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

^oh yeah? Well watch this.

^oh yeah? Well watch this.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Debunk this if you can : 100% Proof We live on a FLAT EARTH! : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on March 07, 2016, 09:40:10 AM

^oh yeah? Well watch this.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Debunk this if you can : 100% Proof We live on a FLAT EARTH! : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

they show the pic showing sun visibility when the Moon visibility from the same site shows that the Moon was still visible in Nevada on the ground at that time.  the Sun and the Moon set later at higher altitudes so it would definitely still be visible for the rocket at altitude.  This has been mentioned on a couple other threads where this was brought up as well as in the comments for the original video of the launch.

How do we know that is a 720 mile stretch of horizon?  What was the magnification of the camera?

 How do we know that is a 720 mile stretch of horizon?  What was the magnification of the camera?

Watch the accompanying video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ok, so I keep my belief in flat earth and I add to this belief these two:

1) the map is correct and the flight is faked
2) I need to investigate on how exactly they are faking these few southern hemisphere flights and if there are real passengers or not

If it helps add data to your thinking, I used to be a mechanic for Qantas and personally serviced aircraft that flew the Sydney-Santiago route. That included dialling in the fuel load, monitoring the fuelling, and taking the fuel quantity and per-tank load sheet up to the pilots after fuelling was done (which meant entering the plane once fuelling was finished and - on a 747 - walking back through part of the cabin, then up to the upper deck and through the pax cabin up there into the cockpit). There were definitely hundreds of people on those planes. Because I saw them each time.

Similarly, I watched hundreds of passengers disembarking from SCL arrivals.

If they were all actors to fool me into believing that the flight was real so that I thought the planet was round then it's a pretty expensive way of doing things. And goodness knows where those actors go after a long day at their "pretend to fly between Australia and Chile" job.

Quote from: acenci on February 27, 2015, 03:48:51 PM

Ok, so I keep my belief in flat earth and I add to this belief these two:

1) the map is correct and the flight is faked
2) I need to investigate on how exactly they are faking these few southern hemisphere flights and if there are real passengers or not

If it helps add data to your thinking, I used to be a mechanic for Qantas and personally serviced aircraft that flew the Sydney-Santiago route. That included dialling in the fuel load, monitoring the fuelling, and taking the fuel quantity and per-tank load sheet up to the pilots after fuelling was done (which meant entering the plane once fuelling was finished and - on a 747 - walking back through part of the cabin, then up to the upper deck and through the pax cabin up there into the cockpit). There were definitely hundreds of people on those planes. Because I saw them each time.

Similarly, I watched hundreds of passengers disembarking from SCL arrivals.

If they were all actors to fool me into believing that the flight was real so that I thought the planet was round then it's a pretty expensive way of doing things. And goodness knows where those actors go after a long day at their "pretend to fly between Australia and Chile" job.

Of course they aren't actors. This is the kind of logic we're dealing with.  Instead of this person "doing research" by purchasing a ticket (probably because he is unemployed and cannot afford t to and spending all his time locked in his parent's basement doing this "research") and flying there he makes ludicrous and completely baseless assumptions.  Logical arguments will not work when they make unscrupulous assumptions such as the moon is self-illuminating.  They just spout this stuff with a straight face but can't offer one shred of evidence.  They can't even prove the distance of the sun and moon or offer reasonable explanations why the sun sets on the horizon.  Have you heard of their "aether" arguments? Comical stuff...

Watch the accompanying video : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I don't know if you went into hibernation again, but I'll answer anyway.

The narrator states the distance to the horizon is 720 miles, not that the horizon is 720 across.  What was the camera magnification?  A higher resolution shot of that frame can easily be found that shows curvature of the horizon.

Wouldn't we need flights connecting each adjacent pair of the three southern hemispherical continents to cite flight times as proof of RE? All that has been proven is the the distance between Australia and Chile is consistent with the RE model. Has anyone adequately debunked flight time discrepancies between South Africa and Australia, or South Africa and South America?

Wouldn't we need flights connecting each adjacent pair of the three southern hemispherical continents to cite flight times as proof of RE? All that has been proven is the the distance between Australia and Chile is consistent with the RE model. Has anyone adequately debunked flight time discrepancies between South Africa and Australia, or South Africa and South America?

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society forums, Terra!

You can use a flight finder like travelocity or any of many others to find nonstop flights (not direct flights) between large cities. That will show what's available and give a nominal flight time. Plug the airline and flight number into a site like flightaware, and it will give the planned distance for the flight. Note that the planned distance probably will not be exactly the same as great-circle distance, but is usually pretty close on long flights unless there is a reason to avoid a large region or take a longer route to catch more favorable winds aloft; it should never be shorter. The planned distances may change somewhat from day to day due to changing conditions. An alternative may be to find the flight on the airline's timetable and look for the distance they provide; that may be the actual great-circle distance from origin to destination.

Qantas Airlines, Sydney, Australia (SYD)/Johannesburg, South Africa (JNB)
QF63 SYD - JNB 14h 20m - Distance Planned:10,735 km
QF64 JNB - SYD 11h 50m - Distance Planned:11,033 km

South African Airways, Johannesburg, South Africa (JNB)/Sao Paulo, Brazil (GRU)
SA222 - JNB - GRU - 10h 20m - Distance Planned: 7,445 km
SA223 - GRU - JNB - 08h 25m - Distance Planned: 7,445 km

It looks like the eastbound flights are significantly faster than the westbound flights. This is probably due to strong westerly winds at the altitudes flown in those latitudes.

I couldn't find a nonstop between Africa and Santiago, Chile (SCL), which is an endpoint for most of the Australia to South America nonstops. Sao Paulo (GRU) was the best I could do in a quick search. Perhaps you can do better.

Quote from: Terra on June 30, 2016, 06:56:36 PM

Wouldn't we need flights connecting each adjacent pair of the three southern hemispherical continents to cite flight times as proof of RE? All that has been proven is the the distance between Australia and Chile is consistent with the RE model. Has anyone adequately debunked flight time discrepancies between South Africa and Australia, or South Africa and South America?

Welcome to the Flat Earth Society forums, Terra!

You can use a flight finder like travelocity or any of many others to find nonstop flights (not direct flights) between large cities. That will show what's available and give a nominal flight time. Plug the airline and flight number into a site like flightaware, and it will give the planned distance for the flight. Note that the planned distance probably will not be exactly the same as great-circle distance, but is usually pretty close on long flights unless there is a reason to avoid a large region or take a longer route to catch more favorable winds aloft; it should never be shorter. The planned distances may change somewhat from day to day due to changing conditions. An alternative may be to find the flight on the airline's timetable and look for the distance they provide; that may be the actual great-circle distance from origin to destination.

Qantas Airlines, Sydney, Australia (SYD)/Johannesburg, South Africa (JNB)
QF63 SYD - JNB 14h 20m - Distance Planned:10,735 km
QF64 JNB - SYD 11h 50m - Distance Planned:11,033 km

South African Airways, Johannesburg, South Africa (JNB)/Sao Paulo, Brazil (GRU)
SA222 - JNB - GRU - 10h 20m - Distance Planned: 7,445 km
SA223 - GRU - JNB - 08h 25m - Distance Planned: 7,445 km

It looks like the eastbound flights are significantly faster than the westbound flights. This is probably due to strong westerly winds at the altitudes flown in those latitudes.

I couldn't find a nonstop between Africa and Santiago, Chile (SCL), which is an endpoint for most of the Australia to South America nonstops. Sao Paulo (GRU) was the best I could do in a quick search. Perhaps you can do better.

I think that Johannesburg (JNB) to/from Sao Paulo (GRU) is the best you can do.
Here is the Sao Paulo to Johannesburg from FlightRadar24.
The "great circle" distance is shown as 7,447 km and the total flight time as 7 hrs 58 mins.
The East to West flight would take somewhat longer.

That gets you almost around the world except for the bit from Sao Paulo to Santiago and that is easy enough to chase up.