Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?

  • 65 Replies
  • 19478 Views
Re: Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?
« Reply #60 on: August 03, 2017, 04:22:39 AM »
It seems a working map would be the backbone of their belief.  Every time the subject of distances comes up and it just doesn't fit with the flat earth map, the response is always "You are not using the correct map" or "That isn't the actual map" (or something like that).

The instance I used was that it takes 12 hours to fly from Aukland, New Zealand to Buenos Aires, Argentina; however, based on the flat earth map - that is impossible.  It would take at least twice as long.

C'mon folks, making a map is NOT that hard.  Finding distances between two points is NOT that hard.

They are basing their entire belief on something that they can't agree upon... A MAP ... ... ... ... very interesting.
They are basing their entire belief on "ifs", and "possibly's", and "maybe's"... ... ... ... VERY INTERESTING.

Please, just give me the REAL working flat earth map and I will base ALL of my calculations on that.  Don't say - "Well, that isn't the real map"

This is the map I used.  It seemed to be the best map out there with a scale.


The map you used in my opinion is the one you should use and it was also posted in the forums in January of this year https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69069.0 

The UN uses a flat map that is the Biblical map without much information. The olive leaves are said to stand for Antarctica which is my belief and where the leaves end, IMO, is the edge of Earth. Funny the UN uses it. Such mockery.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45141
  • +93/-136
Re: Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?
« Reply #61 on: August 03, 2017, 05:20:05 AM »
The UN uses a flat map that is the Biblical map without much information.
Interesting.  So you think that biblical map makers knew about the Americas and Australia?

The olive leaves are said to stand for Antarctica which is my belief and where the leaves end, IMO, is the edge of Earth. Funny the UN uses it. Such mockery.
Gee, and I always thought that the olive leaves around the edge stood for world peace.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Badxtoss

  • 3268
  • +0/-0
Re: Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?
« Reply #62 on: August 03, 2017, 07:55:50 AM »
It seems a working map would be the backbone of their belief.  Every time the subject of distances comes up and it just doesn't fit with the flat earth map, the response is always "You are not using the correct map" or "That isn't the actual map" (or something like that).

The instance I used was that it takes 12 hours to fly from Aukland, New Zealand to Buenos Aires, Argentina; however, based on the flat earth map - that is impossible.  It would take at least twice as long.

C'mon folks, making a map is NOT that hard.  Finding distances between two points is NOT that hard.

They are basing their entire belief on something that they can't agree upon... A MAP ... ... ... ... very interesting.
They are basing their entire belief on "ifs", and "possibly's", and "maybe's"... ... ... ... VERY INTERESTING.

Please, just give me the REAL working flat earth map and I will base ALL of my calculations on that.  Don't say - "Well, that isn't the real map"

This is the map I used.  It seemed to be the best map out there with a scale.


The map you used in my opinion is the one you should use and it was also posted in the forums in January of this year https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69069.0 

The UN uses a flat map that is the Biblical map without much information. The olive leaves are said to stand for Antarctica which is my belief and where the leaves end, IMO, is the edge of Earth. Funny the UN uses it. Such mockery.
The UN uses the projection map as a symbol.  The olive leaves stand for peace.  You cannot use that as an actual map.  The distances don't work.
Check out flights between Australia, South America and South Africa.  Those flights would be impossible using that map.

?

pesadilla143

  • 145
  • +0/-0
Re: Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?
« Reply #63 on: August 03, 2017, 03:05:01 PM »
The UN uses a flat map that is the Biblical map without much information. The olive leaves are said to stand for Antarctica which is my belief and where the leaves end, IMO, is the edge of Earth. Funny the UN uses it. Such mockery.

You do realize that the reason the UN uses a "flat earth map" is because if the logo had been designed with a globe, a lot of the countries couldn't be seen on the flag.  It has nothing to do with them believing that the earth is flat.  Go ahead, write any member of the UN and see what they say.  They'll respond.

?

frenat

  • 3752
  • +0/-2
Re: Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?
« Reply #64 on: August 03, 2017, 03:52:52 PM »
The UN uses a flat map that is the Biblical map without much information. The olive leaves are said to stand for Antarctica which is my belief and where the leaves end, IMO, is the edge of Earth. Funny the UN uses it. Such mockery.

You do realize that the reason the UN uses a "flat earth map" is because if the logo had been designed with a globe, a lot of the countries couldn't be seen on the flag.  It has nothing to do with them believing that the earth is flat.  Go ahead, write any member of the UN and see what they say.  They'll respond.

that and that particular projection doesn't put any one country in the center so none appear more important than others.

?

Cartog

  • 538
  • +0/-0
Re: Why is there no definitive map that the FE group can agree upon?
« Reply #65 on: August 03, 2017, 11:43:09 PM »
The map that starts this threat (the Gleason map) is the Polar Azimuthal Equidistant (PAE) projection, the same as the map on the UN flag altho the UN flag has the earth turned so Africa, instead of America, is most prominent.  The map itself uses the word 'projection' - which necessarily means it is an attempt to express a round earth on a flat page.  There are more than a hundred different map projections, all of them show some distortions when mapping an area as big as the entire earth.  The Gleason map is not the only choice; in fact the Gleason map was done in 1892, before the first Wright Brothers' flight, so it lacks some geographic precision, and there are newer versions of the same projection.

But the Gleason map rests on the notion that Antarctica is spread for more than a million miles, all along the rim of the flat planet.  And people who have been there (and hardly anyone was in 1892) can tell us that Antarctica is nothing like that. 

There will not be a 'definitive' Flat Earth map until someone - anyone - locates, for real, with tangible evidence, the EDGE, the boundary, the limit, - y'know, the line where the known geography of the Flat Planet ends.  It ought to be in every direction, if you go far enough.  Most people expect an actual edge, a corner, a side going downward; although some theorize that there is uncharted territory that simply stretches onward beyond the limits of known geography, perhaps into infinity (which raises a question of where the sun, moon, and stars go when they sink below the horizon).  Either way, until that boundary is found with some precision, we will not have a definitive Flat Earth map.

But once we have a definitive Flat Earth map, then mapping will be easy.  No 'projections' with their complex mathematics.  Mapping a Flat Earth on an equally flat paper amounts to a floor plan of the flat planet - the only math is a simple scale, the ratio of (e.g.) one inch equals ten thousand miles.  Every map of the Flat Earth would then be a bigger or smaller version of the very same map.