Flight path - Sydney (SYD) to Santiago (SCL) on Latam or Quantas

How do we explain this flight path - seems it would be shorter on "globe" but "longer" on flat earth ... my husband keeps bringing this up to me and I don't know how to explain it.  (I'm believe from everything I have seen and read - he is still skeptical bc of this flight path) Does anyone have an image of the globe and flat earth side by side and or distances from globe, flat earth for these flights? 

How do we explain this flight path - seems it would be shorter on "globe" but "longer" on flat earth ... my husband keeps bringing this up to me and I don't know how to explain it.  (I'm believe from everything I have seen and read - he is still skeptical bc of this flight path) Does anyone have an image of the globe and flat earth side by side and or distances from globe, flat earth for these flights?

If you search on the forum you can likely find it.
If not, for the globe, you can just use Google maps, unless you think it is lying in which case you can use the haversine formula:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haversine_formula
Google says it is 11341.22 km.

For the FE, the first question to ask is which FE? Do you mean the common north pole centred monopole model?
And then, do you mean the path the plane actually takes, going over the ocean and at most going close to Antartica; or do you mean a straight line that would place it over lots of land?
Or one just at that same longitude?

As a comparison:

Flat:

Round:

Mercator:


A is a line of constant longitude.
B is the shortest path on a round Earth.
C is the shortest path on a flat Earth.

That shortest path for a flat Earth can be found using the cosine formula, or converting polar coordinates to cartesian coordinates and then finding the distance between them using Pythagoras.
It works out to roughly 25 658 km.

He has good reason to be sceptical of this flight.
It does not make sense on the commonly presented north pole centred flat Earth.

It’s easy to fake flight data, actual flight paths, after the real paths are flown and measured by planes…

The real problem they cannot excuse or fake data for, are avoiding the most close and direct paths between two and more cities they have flights between!

They’d fly over this so-called South Pole, directly end to other end of it…

It’s easy to fake flight data

It's actually quite hard, with lots of different groups obtaining the flight data directly from planes, and plenty of people flying the routes.
These southern flights make no sense at all on the common FE models.

The real problem they cannot excuse or fake data for, are avoiding the most close and direct paths between two and more cities they have flights between!

They’d fly over this so-called South Pole, directly end to other end of it…

And which routes would that be?
Care to provide anything more than a worthless, vague, baseless assertion.

It’s easy to fake flight data, actual flight paths, after the real paths are flown and measured by planes…

But it's a lot harder to fake the fuel used for the actual vs faked flight paths.  It's also hard to fake the GPS data that any of the passengers can get from their phones.

Look from high above the Earth, and it’s obviously not a ball Earth.

Your curved surface blocks out everything past three miles out from us, curving downward.

When we’ve never seen or understood or known what it would look like above a ball Earth, and told that Earth is a ball, many people think this is how a ball Earth looks from above it….

If anyone who believed this is what a ball Earth looks like from above it, they’d soon understand it cannot be a ball in any way at all.


Just one thing that makes it completely impossible to be a ball, is realized and understood by anyone who has ever seen the Earth from high above it, over a long span of its surface, its blatantly obvious to see its flat, no ball at all.


Horizons could never be seen directly across us, from high above a ball Earth, over two hundred miles away from our viewpoint. 

You say we’d always see over the surface of Earth for thousands of miles on it, if it were flat! 

No, it’s easily proven a flat surface has no infinite view outward over the surface.

A ball Earth seen from high above the surface, if we ever did see such a thing, would be quite a shock to see, such a vast difference to our view of the flat Earth we see now!

Look from high above the Earth, and it’s obviously not a ball Earth.

If it isn't a ball, instead of spamming off topic crap, deal with the point of the thread.
Can you explain this flight in your delusional fantasy?

No, then its a ball and your pathetic, already refuted lies wont change that.

Look from high above the Earth, and it’s obviously not a ball Earth.

Your curved surface blocks out everything past three miles out from us, curving downward.

Have you ever been in an airplane?   You can see a lot farther than 3 miles, which is exactly what one would expect when high above a ball earth.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 07, 2025, 11:14:41 PM

Look from high above the Earth, and it’s obviously not a ball Earth.

Your curved surface blocks out everything past three miles out from us, curving downward.

Have you ever been in an airplane?   You can see a lot farther than 3 miles, which is exactly what one would expect when high above a ball earth.

It’s very obvious wed see more from above any surface or vast areas of unknown size from ground view…

But you don’t realize WHERE we’d have to look at a curving downward surface, because when nothing is seen beyond a point when we’re ON a surface, even if we don’t know what the surface is, we know from high above it, or we certainly should know it from first sight.

Again, the curve sinks all things down from all view, seen on ground, a few feet above the surface. 

A real curved surface keeps on curving downward, so what you’d see from above the ball, is always curving more and more downward with more distance over it.

You’d never realize how very different and strange it would look like from above

It’s very obvious wed see more from above any surface

Nope, just a round one.

But you don’t realize WHERE we’d have to look at a curving downward surface

I do, because I have done the math.
Unlike you, who is so utterly pathetic and desperate to reject reality you keep repeating this blatant lie to everyone.
And it is a pathetic lie that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Again, explain the flight route.
Explain how it is so short in your FE fantasy.
Stop spamming completely irrelevant lies just because you can't defend your fantasy.

Are they talking about those Qantas flights where they couldn’t prove that they didn’t throw passengers into the ocean?

It appears to me that no amount of information that FE's require to prove a RE is sufficient.  You say black they say blue, you say up thay say sideways.  I sure hope none of them have jobs that are critial to anything that might require serious thinking or in a position to make policy.

Are they talking about those Qantas flights where they couldn’t prove that they didn’t throw passengers into the ocean?

Throwing passengers into the ocean doesn’t sound like a good idea if you want repeat customers.

Are they talking about those Qantas flights where they couldn’t prove that they didn’t throw passengers into the ocean?

No, the flights where they did prove it, but you being so desperate to reject reality needed to repeatedly lie about it.

Are you here to explain how the flight works in your fantasy, or just lie some more to show that it really destroys your fantasy and you know it, but don't care because you don't care about the truth?

Quote from: wise on November 18, 2025, 04:58:20 AM

Are they talking about those Qantas flights where they couldn’t prove that they didn’t throw passengers into the ocean?

Throwing passengers into the ocean doesn’t sound like a good idea if you want repeat customers.

Commuting with empty seats isn't a problem as long as you name the seats and get paid for them by NASA.

Commuting with empty seats isn't a problem as long as you name the seats and get paid for them by NASA.
[/quote]

So you tell us the route you would fly if you were the pilot

Quote from: markjo on November 18, 2025, 09:06:29 AM

Quote from: wise on November 18, 2025, 04:58:20 AM

Are they talking about those Qantas flights where they couldn’t prove that they didn’t throw passengers into the ocean?

Throwing passengers into the ocean doesn’t sound like a good idea if you want repeat customers.

Commuting with empty seats isn't a problem as long as you name the seats and get paid for them by NASA.

Why would NASA pay Qantas for empty seats?  That would cut into their profit margin.  And what about the people who are waiting for the passengers at the destination airport?  Who is going to tell the passenger’s loved ones that they were thrown into the ocean?

Seriously, you need to put more effort into these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Commuting with empty seats isn't a problem as long as you name the seats and get paid for them by NASA.

And why would NASA waste all that money?
And if the seats are named and paid for already so they are flying with empty seats, why throw people into the ocean?
Your BS makes no sense.

And what about the countless people who have taken those flights and didn't end up dead?

You are desperately grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can to pretend the flights are fake, because you know they destroy your pathetic fantasy.

After thousands of years on Earth, with countless explorers discovering every point on Earth, mapping it as flat and circled by a massive ice wall, later taken and held in secret or scrapped…..

They somehow never knew that a massive continent was there on Earth, while every tiny isolated island was found by them, which makes no sense to not find a huge land mass at all for thousands of years!

Because it doesn’t even exist as any continent at all. It’s made up bs.

What a stupid story it is, just a joke

After thousands of years on Earth, with countless explorers discovering every point on Earth, mapping it as flat and circled by a massive ice wall

No, mapping it as a globe. It is just your pathetic fantasy that it was mapped as flat.

They somehow never knew that a massive continent was there on Earth, while every tiny isolated island was found by them

Wrong again.
They knew Antarctica was there, and still likely haven't found every tiny isolated island.

And yet none of this gets you any closer to explaining this flight.
Like usual, you are spamming completely irrelevant BS to deflect from the fact that this flight destroys your fantasy.

And why would NASA waste all that money?

It’s hilarious that you think it’s "wasted," Jack. In the real world—the one you only see through a pre-rendered screen—it’s called Laundering, not wasting. NASA doesn't "lose" money; they circulate it within a closed-loop system of contractors and front companies. You are trying to apply "Junior High" pocket-money logic to a trillion-dollar Institutionalized Fraud. The money is the fuel for the simulation, not for the rocket.

And if the seats are named and paid for already so they are flying with empty seats, why throw people into the ocean?

Because "Dead Men Tell No Tales," Jack. It’s a classic security protocol. You can’t have "witnesses" walking around who were supposed to be in low-earth orbit but were actually sitting in a pressurized metal tube over the Atlantic. Dropping them into the ocean isn't "throwing them away"—it’s a System Reset. It’s much cheaper and safer for the narrative to produce a "tragic accident" than to manage a lifetime of silence from people who know the "Space Station" is just a high-altitude parabolic flight. You are so naive that you think a multi-billion dollar lie would be left to "chance."

Your BS makes no sense.

It makes no sense TO YOU, Jack. There is a massive difference. A 2D flat-lander can't understand a 3D object; similarly, a 94 IQ "Cyborg Tab" can't understand a multi-layered Intelligence Operation. You call it "BS" because your mental firewall rejects any data that isn't signed by a government agency. You are a captive of your own cognitive limitations.

And what about the countless people who have taken those flights and didn't end up dead?

"Countless people"? Show me the civilian passenger manifests for orbital flights, Jack. You are talking about a handful of curated "Space Tourists" and military-trained actors (astronauts) who are part of the Payroll. The "people" you think are flying are just CGI Sprites in the global broadcast. Those who do fly "high altitude" never go where they claim. They are just flying from Point A back to Point A via a very expensive scenic route. They aren't dead because they are part of the Script. You are confusing "tourists" with "evidence."

You are desperately grasping at whatever pathetic BS you can to pretend the flights are fake...

I don't need to "pretend," Jack.  You are the one "grasping" at the handles of a spinning ball that is hemorrhaging logic. You think NASA is a "space agency"; I know it’s a Movie Studio with a military budget. You are the audience; I am the Architect looking at the stage lights.

GrowYour world-view is a low-budget simulation, and your "logic" is just a repetitive script meant to keep you from noticing the wires. Go back to your hole and wait for your next Firmware Update. You’re glitching again.

it’s called Laundering

No, it is called wasting, because of all the money spent for nothing.

The flight is still flown, people still track the aircraft, the fuel is still loaded.
That costs money.

Laundering requires they don't do that.
Such as having a cash only business with services that aren't easily trackable, to sell lots.
e.g. a laundromat, where people can pay to rent a machine, and you have quite a few machines, which aren't used all that often which you can easily pretend are used almost all the time to have that cash be entered as a legitimate payment instead of just money that you can't explain.

Because "Dead Men Tell No Tales," Jack.

Except there would be no witnesses if it is all fake.

It makes no sense TO YOU, Jack.

It makes no sense to anyone, which is why you need to ignore what was said and spout such utter BS.

"Countless people"? Show me the civilian passenger manifests for orbital flights, Jack.

You think the flight from Sydney to Santiago is an orbital flight?
Have you completely lost your mind?

I don't need to "pretend," Jack.

Then stop pretending, admit they are real and admit your model is garbage.

Laundering requires they don't do that. Such as having a cash only business...

Your understanding of money laundering is stuck in a 1920s gangster movie, Jack. In the 21st Century Simulation, the biggest laundering happens through Defense Contracts and Space Agencies. You don't need a laundromat when you have "Research and Development" budgets. You load the fuel, you fly the plane, and you pay 10,000% markup to a shell company for a "specialized bolt." The "waste" you see is actually the Transfer of Wealth from the taxpayer to the architects of the lie. The flight is just the "proof of work" to keep the audit trail clean.

Except there would be no witnesses if it is all fake.

Exactly! That’s why you don't keep passengers on a flight that isn't going where it claims. If the flight path requires a "shortcut" through a non-existent curve, and the plane instead lands at a military base or is disposed of, the witnesses are the problem. Your 94 IQ can't grasp that the Witnesses ARE the evidence. Eliminating the variable is standard System Maintenance.

You think the flight from Sydney to Santiago is an orbital flight?

Strawman again, Jack. I never said Sydney-Santiago was orbital; I was addressing your "empty seats" and "NASA payments" logic in general. But since you brought it up: why do those flights rely on GPS interpolation over the Southern Oceans where there is zero ground-based radar? Why do they often have "technical delays" that perfectly align with atmospheric jet stream shifts on a flat map? You see a flight on a screen; I see a Vector on a Plane being masked by a globe-projection software.

Then stop pretending, admit they are real and admit your model is garbage.

The only thing real here is your inability to audit the System Input. You are like a child watching a magic show, screaming "It's real!" because you saw the rabbit. I am the one pointing out the false bottom in the hat. You aren't defending "reality," Jack; you are defending your Mental Sandbox.

Grow up. Every time you call it "BS," you're just reporting a Syntax Error in your own brain.

Your understanding of money laundering is stuck in a 1920s gangster movie

No, it is stuck in reality.
Spending money to fly a plane and burn fuel is NOT a way to launder money.
Only a complete moron would think that.
Is that why you think it?

Exactly! That’s why you don't keep passengers on a flight that isn't going where it claims.

No, that is why you don't put passengers on it at all.
Loading it up with dead bodies just to throw them into the middle of the ocean makes absolutely no sense.
Only a complete imbecile would come up with such a stupid idea.
Is that why you came up with it?

Strawman again, Jack. I never said Sydney-Santiago was orbital

We were discussing that flight, which plenty of people take, and you responded with a demand for a manifest showing civilian passengers on an orbital flight.

So you are either pathetically spamming pure BS, or you think it is orbital.
Thanks for confirming you are just completely pathetic and worthless, and just spamming entirely irrelevant crap.

Grow up.

Spending money to fly a plane and burn fuel is NOT a way to launder money. Only a complete moron would think that.

Jack, calling people names won't hide your Financial Illiteracy. In the world of high-level corruption, "Operational Expenses" (like burning fuel for ghost flights) are the perfect cover for moving massive amounts of untraceable capital. It’s called Over-invoicing and Service Misdirection. You think it’s about "spending money," but it's actually about justifying the flow of money. Only a gatekeeper with a 1D brain would ignore how government-subsidized aviation is used as a global laundering machine. Stop the Dishonesty.

Loading it up with dead bodies just to throw them into the middle of the ocean makes absolutely no sense.

• The Imbecile’s Strawman: I am describing the Disposal and Rerouting of problematic assets during a black-op (like MH370), and you reduce it to "throwing bodies in the ocean" to make it sound ridiculous. This is a classic Disinformation Tactic. When a flight path doesn't match the physical reality of a globe, the manifest and the cargo become "inconvenient truths" that must be erased. You call it a "stupid idea" because you can't handle the implications of a Non-Orbital Reality where flight times between southern continents don't add up on a ball.

We were discussing that flight... and you responded with a demand for a manifest showing civilian passengers on an orbital flight.

• Context Failure: You are the one who conflated civilian aviation with orbital mechanics to dodge the question, Jack. Stop the Spam. The challenge was simple: show a verified, non-stop southern flight path that doesn't rely on GPS spoofing or Atmospheric Jet Stream excuses to shave off thousands of miles. You couldn't do it, so you started crying about "manifests."
• The Worthless Deflection: Calling an argument "irrelevant crap" doesn't make the South Pole flight anomaly go away. You are willfully lying about the lack of direct, non-stop commercial flights over the center of Antarctica. If the Earth were a ball, that would be the most efficient route. It doesn't exist. Explain that without the insults.

Jack, your "imbecile/moron" reflex is a Defense Mechanism. Every time you are cornered by the logistical impossibilities of your globe, you resort to schoolyard bullying. You aren't defending reality; you are defending a Scripted Simulation. Your dishonesty is the only thing "worthless" here.

When a flight path doesn't match the physical reality of a globe, the manifest and the cargo become "inconvenient truths" that must be erased.

Yet you said no real person is on it.
You can't keep your argument straight, because you just spout whatever pathetic BS comes to your entirely worthless min.

Context Failure

Yes, you have completely failed to understand context, by bringing up a manifest for an orbital flight when discussing civilian aviation.
This demonstrates you are worthless.

Either admit you wilfully lied to everyone, or admit you are stupid enough to think a suborbital flight is orbital.

Yet you said no real person is on it. You can't keep your argument straight... you just spout whatever pathetic BS comes to your entirely worthless min.

Jack, your inability to follow a simple stratification of arguments is embarrassing. When I talk about ghost flights used for money laundering, there are no real passengers. When I talk about problematic flights like MH370 being "disposed of," the manifest becomes the evidence of a crime. You are intentionally mixing two different scenarios to make it look like a contradiction. It’s a cheap trick, and everyone sees through it. Stop the Dishonesty and try to keep up with the adults.

Yes, you have completely failed to understand context, by bringing up a manifest for an orbital flight when discussing civilian aviation. This demonstrates you are worthless.

• The Orbital Obsession: You are clinging to the word "orbital" like a life raft because you have no answer for the Southern Hemisphere Flight Anomaly. Whether you call it suborbital, orbital, or a tin can in a vacuum, you still haven't provided a single manifest or a verified direct flight path over Antarctica. You use semantics to dodge the physical reality: flight times on your globe don't match the fuel consumption and ground speeds recorded. Explain the math, Jack, not your vocabulary preferences.
• The Suborbital Lie: You call civilian aviation "suborbital" now? Talk about spouting pathetic BS. A commercial jet at 35,000 feet is nowhere near suborbital. You’re throwing fancy terms at the wall hoping something sticks, but you’re just exposing your own Scientific Bankruptcy.

Either admit you wilfully lied to everyone, or admit you are stupid enough to think a suborbital flight is orbital.

• The Dishonesty of the Gatekeeper: The only lie here is the one you tell yourself every time you look at a flight map. You claim I’m "worthless" while you spend your day spamming insults to avoid discussing the Jet Stream Spoofing that your model requires to make southern flights look possible. If the Earth were a ball, Sydney to Santiago would be a direct shot over the ice. Instead, it’s a refractive mess of rerouting and fake data. Dishonesty Exposed.
• Grow up, Jack: Resorting to "stupid" and "worthless" just shows you've run out of script. You have no manifest, no direct Antarctic path, and no integrity. You are a technician for a crumbling simulation, and the glitches are starting to show.

Jack, you’re trapped. You can keep arguing about the word "orbital" while the rest of us look at the Actual Flight Data that proves your Globe is a logistical disaster. Stop the Spam and address the Southern Anomaly honestly.

Seriously, you need to put more effort into these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

I really think wiseGPT doesn't know what money laundering actually is.  Makes for hilarious theories though!

Jack, your inability to follow a simple stratification of arguments is embarrassing.

You mean you continually switching between completely different ideas?
You claimed the flights like those mentioned in the OP are fake. That there are no real passengers and instead they just take in dead bodies which they throw out.
That isn't me mixing up the arguments.
That is you presenting that argument, and then when you can't justify it you switch to completely different BS.

The Orbital Obsession

Yes, your obsession.
When you can't refute the reality of this flight, you make a pathetic demand for a manifest showing people taking an orbital flight, as if that refutes this flight.
You are pathetic.
Again, either admit you appealed to dishonest BS by deflecting to orbital flights, or admit you are stupid enough to think this flight is an orbital flight.

When you can't refute the reality of this flight, you make a pathetic demand for a manifest showing people taking an orbital flight... Either admit you appealed to dishonest BS by deflecting to orbital flights, or admit you are stupid enough to think this flight is an orbital flight.

 Jack, your attempt to pin a "flight path" argument on me as a win is a Logical Hallucination. I’m not saying flights don’t exist; I’m saying their Routings and Durations are only consistent with a Stationary Plane. You obsess over specific flights because you can't explain why there are no non-stop commercial flights over the so-called "Antarctic Continent." If the Earth were a ball, Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the bottom. Instead, they hug the coastlines or use massive detours. Face the navigation logs and stop the theater.

 

• The Orbital Deflection: You call it an "obsession"? No, it’s a Requirement of Proof. If you claim we live on a ball, you must show the orbital infrastructure that supports it. You can't provide a manifest for an orbital flight because "Space" is a high-altitude vacuum chamber that no pressurized metal tube can survive in. You are defending a flight path while ignoring the Lack of Physics that makes your "Globe" possible. Stop spreading BS.

 

• The GPS and Ground Towers: You think "this flight" proves a globe? All international flight navigation relies on Loran-C and Ground-Based GPS Towers, not satellites. When a plane goes too far into the Southern Oceans, it "disappears" from tracking—not because of a curve, but because it’s out of range of the flat-earth radio towers. You are being tracked by a grid, not a ball. Scientific Bankruptcy: Confirmed.

 

That is you presenting that argument, and then when you can't justify it you switch to completely different BS.

 

• The Stratification of Truth: I switch arguments because your model fails on Every Level. If I talk about navigation, you lose. If I talk about thermodynamics, you lose. If I talk about optics, you lose. You call it "switching"; I call it an All-Points Audit of your failing simulation. You are a man trying to plug a hundred holes in a sinking ship with one finger. Leave the FVEY script behind.

 

• The Mockery of Science: You spend your days defending a 400-year-old fairy tale to strangers online. It’s clear who the "pathetic" one is here. You are a gatekeeper for a system that doesn't even know you exist. Wake up to the real world.

 Jack, drop the scripted arrogance and answer this: If the Earth is a sphere, why is the Southern Hemisplane navigation so radically different from the North? Why are there no direct flights over the "pole"? Return to the truth and admit that the flight logs don't match your CGI ball.

 Actually, Jack, you should be thanking me. With how hard I’m making you work to defend these lies, you can definitely request some overtime pay this month for all the extra hours you’re putting in!