What IS the official map for FE discussions?

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 02, 2018, 05:56:29 PM

To create an accurate  flat map of the entire earth, they would have to create a map in which the sizes and shapes of all land masses, such as continents and islands,would have to be determined to be accurate by surveys. (This has already been done.)

Great, except you're asking for a FE map. You can argue that it's impossible, but that's an entirely separate topic to "What is the map?"
Everyone knows what it entails. I'm asking how you would suggest they do it?

Thee is only one shape of the earth - WGS84.  Simple.

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 02, 2018, 05:56:29 PM

Quote from: Jane on January 02, 2018, 05:15:30 PM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 02, 2018, 05:06:17 PM

The question is: Why can’t FE followers come up with a model? We have one model that we all share. You all twist and turn and shift your model every other thread (if not multiple times in the same thread).

How would you suggest they create a map?

To create an accurate  flat map of the entire earth, they would have to create a map in which the sizes and shapes of all land masses, such as continents and islands,would have to be determined to be accurate by surveys. (This has already been done.)
Then they would have to lay these out on a flat surface and place them so that the distances between them would have to be determined to be accurate by surveys. (This has already been done.)
All of this has been done for quite some time.
It's called " A Globe" .

But they present non-symetrical grids. The more north/south, the bigger square will be.
While most people didn't notice this 'corruption' and then think that globe map represents the real shape of the lands on earth. Definitely nope.

So try Reverse Flat Earth Map.

No no no.

People who understand flat projections of the globe know that the northern and southern regions are stretched to make them flat. They are distorted deliberately to flatten them because you can’t carry a globe in your pocket or print one in a book. Where did you go to school? This is all basic stuff.

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 02, 2018, 05:56:29 PM

To create an accurate  flat map of the entire earth, they would have to create a map in which the sizes and shapes of all land masses, such as continents and islands,would have to be determined to be accurate by surveys. (This has already been done.)

Great, except you're asking for a FE map. You can argue that it's impossible, but that's an entirely separate topic to "What is the map?"
Everyone knows what it entails. I'm asking how you would suggest they do it?

How "they do it" is not our problem. They are the ones claiming that the earth is flat.
So it's up to them to find out what the layout of the continents might be.
And we have flat earthers  (especially planar moderator Gotham) claiming that the "flat earth" is ready to sweep the world.
Well, if they don't even have any idea of where things are and the distance between them, ie a map, they won't be taking over anything!

But a great part of the earth has been measured (surveyed) by navigators and geodetic surveyors.
This is with sufficient accuracy for us to locate almost any place on earth simply by going to a certain latitude and longitude.
Not only can we locate the place, but we can predict quite accurately the distance involved.

If flat earthers choose to deny this information, that's their problem, not ours.

Flat earthers made this problem for themselves, so let them fix it!

And you still try to support your poor dead horse!

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 02, 2018, 05:56:29 PM

To create an accurate  flat map of the entire earth, they would have to create a map in which the sizes and shapes of all land masses, such as continents and islands,would have to be determined to be accurate by surveys. (This has already been done.)

Great, except you're asking for a FE map. You can argue that it's impossible, but that's an entirely separate topic to "What is the map?"
Everyone knows what it entails. I'm asking how you would suggest they do it?

Everyone knows what it entails and for centuries, bright minds have done all it entails and have come up with a globed map. Then some fella comes along and says "hell no. It can't be. The earth is flat but I don't know what it looks like" And we should all be fine with that? Give it "equal attention"? How can you say it isn't globular doing all it entails when you can't make all that data fit a flat earth map?

Well, the artist once known as Inky seems to have stuffed hie ears with enough cuttonwool to avoid distractions so as to work out the "correct distances" by "averaging out errors " and "lies" from the globed map in order to create a flat earth map. Iam sooo waiting to see his excuses for why it doesn't work out. I'll give good money to see his face when his flat map begins to bend.

P.s. can anyone give me a link to the flat earther who tried to use flight times to create a map and had to have 2 Australias to make it work?

Uh oh - a harmless question and so many replies...

Let me rephrase my original question then, hoping for an answer by FE believers and FE society members:
If comparing the 'official' FE map (in my first post) with the projected polar maps of USGS I find them to look identical! So ONE view must be WRONG (FE or USGS), as both can not be true at the same time!

All USCS maps are proportionally distorted to reflect the 'gobal' view in proper perspective.
Hence they CAN NOT be identical to a FLAT EARTH map, as proposed by the members of the FE society.

Meaning that there MUST be a UNIQUE and DISTINGUISHED map for a FLAT Earth. It has to look SIGNIFICANTLY different to the USGS maps, it CANNOT show the same  shapes of landmasses seen on projected polar maps used by USGS.
But all FE maps "circulating" (ha!) today appear to be mere copies of the projected polar view maps by USGS.

As the FE's topography is assumed to be flat, here would be no need to distort curved shapes; all is laid out linear and flat, very easy to measure. That map I want to see!
So again: which IS the official FE map to use for fact based debates?

For now I have created a large printout of the forementioned 2015 FE map and am ready to do some distance and size calculations.
Especially at the outermost (southern) area, where the alleged army border controls is blocking access to the rim.

Non FE believers should refrain from answering; as I want to hear the official 'FE' side and their explanation!

Thank you!

Bullshit, you lying fucking asshole!
The paper,by necessity, needs to be cut and drawn in a very certain fashion, to even fit on a sphere!

God, I am sick of your lying fucking shit!

You are the lying fucking asshole here.

You do not need paper to construct a globe.
You are aware it is possible to draw or paint (or even print) onto a spherical object?
Not all globes are made of paper.

Regardless, that does not mean that a globe model required manipulating maps to fit on it.

So, all your globe depicts is a representation of numbers in the form of a "series of measurements!?!?

Still having no ability to understand words I see.

It is a series of points, with measurements between those points used to determine their position in 3D polar coordinates.

Do you have a single shred of honesty in your entire body?

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 02, 2018, 05:06:17 PM

The question is: Why can’t FE followers come up with a model? We have one model that we all share. You all twist and turn and shift your model every other thread (if not multiple times in the same thread).

How would you suggest they create a map?

I have provided several simple methods for creating a map numerous times.

You continually bitch about us not discussing the numerous failed methods of the FEers when we say they can't do something or ask for an explanation, yet you repeatedly ask this question as if there is no way to do it.
How about you follow your own advice and either explain why my methods don't work, or shut up as you aren't doing anything constructive here.

But they present non-symetrical grids. The more north/south, the bigger square will be.
While most people didn't notice this 'corruption' and then think that globe map represents the real shape of the lands on earth. Definitely nope.

What does? The globe or flat maps of Earth?
The globe doesn't have square grids so I assume you are discussing flat maps?

If so, they have to because Earth isn't flat.
This "corruption" is simply more evidence that EARTH IS NOT FLAT!
If Earth was flat, there would be no need for this distortion. There would just be a single world map.

So try Reverse Flat Earth Map.

Not until you can explain the existence of two celestial poles and the numerous other issues I have already raised with it.

Let me rephrase my original question then, hoping for an answer by FE believers and FE society members:
If comparing the 'official' FE map (in my first post) with the projected polar maps of USGS I find them to look identical! So ONE view must be WRONG (FE or USGS), as both can not be true at the same time!

All USCS maps are proportionally distorted to reflect the 'gobal' view in proper perspective.
Hence they CAN NOT be identical to a FLAT EARTH map, as proposed by the members of the FE society.

Meaning that there MUST be a UNIQUE and DISTINGUISHED map for a FLAT Earth. It has to look SIGNIFICANTLY different to the USGS maps, it CANNOT show the same  shapes of landmasses seen on projected polar maps used by USGS.

Not quite.
Yes, one view must be wrong. The map would either be a projection of a globe or a FE map (or neither).
However, this doesn't mean it can't be the FE map. The USGS could merely be using that as an actual map of Earth and claiming it as a projection of the globe, with globes produces by mapping this onto the surface of a sphere.

It is a two way relation.

Well, I have a hard time imagining that, to be honest. The map-making process that gave us the globe involved many thousands of people working for centuries—many of them were among the brightest minds of their age. Sailors, navigators, astronomers, cartographers, physicists...FES has no such adherents.

Then why ask for something you see no way of them ever achieving?

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 02, 2018, 07:25:10 PM

Well, I have a hard time imagining that, to be honest. The map-making process that gave us the globe involved many thousands of people working for centuries—many of them were among the brightest minds of their age. Sailors, navigators, astronomers, cartographers, physicists...FES has no such adherents.

Then why ask for something you see no way of them ever achieving?

Why bother posting when you have nothing to say?

Quote from: Jane on January 03, 2018, 03:09:53 AM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 02, 2018, 07:25:10 PM

Well, I have a hard time imagining that, to be honest. The map-making process that gave us the globe involved many thousands of people working for centuries—many of them were among the brightest minds of their age. Sailors, navigators, astronomers, cartographers, physicists...FES has no such adherents.

Then why ask for something you see no way of them ever achieving?

Why bother posting when you have nothing to say?

Seems a pretty valid point to me: why is it relevant they don't have something you see no way for them to ever produce regardless of model?
Sorry you don't like it when I dare point out not every single RE argument works, but quite frankly grow up.

Quote from: rabinoz on January 03, 2018, 03:49:07 AM

Quote from: Jane on January 03, 2018, 03:09:53 AM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 02, 2018, 07:25:10 PM

Well, I have a hard time imagining that, to be honest. The map-making process that gave us the globe involved many thousands of people working for centuries—many of them were among the brightest minds of their age. Sailors, navigators, astronomers, cartographers, physicists...FES has no such adherents.

Then why ask for something you see no way of them ever achieving?

Why bother posting when you have nothing to say?

Seems a pretty valid point to me: why is it relevant they don't have something you see no way for them to ever produce regardless of model?
Sorry you don't like it when I dare point out not every single RE argument works, but quite frankly grow up.

I think that's kind of the point. If an accurate model of a flat earth is impossible, then how can anyone argue in favor of a flat earth?

As rare as hens teeth, flat earth maps that is. Last time I looked it’s not possible to make a map out of a fallacy, but I’m sure they will make up stuff to compensate.

I think that's kind of the point. If an accurate model of a flat earth is impossible, then how can anyone argue in favor of a flat earth?

This isn't about a model, it's about a map.
The shape of the world is pretty irrelevant to the basic practicalities of how any random group of forum users can be expected to map out the entire world.

If you want to argue that a map is impossible, assuming what you said was a typo, then that's a valid point, you can talk a lot about distances and angles that can't exist on a flat Earth, but that negates the need to ask for a map.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 03, 2018, 06:53:16 AM

I think that's kind of the point. If an accurate model of a flat earth is impossible, then how can anyone argue in favor of a flat earth?

This isn't about a model, it's about a map.
The shape of the world is pretty irrelevant to the basic practicalities of how any random group of forum users can be expected to map out the entire world.

If you want to argue that a map is impossible, assuming what you said was a typo, then that's a valid point, you can talk a lot about distances and angles that can't exist on a flat Earth, but that negates the need to ask for a map.

Personally, I want a model. But a map seems just as impossible. I don't think it's impossible due to limited manpower or funds. Do you?

Personally, I want a model. But a map seems just as impossible. I don't think it's impossible due to limited manpower or funds. Do you?

Likewise, I like understanding the models FEers come up with.
But as far as a map goes, it's impossible for several reasons. Sure, the world's round, but even if it wasn't limited manpower and funds are still a factor.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 03, 2018, 09:04:46 AM

Personally, I want a model. But a map seems just as impossible. I don't think it's impossible due to limited manpower or funds. Do you?

Likewise, I like understanding the models FEers come up with.
But as far as a map goes, it's impossible for several reasons. Sure, the world's round, but even if it wasn't limited manpower and funds are still a factor.

I don't think they are factors.  At least not for a basic working map.  For instance, I have personally driven across the US and Canada and can confirm that the distances given on google maps is accurate.  Same is true for much of Western Europe.  I know people that have driven across Australia, and can confirm those distances are accurate.
So if the size of these continents is accurate, then all they need do is print out an image of the continents to the same scale and place them on a flat map so that known flight times and distances match the map.
If the world were flat this would be easy.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on January 03, 2018, 06:53:16 AM

I think that's kind of the point. If an accurate model of a flat earth is impossible, then how can anyone argue in favor of a flat earth?

This isn't about a model, it's about a map.
The shape of the world is pretty irrelevant to the basic practicalities of how any random group of forum users can be expected to map out the entire world.

If you want to argue that a map is impossible, assuming what you said was a typo, then that's a valid point, you can talk a lot about distances and angles that can't exist on a flat Earth, but that negates the need to ask for a map.

A map is just one kind of model. How about “accurate scaled-down representation that corresponds to multiple consistent observations and is able to predict future observations”? 2D, 3D...anything! I just don’t understand how FE supporters can be so certain that they know the truth about something when they admit that they don’t even know the thing that they “know.”

Imagine a criminal trial witness: “I can’t describe the person that I saw beyond having arms and legs, but I’m convinced that the accused is guilty!”

I don't think they are factors.  At least not for a basic working map.  For instance, I have personally driven across the US and Canada and can confirm that the distances given on google maps is accurate.  Same is true for much of Western Europe.  I know people that have driven across Australia, and can confirm those distances are accurate.

How? Best case scenario I imagine is that they were ballpark-correct with respect to traffic and the like giving you a fair bit of error, and even then you rarely get a straight road for distances large enough for this. Though, yes, theoretically a FEer with a few weeks off could take the time to specifically check distances and angle and map out their local area.

It's not really as simple as you're portraying it mind you; the timescales necessary for starters. I'm in the UK and it'd basically take a day to drive from top to bottom, without touching the other dimension, and you have states bigger than my whole country. Taking that journey while keeping notes, gauging angle and direction, is no easy task, and that's just one distance.
And it'd be longer than that for several states for any US-FEers, and then they'd need to be put in contact with FEers in other countries.
Even if you just want to take one place, for now, say Texas, how feasible would it be for most people to map just that one place?

So if the size of these continents is accurate, then all they need do is print out an image of the continents to the same scale and place them on a flat map so that known flight times and distances match the map.
If the world were flat this would be easy.

This is where the big issue arises. They'd use flight times, not distances; distances are what we're trying to ascertain. However, they aren't all constant, jet streams are a huge factor in a lot of them. if you've ever been on holiday chances are you've noticed the time one way can be a lot shorter than the time the other way. The times give you a huge area of possible relations, even if it were easy to identify angle.

A map is just one kind of model. How about “accurate scaled-down representation that corresponds to multiple consistent observations and is able to predict future observations”? 2D, 3D...anything! I just don’t understand how FE supporters can be so certain that they know the truth about something when they admit that they don’t even know the thing that they “know.”

Imagine a criminal trial witness: “I can’t describe the person that I saw beyond having arms and legs, but I’m convinced that the accused is guilty!”

You can't really explain observations if all you have is a map. If you want to go by criminal trial, others could also identify that person having motive, being at the correct location at the correct time, and leaving their fingerprints there. A map's a minor element, comparatively. Could be useful, but there's a lot more to discuss in its absence, and regardless of the shape of the Earth you more than likely wouldn't easily get one.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 09:39:01 AM

I don't think they are factors.  At least not for a basic working map.  For instance, I have personally driven across the US and Canada and can confirm that the distances given on google maps is accurate.  Same is true for much of Western Europe.  I know people that have driven across Australia, and can confirm those distances are accurate.

How? Best case scenario I imagine is that they were ballpark-correct with respect to traffic and the like giving you a fair bit of error, and even then you rarely get a straight road for distances large enough for this. Though, yes, theoretically a FEer with a few weeks off could take the time to specifically check distances and angle and map out their local area.

It's not really as simple as you're portraying it mind you; the timescales necessary for starters. I'm in the UK and it'd basically take a day to drive from top to bottom, without touching the other dimension, and you have states bigger than my whole country. Taking that journey while keeping notes, gauging angle and direction, is no easy task, and that's just one distance.
And it'd be longer than that for several states for any US-FEers, and then they'd need to be put in contact with FEers in other countries.
Even if you just want to take one place, for now, say Texas, how feasible would it be for most people to map just that one place?

Quote

So if the size of these continents is accurate, then all they need do is print out an image of the continents to the same scale and place them on a flat map so that known flight times and distances match the map.
If the world were flat this would be easy.

This is where the big issue arises. They'd use flight times, not distances; distances are what we're trying to ascertain. However, they aren't all constant, jet streams are a huge factor in a lot of them. if you've ever been on holiday chances are you've noticed the time one way can be a lot shorter than the time the other way. The times give you a huge area of possible relations, even if it were easy to identify angle.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on January 03, 2018, 09:47:13 AM

A map is just one kind of model. How about “accurate scaled-down representation that corresponds to multiple consistent observations and is able to predict future observations”? 2D, 3D...anything! I just don’t understand how FE supporters can be so certain that they know the truth about something when they admit that they don’t even know the thing that they “know.”

Imagine a criminal trial witness: “I can’t describe the person that I saw beyond having arms and legs, but I’m convinced that the accused is guilty!”

You can't really explain observations if all you have is a map. If you want to go by criminal trial, others could also identify that person having motive, being at the correct location at the correct time, and leaving their fingerprints there. A map's a minor element, comparatively. Could be useful, but there's a lot more to discuss in its absence, and regardless of the shape of the Earth you more than likely wouldn't easily get one.

No, all of that is a cop out.  Distances on land are easily verifiable.  Initially you would only need to be very roughly accurate to prove the point.  We are talking about hours, not weeks.
It's like saying, we can't recreate google maps so there is no point in trying anything at all.
It would be easy to get it close enough to prove the point.  The distances between a round and flat earth are so incredibly different you would be able to see it pretty quickly.

No, all of that is a cop out.  Distances on land are easily verifiable.  Initially you would only need to be very roughly accurate to prove the point.  We are talking about hours, not weeks.
It's like saying, we can't recreate google maps so there is no point in trying anything at all.
It would be easy to get it close enough to prove the point.  The distances between a round and flat earth are so incredibly different you would be able to see it pretty quickly.

Lack of feasibility is not a cop-out. Do you know how big the distances you're talking about are? If you've travelled over the US you ought to know how long just the journey would take, to both go out, measure the distances to even a vague extent, and go home, would take a hell of a lot more than hours.
Sure, some areas under FET would be very different to RET (not all mind you, so hardly as easy as you're portraying again), but aside from how a lot of the time the biggest differences get shunted over to be in the ocean, you still need to travel a seriously long way before you notice.

And again, that is not the same as asking for a map. If you can point out distances that don't work on a flat surface you shouldn't be asking for a map, you should be giving a comparatively easily testable instance.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 10:41:49 AM

No, all of that is a cop out.  Distances on land are easily verifiable.  Initially you would only need to be very roughly accurate to prove the point.  We are talking about hours, not weeks.
It's like saying, we can't recreate google maps so there is no point in trying anything at all.
It would be easy to get it close enough to prove the point.  The distances between a round and flat earth are so incredibly different you would be able to see it pretty quickly.

Lack of feasibility is not a cop-out. Do you know how big the distances you're talking about are? If you've travelled over the US you ought to know how long just the journey would take, to both go out, measure the distances to even a vague extent, and go home, would take a hell of a lot more than hours.
Sure, some areas under FET would be very different to RET (not all mind you, so hardly as easy as you're portraying again), but aside from how a lot of the time the biggest differences get shunted over to be in the ocean, you still need to travel a seriously long way before you notice.

And again, that is not the same as asking for a map. If you can point out distances that don't work on a flat surface you shouldn't be asking for a map, you should be giving a comparatively easily testable instance.

The distances have been driven by many people.  Again, easily verifiable, no need for some individual to drive every single one.
The only challenge really, is making them fit on a flat surface so that flights, or ocean travel, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere are even remotely possible.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 10:41:49 AM

No, all of that is a cop out.  Distances on land are easily verifiable.  Initially you would only need to be very roughly accurate to prove the point.  We are talking about hours, not weeks.
It's like saying, we can't recreate google maps so there is no point in trying anything at all.
It would be easy to get it close enough to prove the point.  The distances between a round and flat earth are so incredibly different you would be able to see it pretty quickly.

Lack of feasibility is not a cop-out. Do you know how big the distances you're talking about are? If you've travelled over the US you ought to know how long just the journey would take, to both go out, measure the distances to even a vague extent, and go home, would take a hell of a lot more than hours.
Sure, some areas under FET would be very different to RET (not all mind you, so hardly as easy as you're portraying again), but aside from how a lot of the time the biggest differences get shunted over to be in the ocean, you still need to travel a seriously long way before you notice.

And again, that is not the same as asking for a map. If you can point out distances that don't work on a flat surface you shouldn't be asking for a map, you should be giving a comparatively easily testable instance.

Another problem that you have is that all the competent people are in in “The Conspiracy.”

The distances have been driven by many people.  Again, easily verifiable, no need for some individual to drive every single one.
The only challenge really, is making them fit on a flat surface so that flights, or ocean travel, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere are even remotely possible.

All that establishes is approximate accuracy, and even then only over landmass. When you take into account traffic and angle, over distances the size we're talking about the error unavoidably increases.
Plus there are land distances that couldn't exist on a FE (easy enough to see by sheer size), so a FEer would have to believe that they're wrong, hence the need to verify and check which ones work.
Usual issues with flights etc, as mentioned before, apply. Even if you were to ignore the sheer scale of what has to be examined, you're still stuck with an ungodly amount of error if all you do is go by journeys never intended to measure distances. It all adds up.

Quote from: Badxtoss on January 03, 2018, 10:51:23 AM

The distances have been driven by many people.  Again, easily verifiable, no need for some individual to drive every single one.
The only challenge really, is making them fit on a flat surface so that flights, or ocean travel, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere are even remotely possible.

All that establishes is approximate accuracy, and even then only over landmass. When you take into account traffic and angle, over distances the size we're talking about the error unavoidably increases.
Plus there are land distances that couldn't exist on a FE (easy enough to see by sheer size), so a FEer would have to believe that they're wrong, hence the need to verify and check which ones work.
Usual issues with flights etc, as mentioned before, apply. Even if you were to ignore the sheer scale of what has to be examined, you're still stuck with an ungodly amount of error if all you do is go by journeys never intended to measure distances. It all adds up.

Again, cop out.  Distances are known and verifiable. 
But you are right.  It won't be done because it would prove FE wrong.  And that's why there are no legit FE maps.
It would be easy to make one accurate enough to prove the point.  All you have listed is lame excuses.

Given that a FEer could never in a month of Sunday’s produce a FE map, does it not render this discussion rather obsolete?
The surface of the earth was recently mapped in 3D by two German satellites, the results can be seen here:
http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-10376/684_read-19509/#/gallery/24516

Is it not time for the FEers to pack their bags and go home? How much more proof do they want or need to show the planet is not flat?

Seems a pretty valid point to me: why is it relevant they don't have something you see no way for them to ever produce regardless of model?
Sorry you don't like it when I dare point out not every single RE argument works, but quite frankly grow up.

You are the one that seriously needs to grow up.
You repeatedly ignore arguments that are made and just bitch and moan about what people say.
It should be easy for them to produce a map, if Earth was actually flat.
The reason it is impossible is because Earth is round.

That is the entire point.
We ask for something which would be impossible if Earth is roughly spherical, as there is no way to map the surface of a sphere to a flat surface without distortion.
But it would only be impossible if Earth is round. If Earth is flat, it is quite easy.
So no, us thinking it is impossible has everything to do with reality.

But as far as a map goes, it's impossible for several reasons. Sure, the world's round, but even if it wasn't limited manpower and funds are still a factor.

Stop lying.
I have provided several simple ways to produce a rough map of the world.
It is well within their reach. The problem is not the difficulty of producing a map, it is that Earth isn't flat.

How? Best case scenario I imagine is that they were ballpark-correct with respect to traffic and the like giving you a fair bit of error,

Why would traffic give you error?
You are aware most cars have these things called odometers?
They measure distance.
Speed times time is not the only way to measure.

even then you rarely get a straight road for distances large enough for this.

Instead you typically get a grid of roads with known distances on the globe model, different "known" distances on the FE models, and measured distances in reality.

It's not really as simple as you're portraying it mind you

No, it is.
His method uses already produced maps to confirm their accuracy.

the timescales necessary for starters.

Irrelevant. FEers have been around for long enough for that to not be any excuse.

Even if you just want to take one place, for now, say Texas, how feasible would it be for most people to map just that one place?

Again, his method is based upon confirming existing maps.
This would be quite feasible.

This is where the big issue arises. They'd use flight times, not distances

Which is one option he provided.

if you've ever been on holiday chances are you've noticed the time one way can be a lot shorter than the time the other way.

Which is why you would use both measurements to work out an average distance.

The times give you a huge area of possible relations

Which would still be enough to rule out a FE.

You can't really explain observations if all you have is a map.

No, but without a map you can't explain basically any.
For example time zones, sunrise, sunset, the apparent position of the stars and so on all require knowing the spatial relationship between locations. Without that you cannot explain it.

If you want to go by criminal trial, others could also identify that person having motive, being at the correct location at the correct time, and leaving their fingerprints there.

Except in this case, the map would correspond to the description of that person entirely, including any possible motive they might have, where they are at particular times and their fingerprints.

So for a more accurate analogy, you have a possible motive, a location and a fingerprint, and without any evidence at all tying it to that person you just claim it is their motive and fingerprint and that they were at that location.

A map's a minor element, comparatively.

No it is a major element, without which a lot cannot be discussed.

Could be useful, but there's a lot more to discuss in its absence

No there isn't.
As often pointed out by FEers several arguments or discussions rely upon the choice of map.
Without having a map, FEers cannot explain or really discuss any of these things.

regardless of the shape of the Earth you more than likely wouldn't easily get one.

Again, that is a lie, I have provided several methods which would allow you to do so quite easily.

Lack of feasibility is not a cop-out.

But excuses to pretend it isn't feasible is.


Now stop lying and stop ignoring what has been provided to you several times.

Again, cop out.  Distances are known and verifiable. 
But you are right.  It won't be done because it would prove FE wrong.  And that's why there are no legit FE maps.
It would be easy to make one accurate enough to prove the point.  All you have listed is lame excuses.

No, you're just not thinking about what mapping the entire bloody world entails.
'Distances are known and verifiable.' Great. Except, in case you haven't noticed, the important word there is 'verifiable.' If you are asking them to make a map, they actually have to verify.
You aren't asking them to make a map, you're asking them to fit existing distances to a flat plane. That's not a map, that's a counter-argument. if you want to go that route, it'd make much more sense to give three locations with distances and angles that can't exist on a flat plane; that kind of thing's been done before.

You can't switch between two points to cover one another's weaknesses. Either you want them to make a map, which isn't feasible, or you want them to explain existing distances, which is an argument that's all on you.

Either you want them to make a map, which isn't feasible

Stop lying. It would be quite simple to make a map if Earth was flat. I have explained that to you many times.