distance between santiago de chile and melbourne on a fe?

<insufficient so called reply>

You still not answered all the statements. So you have not answer to claims but asking new questions. You have to answer all the statements below:

You have been provided plenty of evidence that it exists. Enough for most people to say it has been proven to exist.

Nope. They were not evidences but a bunch of garbage like many things about this issue.

Enough for most people to say it has been proven to exist.

So atheism is failed because of stayed minority, right?

As such, the burden is on you to show it doesn't exist, and that is something you are yet to do.

Again, since the upside claims are not evidences, I have nothing to show. Claims are not evidences. I can claim existance of Atlantis, and you can not prove its absence. So it is exist, so lets go to Atlantis this weekend.

No, it does.

yes, it doesn't.

If you wish to assert something anything doesn't exist, you have a burden to prove it doesn't.

Again and again, If you wish to assert something does exist, you have a burden to prove it does. You can not use something for negative sentences, but only positives.

You can't simply assert things don't exist without any justification and pretend your position is justified.

You have to prove its existance first. I don't see any proof, anyone else see it?

Stop lying.

You are the biggest liar in this conversation has not a comparative property with me.

Plenty of people have taken the flight.

Either nobody has taken this flight or Qantas has throwed them to Antarctica, because nobody hs landed to Santiago.

(including some I know personally).

Especially you are a full of liar. If NASA pays you enough so you deny even the God.

You could easily verify the flight's existence by taking it yourself.

Buying a ticket can not be an evidence. Company can find a reason to delay the flight or change the time or make it indirect flight. I'm not buying tickets from crooks and liars. sorry.

You mean witness testimony, flight radar tracking and plenty of other things aren't evidence.

witness testimony is you and your salaraid friends; flight radar sometimes use datas got by aircraft companies that I showed its evidence that now you deny it; other things are your imagination not evidences but your being a liar.

As for your pathetic appeals to video, if you want to apply that standard there are still hundreds of flights you need to provide video footage for.

There is not a pathetic full time video between Santiago and Sydney those your rich Australian friends flight there have millions of camera. GSM may be forbid but simple cameras are free to use. But you can not record a flight what absent.

But more importantly, considering you dismiss so much as CGI, why wouldn't you just dismiss the video as CGI?

I am talking about a video shown by one of your friends claimed its existance by a cgi video. It was the only thing shown me as full time video between this path, and it was just a cgi like your own.

Again, that is just your baseless claim.

Again, it is the truth you deny.

The sole reason you have for claiming such garbage is because they show your claims to be pure BS.

The sole reason I have claiming this fact because it has proved by 100.000 flights and there is no evidence of its existance. You still support it because it suports your BS roundsomething lie.

It may be the "real" distance according to your delusional map, but that doesn't make it the real distance in reality.

It is not delusional. It has created here online by using more than 100.000 flights. It is real, not delusional. If I remember it true so the map has a margin of error of average 1%.

The flight times show that distance is BS.

100.000 flight time verifies it, and your garbage claim tries to deny it but unsuccesfull. Because your counter claims have not any evidence just some tickets. If I give you a ticket so can you shut up?

No, they don't.

Yes they do.

The flights you have cherry picked (which you have failed to provide any more compelling evidence for than that which exists between Australia and South America and Africa) show that your map agrees to some extent.

Flat earth map is true and independent from your so called paths.

Not perfectly.

Perfectly.

This massive level of error means they can't show that it is actually true.

I don't see a mistake here but only your existance.

Meanwhile, these flights that do exist, that you need to reject, show your map to be garbage.

Those claims of flights are just produces lies to deny the facts. But it has been failed because you can not support your garbage RE model.

You have been provided with the evidence and you just choose to ignore it.

Nope. You are the biggest liar ever saying lie again. Nobody has provided any proof. Cgi animations can not be evidence. You can fool only yourself by using them.

Even if these flights didn't exist, it wouldn't magically mean Earth is flat.

A good opening to agree their not being existance. Leave it to us to decide whether its being flat or not.

Now, can you stop with the pathetic, childish BS and start actually rationally and honestly defending your claims?

Again and again, my map and the earths being flat has been verified by 100.000 flights all over the world. Your theory and the claim of existance of this path is which the thing be a BS garbage.

Do you have any evidence at all to refute the existence of these flights?

Anything absent does not need to be proved. You have to prove their existance other than your garbage speeches.

Because so far all the evidence points to their existence.

because so far there was not an evidence prove their existance. If it was so, but we have not saw them at all although followed the issue I think.

By the behaviour denying the statements clearly prove the earth is flat;

So Jackblack has agreed the earth's being flat. Otherwise reply all the statements. He can not. because he has agreed the earth's being flat.

Ok Jackblack, now I'll agree your being a flat earther.

Quote from: Unepic Globetard on May 02, 2019, 04:17:23 PM

Quote from: wise on May 02, 2019, 12:42:12 AM

This means you can not fly between these cities less than 18-19 hours technically.

Well it can be achieved in 13.5 hours. Perhaps maybe the distance is shorter than what you think, and works with a different model?

There is no evidence for this so called flight time.

You can take the trip yourself. QANTAS says that the flight time is 13.5 hours, if it was 18-19 hours as you say that it can't be accomplished quicker, QANTAS would change the estimated flight time. And, QANTAS can possibly be fined, maybe sued because of the huge delay of the flight. If the flight truly was 18-19 hours long, then other long distance flight times should increase significantly as well.

What's your evidence that debunks this flight time?

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 02, 2019, 02:30:35 PM

Just one little flaw.
Nothing connected with  airlines or oceanic travel prove the earth is flat.
Matter of fact , they all prove the earth is round. (The globe)

All flights prove the earth is flat. Flights do not overlap with so called round model. Round model is just a hoax, and all we are knowing this truth. Stop to deceive people.

Which flights specifically prove a flat earth? Sydney to Johannesburg debunks the flat earth.

Nope. Because pilots but not captains drive the aircrafts, you liar.

Actually, at that point the autopilot was probably flying.

But, if you re-read my comment you may notice I did not state the captain was "flying" (or "driving"). Instead I said that he "alerted us". Captains do have a habit of making announcements to passengers - which you'll know if you have ever flown.

Nope. Because pilots but not captains drive the aircrafts, you liar. 

Great job showing you have no understanding of how airlines work.
The captain is a pilot. Specifically the pilot in command of the flight is the captain.
The primary co-pilot is the first officer.

You having no idea what you are talking about and objecting to the terminology doesn't refute anything.
This is especially apparent as almost everyone knows that the captain addresses the passengers and typically introduces themselves as "captain" not "pilot".

And if you want to play that game, no you are lying. No one drives the plane, they pilot it you liar.

There is no evidence for this so called flight time.

Stop lying. You have been provided with plenty. You just choose to reject it because it shows you are wrong.

All flights prove the earth is flat. Flights do not overlap with so called round model. Round model is just a hoax, and all we are knowing this truth. Stop to deceive people.

Stop lying.
You are yet to show a single flight that does not match Earth being round. Meanwhile you have been provided with plenty of flights which collective show Earth cannot be flat and thus must be round.
We know Earth is round. You just reject because you don't like reality.
Stop trying to deceive people.

You still not answered all the statements.

Again, if you want to play that pathetic childish game run along back to all the other threads you have fled after you have been refuted and either admit you were wrong or defend your BS.
Go back to all the threads where you have chosen to ignore people and either admit you were wrong or defend your BS.
Go back and read my statements on this thread, and actually respond to them rather than just repeating the same refuted BS.
I have addressed your pathetic claims and all you have done is stick your fingers in your ears and scream NO!

That wont convince any sane individual.

Now I ask again, do you have any evidence or rational backing for your ridiculous claims?
All the evidence shows these flights exist.

Quote from: wise on May 02, 2019, 06:41:36 PM

Quote from: Unepic Globetard on May 02, 2019, 04:17:23 PM

Quote from: wise on May 02, 2019, 12:42:12 AM

This means you can not fly between these cities less than 18-19 hours technically.

Well it can be achieved in 13.5 hours. Perhaps maybe the distance is shorter than what you think, and works with a different model?

There is no evidence for this so called flight time.

You can take the trip yourself. QANTAS says that the flight time is 13.5 hours, if it was 18-19 hours as you say that it can't be accomplished quicker, QANTAS would change the estimated flight time. And, QANTAS can possibly be fined, maybe sued because of the huge delay of the flight. If the flight truly was 18-19 hours long, then other long distance flight times should increase significantly as well.
What's your evidence that debunks this flight time?

Qantas says its being exist and I say its being absent. I think Qantas is the who has to prove its existance. Firms sometimes claims impossible things to prove their being strong. It is an unfair competition. It is the problem of other airplane companies, not my job.

Quote

Nope. Because pilots but not captains drive the aircrafts, you liar.

Actually, at that point the autopilot was probably flying.
But, if you re-read my comment you may notice I did not state the captain was "flying" (or "driving"). Instead I said that he "alerted us". Captains do have a habit of making announcements to passengers - which you'll know if you have ever flown.

Captain is never captain. It may be "captain pilot", "first pilot", "leader pilot", pilot but not a captain. Captains only use the ships technically. I can get your captain as the captain in Istanbulsport football team. Its with an additional word can mean many things but alone only means captain.

Great job showing you have no understanding of how airlines work.

Nope. It shows you are nothing but an ignorant. Pilots drive the aircraft, this is simple. Repat after me: Pilots drive the aircraft. Simple to remember.

The captain is a pilot.

Nope. Captain is captain, and pilot is pilot. Repeat after me: "Captain isn't pilot. Captain is captain and pilot is pilot. A captain drives a ship, a pilot drives an airplane and a driver uses a car". These are different things. But kindergarden students like you may confuse them.

Specifically the pilot in command of the flight is the captain.

You can use captain for many things. It may be a captain of a football team, captain of a basketbaal team, captain of a assassination team. You can call me as "captain" if I am your patron. But, as a profession, captain only drives the ship. Captain, and "captain pilot" is different things. He has clearly used the term "captain" alone.

The primary co-pilot is the first officer.

The primary co-pilot is the "primary co-pilot", but not the "second captain". because captain is not a profession.

You having no idea what you are talking about and objecting to the terminology doesn't refute anything.

Upper writings show I am talking about something proves he say lie and does not use the terminalogy in aviation. You've tried to defend him with all your lies but, failed.

This is especially apparent as almost everyone knows that the captain addresses the passengers and typically introduces themselves as "captain" not "pilot".

He did not mention how the first pilot introduced himself. He has clearly used captain term to define the first pilot shows he has confused it with ships.

And if you want to play that game, no you are lying.

No, I do not play a game. No, I am not a liar but you are.

No one drives the plane, they pilot it you liar.

The biggest lie ever seen. "No one drives the plane". Yeah man, it goes by itself. Get the hell out of the here. You are started to babbling in vain. I've defined it to him get what drives the aircraft. If a man does not know the meaning of pilot, it is a logical way to teach him by the way "pilot who drives the aircraft, captain drives the ship".

Stop lying.

I never say lie. You are the biggest liar ever seen.

You have been provided with plenty.

Nope. I see nothing but a bunch of babbling are provided.

You just choose to reject it because it shows you are wrong.

Again, I am open all kind of opinions, claims and so called proofs, but still could not achieved a valid evidence. You are best on babbling but worst on provide evidences, because you can not produce anything is impossible.

Stop lying.

Again, I don't say lie but you are the only liar in this conversation.

You are yet to show a single flight that does not match Earth being round.

More than 100.000 flight shows the earth is nothing but "FLAT". Just your denying the facts can not change the facts.

Meanwhile you have been provided with plenty of flights which collective show Earth cannot be flat and thus must be round.

Nope. Zero flight shows the earth's can't be flat. Just some baseless claims. Everybody can claim everything. Dog barks, but caravan walks.

We know Earth is round.

You know the earth is flat but NASA is feeding you to say you know its being round. You're liar, you know. Lying is a bad thing, you have to give up. It turns to you with a cost, today, tomorrow, soon or later, or in afterlife. Believe or not, there is a God in a way or other and you'll pay for you lies. A few money will turn you with a few fires. You seem to have used your preference. This is not a logical choice. This is because you rounders are not smart people. Because you are definitely chosing the wrong choice.

You just reject because you don't like reality.

I agree all the facts and reject all the produced lies. Round is a lie and flat is a fact. Stop to trying to read my mind, because you are definitely unable to get it.

Stop trying to deceive people.

Deceiving people is your job, you are getting money for it, did you remember it?

Again, if you want to play that pathetic childish game run along back to all the other threads you have fled after you have been refuted and either admit you were wrong or defend your BS.

So you have agreed you have fled of my questions so you know all your sayings above are BS, right?

Go back to all the threads where you have chosen to ignore people and either admit you were wrong or defend your BS.

Go read above and try to reply all the statements to defend your BS.

Go back and read my statements on this thread, and actually respond to them rather than just repeating the same refuted BS.

Go read above and try to reply all the statements to defend your BS. Why can not you reply them all? Because you know you can not defend NASA BS anymore.

I have addressed your pathetic claims and all you have done is stick your fingers in your ears and scream NO!

There is one man here closing his eye to the truth, you are. You are not responding all the statements. Because you know round earth is nothing but BS.

That wont convince any sane individual.

You know it, right? Give up to convince me with your BS. In one hand, you agree your BS can not convince me, on the other hand, you continut to do it. Give up the evilness.

Now I ask again, do you have any evidence or rational backing for your ridiculous claims?

Absence does not need a proof. 100000 opposite flights prove me its being absent. If you have a claim to its existance, so you have to prove it. Claim of its existance is your claim, get it jackblack? You seem far to get it.

All the evidence shows these flights exist.

Nope. All readers read above will  see that you have nothing but babbling as an evidence.

Your turn. We know you'll bypass the statements again.

Qantas says its being exist and I say its being absent. I think Qantas is the who has to prove its existance.

It has, by offering the flights and having plenty of people take it, the flight tracking for it, the airports listing the flights as departing and ariving and so on.
As such, it is now your job to prove it doesn't.
Again, all the evidence indicates these flights exist.
You have provided no reason to doubt all this evidence.
The sole reason you do not accept the existence of these flights is that they show your map to be wrong.

So again, do you have any rational argument or evidence to back up your nonsense claims?

Captain is never captain. It may be "captain pilot", "first pilot", "leader pilot", pilot but not a captain. Captains only use the ships technically.

Pure BS.
Yes, the captain is a pilot, but they will refer to themselves as "Captain" not "captain pilot" which just sounds pathetic.
Go any any major airline and see what they say.

You just seem to like naval ships having captains. But you still pilot these vessels.

Pilots drive the aircraft, this is simple.

Again, PURE BS!
You drive land vehicles.
For naval and air vehicles you pilot them. A pilot (which may be a captain, a first officer or just a pilot) will pilot an airplane.
A captain commands the airplane.
You can easily fact check this yourself.

Repeating the same ignorant BS wont magically make you correct.

Repeat after me: "Captain isn't pilot.

Why would I repeat your lies? I'm not a gullible idiot.

a driver uses a car"

Really?
So the one time where "drives" would actually be applicable instead of pilot you say "uses".

You can use captain for many things.

Yes, including the captain of an aircrew.

Upper writings show I am talking about something proves he say lie and does not use the terminalogy in aviation.

No, you are spouting ignorant nonsense showing you have no idea what the terminology is.
Again, even if his terminology was incorrect, that doesn't necessarily make him a liar, and you even if we accept your lies about the terminology (you are not merely mistaken, you have been corrected and are still making the claims so you are lying and thus a liar) it still doesn't show him to be wrong.

No, I do not play a game.

Well you are yet to defend any of your garbage with any rational arguments or evidence so what are you doing if not trying to play pathetic games?

The biggest lie ever seen.

Yes, it is a big lie where you blatantly misrepresent what I say.
I didn't indicate the plane just goes by itself, I said you are using the wrong word.
The verb used to indicate controlling a plane or a naval vessel is pilot not drive.

More than 100.000 flight shows the earth is nothing but "FLAT".

You are yet to provide a single flight which demonstrates Earth is flat. But you have been provided with plenty that show Earth to be round.
You use an extremely dishonest double standard where you happily accept any flight that fits with your deluded BS while rejecting any flight which shows it to be deluded BS.
Grow up.


And I'll just skip over the rest of your pathetic insults.

Again, do you have any rational arguments or evidence to show these flights are fake?
So far all we have is your baseless claim that they are fake, and all the available evidence showing they are real.

Any sane person would reject your pathetic claims and stick with the evidence.

There was 22 statements but you've replied just 10. Why did you ignored remained 12 statements? Reply them all then I'll reply yours. You are clearly a rude man! Since you've ignored my question, till you prove you've replied 22 statements, I'll hold to answer you. Because you know the earth is flat so can not answer the statements. Do you want I count them? 22 !!

22 is not 10 jackblack! 22 is bigger than 10. It means you have ignored 22-10 = 12 statements!

Because You know you have not an evidence so just babbling.

There was 22 statements

Some of which were nothing more than pathetic insults.
Others were you just repeating the same baseless assertions and spouting the same ignorant nonsense.


Now again, all the available evidence shows these flights are real.
All we have to indicate that they are not is your baseless claim.
Now, can you provide any rational argument or evidence to back up your baseless claim?
If not, there is no reason for any sane person to accept your baseless claim.

Quote from: wise on May 02, 2019, 11:59:02 PM

There was 22 statements

Some of which were nothing more than pathetic insults.

The person who makes pathetic insults is you are. Reply all of them. Do not flee. Pathetic or not. Reply all 22 statements or you've agreed the earth's being flat and your being a liar.

Reply all of them.

Again, I have already addressed them.

If you want me to go through them line by line then either admit you are wrong and that these flights are real, or provide a rational argument/evidence to show they are fake.
If you are unable to do that, go troll elsewhere.

Quote from: wise on May 03, 2019, 01:00:08 AM

Reply all of them.

Again, I have already addressed them.

If you want me to go through them line by line then either admit you are wrong and that these flights are real, or provide a rational argument/evidence to show they are fake.
If you are unable to do that, go troll elsewhere.

You are the only one trolling the issue. You have to reply all the statements. You have started to split my post, so you have to reply all your splitted posts. Otherwise you have agreed to troll the issue by splitting my post, right? I don't say it, I say it depends on your claim.

Either gather enough evidence, or get the hell out of here and troll someone else. Count them: 22 statements. Your reply was 10.

Reply them all:

<insufficient so called reply>

You still not answered all the statements. So you have not answer to claims but asking new questions. You have to answer all the statements below:

You have been provided plenty of evidence that it exists. Enough for most people to say it has been proven to exist.

Nope. They were not evidences but a bunch of garbage like many things about this issue.

Enough for most people to say it has been proven to exist.

So atheism is failed because of stayed minority, right?

As such, the burden is on you to show it doesn't exist, and that is something you are yet to do.

Again, since the upside claims are not evidences, I have nothing to show. Claims are not evidences. I can claim existance of Atlantis, and you can not prove its absence. So it is exist, so lets go to Atlantis this weekend.

No, it does.

yes, it doesn't.

If you wish to assert something anything doesn't exist, you have a burden to prove it doesn't.

Again and again, If you wish to assert something does exist, you have a burden to prove it does. You can not use something for negative sentences, but only positives.

You can't simply assert things don't exist without any justification and pretend your position is justified.

You have to prove its existance first. I don't see any proof, anyone else see it?

Stop lying.

You are the biggest liar in this conversation has not a comparative property with me.

Plenty of people have taken the flight.

Either nobody has taken this flight or Qantas has throwed them to Antarctica, because nobody hs landed to Santiago.

(including some I know personally).

Especially you are a full of liar. If NASA pays you enough so you deny even the God.

You could easily verify the flight's existence by taking it yourself.

Buying a ticket can not be an evidence. Company can find a reason to delay the flight or change the time or make it indirect flight. I'm not buying tickets from crooks and liars. sorry.

You mean witness testimony, flight radar tracking and plenty of other things aren't evidence.

witness testimony is you and your salaraid friends; flight radar sometimes use datas got by aircraft companies that I showed its evidence that now you deny it; other things are your imagination not evidences but your being a liar.

As for your pathetic appeals to video, if you want to apply that standard there are still hundreds of flights you need to provide video footage for.

There is not a pathetic full time video between Santiago and Sydney those your rich Australian friends flight there have millions of camera. GSM may be forbid but simple cameras are free to use. But you can not record a flight what absent.

But more importantly, considering you dismiss so much as CGI, why wouldn't you just dismiss the video as CGI?

I am talking about a video shown by one of your friends claimed its existance by a cgi video. It was the only thing shown me as full time video between this path, and it was just a cgi like your own.

Again, that is just your baseless claim.

Again, it is the truth you deny.

The sole reason you have for claiming such garbage is because they show your claims to be pure BS.

The sole reason I have claiming this fact because it has proved by 100.000 flights and there is no evidence of its existance. You still support it because it suports your BS roundsomething lie.

It may be the "real" distance according to your delusional map, but that doesn't make it the real distance in reality.

It is not delusional. It has created here online by using more than 100.000 flights. It is real, not delusional. If I remember it true so the map has a margin of error of average 1%.

The flight times show that distance is BS.

100.000 flight time verifies it, and your garbage claim tries to deny it but unsuccesfull. Because your counter claims have not any evidence just some tickets. If I give you a ticket so can you shut up?

No, they don't.

Yes they do.

The flights you have cherry picked (which you have failed to provide any more compelling evidence for than that which exists between Australia and South America and Africa) show that your map agrees to some extent.

Flat earth map is true and independent from your so called paths.

Not perfectly.

Perfectly.

This massive level of error means they can't show that it is actually true.

I don't see a mistake here but only your existance.

Meanwhile, these flights that do exist, that you need to reject, show your map to be garbage.

Those claims of flights are just produces lies to deny the facts. But it has been failed because you can not support your garbage RE model.

You have been provided with the evidence and you just choose to ignore it.

Nope. You are the biggest liar ever saying lie again. Nobody has provided any proof. Cgi animations can not be evidence. You can fool only yourself by using them.

Even if these flights didn't exist, it wouldn't magically mean Earth is flat.

A good opening to agree their not being existance. Leave it to us to decide whether its being flat or not.

Now, can you stop with the pathetic, childish BS and start actually rationally and honestly defending your claims?

Again and again, my map and the earths being flat has been verified by 100.000 flights all over the world. Your theory and the claim of existance of this path is which the thing be a BS garbage.

Do you have any evidence at all to refute the existence of these flights?

Anything absent does not need to be proved. You have to prove their existance other than your garbage speeches.

Because so far all the evidence points to their existence.

because so far there was not an evidence prove their existance. If it was so, but we have not saw them at all although followed the issue I think.

By the behaviour denying the statements clearly prove the earth is flat;

So Jackblack has agreed the earth's being flat. Otherwise reply all the statements. He can not. because he has agreed the earth's being flat.

Ok Jackblack, now I'll agree your being a flat earther.

<more pathetic BS>

Again, do you have any rational argument or evidence to back up your claim that these flights don't exist?

If not, stop spamming and deal with how these flights work on a FE.

Quote from: wise on May 03, 2019, 03:57:40 AM

<more pathetic BS>

Again, do you have any rational argument or evidence to back up your claim that these flights don't exist?

If not, stop spamming and deal with how these flights work on a FE.

Again, something which is absent does not need an evidence. Oppositely the right of prove anything belongs to who claims something exist.

I say this flights are absent. So you have to prove their being exist. Tickets or claims are not proof.

If I claim I'm selling tickets to the moon so will not you want me evidence or are tickets I sell enough as an evidence.

Either provide evidence, or you know these flights never happened. You already know it so you haven't these evidences. If it was really exist, your rich globularists definitely could record it. No record, no flight.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on May 02, 2019, 02:02:42 AM

Quote from: wise on May 02, 2019, 12:42:12 AM

Santiago de Chile flights through Australia are completely fake.

Are you still maintaining that they throw all of their passengers into the ocean?

Stop to do parasite like Russian radio when adults are talking.

So, is this gibberish a yes or no?

No record, no flight.

So is there anything you would accept as evidence?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2019, 04:19:17 AM

Quote from: wise on May 03, 2019, 03:57:40 AM

<more pathetic BS>

Again, do you have any rational argument or evidence to back up your claim that these flights don't exist?

If not, stop spamming and deal with how these flights work on a FE.

Again, something which is absent does not need an evidence. Oppositely the right of prove anything belongs to who claims something exist.

I say this flights are absent. So you have to prove their being exist. Tickets or claims are not proof.

If I claim I'm selling tickets to the moon so will not you want me evidence or are tickets I sell enough as an evidence.

Either provide evidence, or you know these flights never happened. You already know it so you haven't these evidences. If it was really exist, your rich globularists definitely could record it. No record, no flight.

If you were really interested in the shape of the earth you would investigate this flight. Similarly the operation of satellites and measured distances etc.

Either provide evidence, or you know these flights never happened. You already know it so you haven't these evidences.

Millions of people have taken those flights and evidence has been provided for that.
You have been shown the flights paths of those flights and video of people leaving Sydney and arriving in Santiago.
So you are the one denying reality.

If it was really exist, your rich globularists definitely could record it. No record, no flight.

No "rich globularists" here just ordinary people that know the true shape of the earth.

Quote from: wise on May 03, 2019, 05:18:32 AM

Either provide evidence, or you know these flights never happened. You already know it so you haven't these evidences.

Millions of people have taken those flights and evidence has been provided for that.
You have been shown the flights paths of those flights and video of people leaving Sydney and arriving in Santiago.
So you are the one denying reality.

Quote from: wise

If it was really exist, your rich globularists definitely could record it. No record, no flight.

No "rich globularists" here just ordinary people that know the true shape of the earth.

All radio contact between aircraft and air traffic controllers is recorded and kept on file by the air traffic control agency or administration in all the nations  of the world, such as the FAA in the USA.
I have been retired from the FAA for 20 years.
Things have probably changed since.
But back in the dinosaur era of the 20th century , the enroute Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) had multi-channel voice tape recorders which recorded all contacts between aircraft and controllers on a 24/7 basis .
No ''rich globurist'' here. Part of my job as an electronic technician was the care and feeding of those recorders.
Incidentally those recorders had a channel reserved for a voice of time from a master clock was included for reference.

Quote from: Googleotomy on May 02, 2019, 02:30:35 PM

Just one little flaw.
Nothing connected with  airlines or oceanic travel prove the earth is flat.
Matter of fact , they all prove the earth is round. (The globe)

All flights prove the earth is flat. Flights do not overlap with so called round model. Round model is just a hoax, and all we are knowing this truth. Stop to deceive people.

Boy,do you need to talk to someone in aviation.
Or someone involved in oceanic navigation .

Again, something which is absent does not need an evidence.

Stop lying.
Again, if I claim turkey doesn't exist, you would expect me to provide evidence of that claim.

In any given debate, both sides can be required to provide evidence.
As evidence of these flights have been provided to you, the burden of proof now rests upon you to prove they do not exist.

Now either provide evidence that these flights don't exist or go address how these flights work on a FE.

Quote from: wise on May 03, 2019, 05:18:32 AM

Again, something which is absent does not need an evidence.

Stop lying.
Again, if I claim turkey doesn't exist, you would expect me to provide evidence of that claim.

In any given debate, both sides can be required to provide evidence.
As evidence of these flights have been provided to you, the burden of proof now rests upon you to prove they do not exist.

Now either provide evidence that these flights don't exist or go address how these flights work on a FE.

Would you also include ships, such as those involved in passenger liners or cargo ships ?

Quote from: denier on May 02, 2019, 05:14:15 PM

I have personally flown from Sydney to Johannesburg, with a stopover in Perth. While I cannot remember exactly, it took around 12 hours from Perth. And, while the FE map would have us flying over Europe and Asia for the shortest distance, we flew over water the whole way. On top of that, at one point the captain alerted us to the fact that, due to prevailing winds, we were far enough south to see Antarctica on the horizon. To avoid any confusion, that was on the *left* side of the plane, i.e. towards the south. On the longer trip from Australia to South America, Antarctica is routinely visible, as great circle routes (for minimum fuel use) curve further south.

Would FEers accept my experience as "evidence" for a round earth?

Nope. Because pilots but not captains drive the aircrafts, you liar. 

This is absolute nonsense. The pilots who are in control of commercial passenger aircrafts  are simply referred to as the captain by the airline and the general public.

Would you say that seamen and not captains are in control of ocean going ships ?  I suppose you could carry this further and say there is nothing but seamen on a Navy ship rather than a complement of non-rated men (well there are SN's in the Navy ) Petty Officers and Commissioned Officers ?

There is a little bit of trivia here. The commander of any type of a ship in any Navy is always referred to as Captain even if his rank might be lower than full Captain. The rank of the commanding officer of a ship might be a Commander (CDR) or a Lieutenant Commander (LCDR) but he would still be called Captain.

There was 22 statements but you've replied just 10. Why did you ignored remained 12 statements? Reply them all then I'll reply yours. You are clearly a rude man! Since you've ignored my question, till you prove you've replied 22 statements, I'll hold to answer you. Because you know the earth is flat so can not answer the statements. Do you want I count them? 22 !!

22 is not 10 jackblack! 22 is bigger than 10. It means you have ignored 22-10 = 12 statements!

Because You know you have not an evidence so just babbling.

So you want him to respond to all 22 points you made yet another one of your posts in  MY thread says this:

It is enought to debunk only one to debunk all. Because you can claim many evidences. I have not to debunk them all. If you have a strong argument, so only write it. Do not test us to see which one we resist more.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80831.0

Oh, and by the way, billions of people fly on aircrafts annually through QANTAS. If they were lying about their flight times, they wouldn't have many customers. You can take this flight yourself. Does everything have to be a conspiracy theory to you?

Quote from: JackBlack on May 02, 2019, 02:30:36 AM

It may be the "real" distance according to your delusional map, but that doesn't make it the real distance in reality.

It is not delusional. It has created here online by using more than 100.000 flights. It is real, not delusional. If I remember it true so the map has a margin of error of average 1%.

You just saying 100,000 is you just you saying 100,000. That's not evidence. Can you share the data? The 100,000 flights and how you arrived at 1% error rate?

Quote

Nope. Because pilots but not captains drive the aircrafts, you liar.

You are incorrect:

Commercial aviation
Flight deck positions

Captain, the pilot designated as the Pilot-In-Command (PIC),[1][2] and the highest-ranking member or members of a flight crew.
First Officer (FO, also called a co-pilot), another pilot who is not the pilot-in-command, and is normally seated to the right of the captain. (On helicopters, an FO is normally seated to the left of the captain, who occupies the right hand seat).[1][2]
Second Officer (SO), a person lower in rank to the First Officer, and who typically performs selected duties and also acts as a relief pilot. The rank of Second Officer was traditionally a Flight Engineer, who was often the person who handled the engine controls. In the 21st century, second officers on some airlines are pilots who act as "cruise relief" on long haul flights.[2][3][4]
Third Officer (TO), a person lower in rank to a Second Officer, and who typically performs selected duties and can also act as a relief pilot. Largely redundant in the present day.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircrew

Those “100,000 flights” (surely a good deal fewer than that in reality) were specifically filtered to remove the ones in the Southern Hemisphere that reveal the earth to be non-flat, so it really doesn’t matter if he shares the data.  But if you have the time, I found the thread where a lot of it was discussed.  Funny how many Qantas flights are eliminated as ‘fake’ flights.

Those “100,000 flights” (surely a good deal fewer than that in reality) were specifically filtered to remove the ones in the Southern Hemisphere that reveal the earth to be non-flat, so it really doesn’t matter if he shares the data.  But if you have the time, I found the thread where a lot of it was discussed.  Funny how many Qantas flights are eliminated as ‘fake’ flights.

Got it. Here's just some of the logic that went into "The Map". Apparently, Wise is a commercial pilot and has first hand experience that wind plays zero role in aeronautics. Good to know how much credibility to put into his examination of flights:

Quote from: InFlatEarth on January 31, 2018, 02:42:26 AM

For the cities that you have piloted, do you go back, say after a week to see the times again. I don't know if the season will play a roll in this. Also you have to consider the wind direction. From a Flat Earth Map, the winds rotate counterclockwise and thus the airplanes will be traveling faster than in the opposite direction. How much, I have no idea.

I don't know if you took that into consideration.

Winds is a lie. Its just a psicological effect. One route generally they go true, and the opposite side they go wrong. This is related with converting real flat distances to globe ones. They created it from west to the east, so that generally west to the east routes are true. But if you create a globe map with considering flat distances converted to globe ones, you make mistake while turn back. So that they go wrong while returning from their destination.

While pilot go short direction, he steps less on the accelerator. Because the dashboard shows him the speed is enough. So that they think "winds are helping me". But when they return back from destination, because of the path is wrong and longer, so that he forces the aircraft to go faster. He steps on the accelerator but this time can't success to find the true speed. Because the dashboard calculates the average speed depends on the road passed and it shows insufficient speed. No matter how pilot steps on the accelerator can't find the true speed. Then he thinks "winds are blowing from opposite direction". But this is just a psicological affect.

So that;

winds is google mistakes on the map. Such as reasons work for hiding their lies. Do not consider them. Winds can affect on an airplane how when you go with your car and it affects you. It can only shake the car a bit but can't slow it down!

Did you see a formula pilot considered the direction of the winds? "Hey captain, let me race when winds from behind of me"?? No, never. Which one is faster, it always faster. No relationship with winds.

Winds are just lie, winds are just hoax when the issue comes to aircrafts.

Captain is never captain. It may be "captain pilot", "first pilot", "leader pilot", pilot but not a captain. Captains only use the ships technically. I can get your captain as the captain in Istanbulsport football team. Its with an additional word can mean many things but alone only means captain.

Instead of all the bullshit about what a captain does or does not do, how about replying to the point I was trying to make about the flight from from Perth to Jo'burg? How could we see Antarctica if the FE view of the world is correct?

Was the plane (pilot, captain, autopilot, airline,... you name it) just wasting fuel to prove a RE? And, as according to you we were flying an enormous detour, what speed were we flying at? Remember that a 747 only flies at around Mach 0.85. Or is that a lie as well, and were we really going Mach 2?

Quote from: wise on May 03, 2019, 05:18:32 AM

Again, something which is absent does not need an evidence.

Stop lying.
Again, if I claim turkey doesn't exist, you would expect me to provide evidence of that claim.

In any given debate, both sides can be required to provide evidence.
As evidence of these flights have been provided to you, the burden of proof now rests upon you to prove they do not exist.

Now either provide evidence that these flights don't exist or go address how these flights work on a FE.

Nope. You're doing a mistake.

If you claim Turkey's not being exist, so I have to prove its being exist first. After I've prove its existance, then you have to put forward your evidences of its being absent.

So much so that, till somebody prove Turkey's being exist, you can free to accept its being absent. Are not atheists literally these people? They say God does not exist, and since we can not prove its existance, they are free to not believe. We can not force them to believe God depends on our own evidences. We have to prove first God's existance. Can we do this? No. So they are free to not believing the God. Our tickets through heaven can not be an evidence for convince you God's being exist.

This is same simple logic but you and your friends are closing your eyes to the truth.

Quote from: JackBlack on May 03, 2019, 03:25:39 PM

Quote from: wise on May 03, 2019, 05:18:32 AM

Again, something which is absent does not need an evidence.

Stop lying.
Again, if I claim turkey doesn't exist, you would expect me to provide evidence of that claim.

In any given debate, both sides can be required to provide evidence.
As evidence of these flights have been provided to you, the burden of proof now rests upon you to prove they do not exist.

Now either provide evidence that these flights don't exist or go address how these flights work on a FE.

Nope. You're doing a mistake.

If you claim Turkey's not being exist, so I have to prove its being exist first. After I've prove its existance, then you have to put forward your evidences of its being absent.

So much so that, till somebody prove Turkey's being exist, you can free to accept its being absent. Are not atheists literally these people? They say God does not exist, and since we can not prove its existance, they are free to not believe. We can not force them to believe God depends on our own evidences. We have to prove first God's existance. Can we do this? No. So they are free to not believing the God. Our tickets through heaven can not be an evidence for convince you God's being exist.

This is same simple logic but you and your friends are closing your eyes to the truth.

Ok, I claim Turkey does not exist. According to you, you now have to prove that it does. Otherwise, my claim is correct, Turkey does not exist. Your turn.