you know commercial airlines don't fly over the Antarctica?  Surely these routes would be much quicker (if we were on a ball earth).



They say the ETOPs regulations mean planes have to be near an emergency airport……so how many airports exist in the south pacific?   hehe (even though man can walk on the moon and send spaceships to mars, flying over some snow is far too dangerous…..heheh).
They say this is the routes for commercial planes…..



But do some plane searches between Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa, and Oz, you will be astounded at what you will find!  All with stop overs, and if you find a direct flight (very rare) the duration in the air doesn't add up!

From wiki Polar Route:   “Although direct flights between South Africa and New Zealand would overfly Antarctica, there never have been direct flights between those countries.”

STEP 2 :

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 22, 2015, 06:04:15 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 22, 2015, 05:47:14 AM

Why do commercial airplanes not fly over Antarctica, even though it would often be quicker than flying around it?

Great circle route...

It's not "quicker" to fly "around" Antarctica—it's slower to fly over it.

According to your map, that same flight going to Perth should be flying over pretty much the south pole.  Does this happen in real life?

STEP 3 :

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 23, 2015, 02:15:50 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 22, 2015, 06:10:02 AM

According to your map, that same flight going to Perth should be flying over pretty much the south pole.  Does this happen in real life?

No.   There are no flights from Perth to Ezeiza International Airport in South America.  One has to fly from Perth to Sydney.

How about between Perth to anywhere in the southern tip of SA?

STEP 4 :

Airplanes fly above the weather.  Try again.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route
Already been covered.