# Rick’s Flat Earth proof

Ab, quick note. I was working through a flat earth idea this morning and discovered that the longitude distance between Tucson and Charleston  (at latitude 32 north)  is 36 longitude degrees and so is the longitude distance between Perth and Sydney (at latitude 32 south). In the northern hemisphere, that 36 degree city separation is 2000 miles and in the south it’s almost 3000 miles or 50% longer. When I checked a north polar map projection, with equidistant latitude lines from north to south pole– a good approximation of a flat earth map, the distance between the longitude lines were similarly 50% wider from each other at the latitude. This is the simplest and most elegant proof I’ve ever seen of a flat earth. I developed it this morning and haven’t seen anything quite equivalent to it– in simplicity and elegance after perusing flat earth videos, sites and podcasts for about a month now. It doesn’t require flight logs or any travel– just a simple
longitude to miles conversion for the same longitude distance in the north and south at equivalent latitudes. I chose the cites above as pretty close approximations but I could make it more accurate. I’m passing this onto you this morning so that you might pass it along for our peer review among other fakeologists. I might be wrong but I’m giddy about being right at the moment. Thanks. Rick Potvin. April 19, 2015. (PS Permission granted to replicate, reproduce in whole or in part, quote, with my name etc with or without regard for authorship).

Be the 1st to vote.

## 71 thoughts on “Rick’s Flat Earth proof”

1. anounceofsaltperday says:

using google earth, the numbers are 2911 km in the northern hemisphere compared to 3283 km in the southern hemisphere… i.e. not much difference. Rick, what was the source of your distance numbers?

1. rickpotvin says:

Actually, that’s a 12% difference which is substantial if the latitudes were the same. Apparently, my latitudes are not quite the same– although they’re close. And I was using random websites for mileage differences not realizing they might have given me road miles vs. straight line miles. I’ll have to double check all my work given that new insights on the lunaticoutpost.com site ab pointed to above.

If the responder on Lunatic Outpost is correct and I’m wrong, then we would have to say that my idea for proving flat earth actually single handedly DISproves it with a simple and elegant proof. The difference between proof for one or the other will be in tightening up the figures– getting the longitudes more exact– and the latitudes more exact– and the road miles vs. air miles made clear. My original idea for this proof still stands, in principle, I think. We just need to tie this hog down– and we’ll prove flat or sphere one way or another. I’ll work on this in coming weeks if others don’t.

Thanks for reposting this, Ab. That lunatic outpost guy might be right– but if he’s right– he has proven flat earth impossible– and the flat earthers need to be confronted with this problem. I’m not leaning one way or another at the moment– I don’t have the numbers tied down yet but this direction is the way to go I think. I’ll present this to Matt Boylen who I’ve been listening to.

If the earth is flat, the only way out of this problem I can see how “they” can weasel out of it is to actually lie about distances in the southern hemisphere and to make sure that all websites that report on distances and all map makers lie about distances. So we’d be back to have to travel the route ourselves– and to keep logs.
The only way around this I can see is to find older historical maps with scales and distances that might have been published before “they” got to them.

1. anounceofsaltperday says:

Hi Rick,

other models for the universe we live in have been proposed. One of these models very directly resolves many of the problems that exist when the globe and the plate models are challenged. This model is that we live INSIDE a spherical bubble and that the sun, moon, stars and the firmament are inside a ball inside the bubble.

If you are interested in these models, please look at www.wildheretic.com, missteribabylonestar.com/ , the work of Joseph Winthrop www.youtube.com/user/wellexcel/videos and many others.

1. rickpotvin says:

I consider those models out-of-my-loop at the moment (at best) and disinformation (at worst). The current topic is flat earth. We need to drill down on this and not waste time on other models right this moment. I’d like to hear what you have to say about longitude degrees per mile at the same latitude north and south given a sphere and given a plane. That’s where I’m at right this second. Here are some links I think might be helpful to you if you want to help me.

Longitude
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude

Length Of A Degree Of Latitude
And Longitude Calculator
www.csgnetwork.com/degreelenllavcalc.html

Notice that the longitude to mile calculator above– does NOT distinguish between north and south hemispheres, Thus it assumes a globe. As well, the calculator doesn’t allow us to “cross lattitudes” for example going from a 34 to a 32 degree South over a given longitude change. For that we’d have to have a longitude/latitude vs. distance calculator, exact coordinates both in the north and the south that are directly and precisely comparable, and then a calculator that will accept two givens– a mileage and ONE coordinate– and see if it comes up with the opposing exact coordinate in the northern hemisphere.

This is far more than I bargained for– I thought I could ballpark it. MAybe there’s still a way to do that without having to do detailed work. So I’ll be looking for help on this because we can theoretically prove flat or sphere earth one way or another definitively with this angle of thought.

1. rickpotvin says:

Ab, I just noticed that YOU took the time to find archives of the Lunatic Outpost thread and that they actually removed the post. Thanks. Why would they remove it? It was a perfectly good and sane proposition I thought– especially for them.

The final responder there has a couple of good points. The issue he made that I picked up on for ME is that I should tighten up my numbers. He’s basically saying my point is invalidated because I’m innaccurate. I suppose that was an easy objection since my original numbers simply eyeballed maps, latitudes and ballparked the miles to get a general idea of how this might go. I think my method, however, is interesting. If I tighten down my numbers, I might be able to thus prove flat earth or globe– one way or another.

My latest thinking is that I need to test several locations with tight numbers for land-based trips in the north and south hemisphere and I’ll reduce those trips to a single number called “miles per degree of longitude (at the same latitude north and south)”.

As they say, “the devil is in the details”– so I’ll have to get into the details to chase this devil. I’ll report back to this thread when I have something more definite than a hunch– a hunch that was, as you said, too loony even for the lunatic outpost!

1. ab says:

I do like the name “lunatic outpost” even though I dislike the implication.

1. rickpotvin says:

In the forum Ab linked to, it appears that I was fooled by road miles vs. air or straight line miles. Air miles as your link points out from Perth to Sydney is 2034 miles
and my original miles from Tucson to Charleston is 1800 so the southern hemisphere distance is now only 13% larger– that’s still substantial. I’ll have to double check whether I was using road or air miles from Tucson to Charleston. Thx.

2. farcevalue says:

I have always heard that water seeks its own level. This can easily be verified by placing an aquarium half full of water on a grade. It occurs to me that water on the surface of a sphere would behave as it would on a grade. How can water seek it’s own level on a sphere, regardless of the size of the radius? Absolute level is absolute, after all.

The sphere model does require some ‘splaining. The stars do appear to move in opposite directions at the north and south poles, whatever they are (and I have actually been to the north pole!) so an axis must be in play…. Interesting.

3. lux says:

And the reason that the edge of the Earth can’t be found despite its enormity and despite the fact that traveling in a straight line in any direction should lead one to it is … what again?

1. rickpotvin says:

That point is off topic from what I was pointing out about longitude vs. miles in north and south hemispheres… but in current flat earth theory, travelling in a straight line should lead to another earth-pond like ours.

1. lux says:

So, not only is there an immense yet invisible edge of the Earth, there are also invisible “Earth-ponds” scattered about as well?

1. rickpotvin says:

They’re not invisible– they’re out there beyond the ice of the Antarctic perimeter ice wall and plain around “our” earth pond world. I’m not making this up. Math Boylen is. But again, it’s too soon to say, really. The first step is to nail down the southern hemisphere longitudinal distances on land (not sea where we have a hard time confirming the data — and not air miles since there are no “non stop flights” in the southern hemisphere that we can prove or rely on).

2. sami says:

Nobody has tried?

If the majority of people believe they are living on a round ball and that the globe map is accurate, who would ever bother to try?

Or, a few early explorers tried to sail around Antarctica and failed, going around the ice for years. Who would believe their stories?

Not saying I buy into the Flat Earth model, just attempting to provide some insight to your question.

1. lux says:

If the majority of people believe they are living on a round ball and that the globe map is accurate, who would ever bother to try?

The minority who believe the Earth is flat?

Or, a few early explorers tried to sail around Antarctica and failed, going around the ice for years. Who would believe their stories?

Yes, I’ve heard that story too.

Of course, even though sailors have a reputation for always telling the truth about their seafaring exploits so no verification of their tale is needed, it only serves to “prove” that they found ice, not the edge of the Earth.

Or, could it be that maybe somebody just SAID they spent years sailing around some ice? Has anyone at least asked to see the ship’s log? Or found any evidence at all that this tale actually happened?

1. farcevalue says:

Any thoughts on the level seeking properties of water versus the spherical gradient paradox?

1. lux says:

No, I don’t have any thoughts on the level seeking properties of water versus the spherical gradient paradox.

4. rickpotvin says:

I was just banned from the International Flat Earth Research Society forum. I merely posted my mini-thesis just as I did here with a polite salutation and introduction to the readers there. I got an email update saying my thread was updated. I clicked on it. I got a page saying I’d been banned from the forum– with no explanation. “Well that sucks”, I thought to myself. I was under the impression IFERS was the bona fide group and that the FES was the shill group– but now the bona fide group banned me. Oh dear, what’s a boy to do? Tossed salad all over my face. Mercy. (From Tossed Salad and Scrambled Eggs, the theme song on Frasier”. The idea behind tossed salad and scrambled eggs was everything in life is mixed up like those servings of food.

“Potvin has left the building!”…Rick Potvin

1. ab says:

I won’t ban you Rick. IFERs has quite the long list of banned users…not sure what Eric’s trying to achieve.

1. rickpotvin says:

Eric Dubay’s blog, Atlantean Conspiracy, looks and reads good to me and there’s a flat earth article he’s done there that has numerous comments including Eric’s own analysis of longitude vs. distance in north and south that’s miles (pun) ahead of me.
www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/search/label/Flat%20Earth

I added a comment subject to approval asking why his forum banned me and reposted the same idea. I only read his comments on longitude analysis late today for the very first time. It’s quite extensive. Maybe he thought I was being ridiculous repeating what he had already covered. If so, he might have simply pointed me to his own blog entry on the topic which is quite good– although overly complex for one reading with no illustrations, maps, cartoons.

He wrote “The Flat Earth Conspiracy” — I’ll likely read it…. and if he hadn’t banned me, it would have been an excellent source for guidance on my own fascination with proving miles against longitude. I ran more numbers today on miles in north and south per degree longitude at 33 latitude– and it turns out that I got 55 miles per degree in the north and 53 in the south– the opposite of what I would have expected. Maybe “they” have already thought of this and somehow made it impossible to prove this way.

I’m close to giving up for now. Thanks for hosting my thoughts on this– and thanks to other visitors for helping me think it through. Bye y’all.

2. Tom Dalpra says:

Are you sure you want that metaphor?

It’s fine, you might like it, but I think it’s best you know it’s already a well known euphemism for: Licking someone’s anus.

If you toss someone’s salad, you can scramble their eggs. Think about that over breakfast.

1. rickpotvin says:

I don’t think so. Bruce Miller wrote the lyrics and wrote…

quote
I immediately wrote the song/music itself, but then needed a lyric that would work, so I called my friend Darryl Phinnesse who is really talented and really smart. I gave him the idea of the show and he called back with the idea of “Tossed Salads and Scrambled Eggs”. At first I was a bit baffled myself until he explained that these were things that were “mixed up”….like Frasier Crane’s patients. Once we agreed on this premise (by the time I fully understood it), we went into completing the song. I actually did contribute a couple lines, but the heavy lifting here was Darryl, and lucky for me that I went to him to him in the first place.
unquote
source

1. Tom Dalpra says:

Well, he couldn’t exactly say it was about ”sticking your tongue in a man’s bum hole and rubbing his balls in your face”, could he? It was a mainstream show! Haha!
What the feck was he gonna say?

Come on Rick. There’s a long tradition of innuendo in Jazz and Blues songwriting.
I study it, I work curating old Jazz and Blues music. I sing the songs. It’s well known in that field.

It’s obvious. That song at the end of Frasier is alluding to sex. It’s kinky. Homo-sexually kinky, in context. Not so much ”all over your face” as, ”In your face”.

Thanks for the diversion. Another quirky thing I hadn’t noticed.

1. rickpotvin says:

No Tom, I don’t think I can let you get away with that. The metaphor as explained by the author is quite clear and if you google the phrase, you’re going to get only ONE reference to the sex subculture’s use (or abuse, misuse) of that original INTENT of the author as quite CLEARLY expressed by him and it’s on REDDIT of all places. All other results allude to the original intent. For you to over-ride the interpretion of the author by bringing out a narrow sub-culture’s use of the phrase says more about “you”, than the “phrase”.

I agree with you on one point– that tossed salad all over my face is better said as “in” the face— and this is what my allusion was to– the fact that I was banned for one post about flat earth by IFERS– without explanation– a form of “mixed up confusion” “right before my very eyes” “in my face”. My post was also deleted from Lunatic Outpost– contributing to my confusion lately over this issue. This type of confusion and mixed up nonsense is consistent with the author’s intent of the song.

I looked up SLANG words used by the sub-culture you’re referring to and it’s quite astonishing how many “normal expressions” “they” have “hijacked” and turned into the most crude and godawful references beyond the normal person’s imagination. That doesn’t make those expressions automatically interpretable by the public-at-large in the way that that sub-culture uses them. Those sub-culture’s use of terms we, on the outside use, are inappropriate for general consumption and your tossing that into this forum is, in effect, part of the salad-like confusion that the author originally intended. In effect, you’re fulfilling the original intent of the author by throwing that in here. My interpreation wins. You’ve lost this argument. Checkmate. (Rick has left this table).

2. farcevalue says:

He is also a “boy” who is “confused”. I probably won’t ever think of this ditty the same way again.

3. rickpotvin says:

To farcevalue– yeah, Tom and his subculture ruined that song didn’t they? They couldn’t take it at “face value”– they had to destroy it with their subculture context. Great. You gave it up to Tom. I haven’t.

5. Johan Backes says:

Arthur Robert Hinks authored this book titled Map Projections in 1921. This is a person deeply involved in formalizing the Globe Earth and associated cosmology as a scientist and explorer.

Some useful links for doing your own projections. Study as many maps as you can since you never know which one has treasure on it!

mathworld.wolfram.com/AzimuthalEquidistantProjection.html (be sure to look through the others and learn the terminology)
math.stackexchange.com/questions/738239/name-of-this-formula-spherical-earth-projected-to-a-plane
mathway.com/
www.visokio.com/kb/projection-transformation (you can change to various projections with this software but it takes some work)
www.mathworks.com/programs/trials/trial_request.html?prodcode=MG&s_iid=main_trial_MG_cta2 (I think you can change map projections with this but I havenot tried it)

1. rickpotvin says:

Talk about “drilling down”… . I didn’t bargain for this but thanks anyway. I’ll explore these in coming weeks and months and see if I can do anything with them.

1. rickpotvin says:

I now see these map projection links as a form of distraction. I explored them and they’re impossibly specialized. We don’t need these to consider the flat earth. The standard projection from the north pole, using equidistant lattitude lines in concentric circles all the way out to the antarctic “circle” or “perimeter” will do. This projection is already out there on numerous sites. Mathematical mumbo jumbo is a great way to throw investigations off track. I ADVISE READERS TO IGNORE THE ABOVE LINKS FOR CREATING YOUR OWN PROJECTIONS. You should not “study as many maps as you can”– as “Johann” above advises. Quite the contrary, you should study ONE map– the projection I just described!

1. Johan Backes says:

You have concluded what I hoped you would Rick. You are a tireless and honest researcher.

All these map projections serve to measurably confuse the issue (pun intended). You never get a pure result from the translations because it starts with bad data in the first place, a round earth. This is the same reason why mariners use flat maps to guide them at sea, because the earth is flat. If we lived on a ball they would navigate on scale model of it, not a flattened projection with significant error.

Hinks himself has this to say in his book, something I had hoped others would notice;

“we shall find that the property of orthomorphism, which plays such a large and difficult part in the THEORY of Map Projections, is not in most cases any great advantage or importance in actual map making

What he is saying is the advanced algebra needed to do any of this does not help make maps…

I hope that I am correct in assuming that this is in lock step with your sentiment.

At this very moment I can see out my window overlooking Lake Ontario and see Niagara/St Catherines/Grimsby area about 50+ km away over the water from Toronto. There should be about a 20 foot drop of the horizon in that distance. Is there? I dunno, I cannot tell with my naked eye, which is of course why RE Theory has been able to fool us all.

Great posts Rick keep on keepin on!

1. Tom Dalpra says:

Ah yes, Lake Ontario! There’s a good place to look across a body of water.

Johan, you say: At this very moment I can see out my window overlooking Lake Ontario and see Niagara/St Catherines/Grimsby area about 50+ km away over the water from Toronto. There should be about a 20 foot drop of the horizon in that distance.

Is that right? Isn’t the drop-off supposed to be considerably more at that point?
I’m told:
”For someone who is 6 feet tall the horizon is 3 miles away. That same six-footer will continue to see a 40-foot tall boat until it’s about 11 miles away.”
scubageek.com/articles/wwwhorizon.html

That would mean over 50 km you’d expect something like a 500 ft drop-off.
Correct me if I’m wrong. This is surely something we can be fairly clear on at this point? There’s a formula.

Another thing I think we can be clear on is that if you stand on the beach and look across Lake Ontario with a powerful enough telescope you can see people on the beach at head height 33 miles away.

ie ”The earth appears flat in optical experiments” ( the official explanation for Rowbotham’s Bedford Level experiment, for example )
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

We are told by contemporary science that this surprising result – where we appear to be able to see around the curvature of the Earth – is due to refraction.

Rowbotham, of course, had a more cogent explanation. He said that when looking to the horizon our human limitations mean we can’t see the true vanishing point -infinity – and to ‘calibrate’, our eyes fix a ( make-do ) false point and literally lower our perspective creating the effect we see, of things seeming to disappear over the horizon only to appear again, on -the-level viewed with a better lens.

Funny thing is, they still teach it in schools that ‘ships disappearing over the horizon’ is proof of a round Earth.

Whatever shape the Earth is, that strikes me as rather old fashioned Science.

2. rickpotvin says:

I like your point about flat maps. I’m still trying to grasp nautical vs. statute miles however. Here’s a definition…

Nautical mile – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile?
A nautical mile (symbol M, NM or nmi) is a unit of distance that is approximately one minute of arc measured along any meridian.

…a minute of arc…. yet nautical miles are used at sea and in the air– but not on land. Why not?

A meridian is a longitude line. Longitude lines converge at the poles so the distance varies. Yet they say a nautical mile is one minute of arc “along” the meridian. That must mean that one minute of “latitude” arc “along” the meridian/longitude line. It’s a fixed amount… 6 076.11549 feet.

Mariners MUST have special tables that tell them distances between longitude lines at each latitude. Maybe the secret is hidden on their maps “hidden in plain sight”? Pilots and seaman MUST have to know that shipping goods by sea from southern South America to southern Africa– might be a longer voyage than shown on globes. Maybe seaman’s maps are where to confirm these “secret” distances in “nautical” miles?

6. rickpotvin says:

REQUEST: Will someone ask Eric Dubay why the IFERS forum banned me? I cannot get through to him on email, his Atlantean blog nor the IFERS forum. He or his board mods offered no reason. Thanks in advance. I was really looking forward to exploring IFERS. Obviously I cannot now help but think that Eric Dubay is POSSIBLY “controlled opposition” of some sort. I was coming at the problem in a competely honest, albeit possibly nieve, way. I cannot see how I deserved a complete banning with no explanation. It’s actually quite outrageous in a way. I only later discovered a post on Dubay’s Atlantean blog where he gets into some good detail about longitudes and distances going a lot further than I did– with a lot more precision. The only difference I can think of between his expert-level analysis and my nieve inaccurate one– other than his precision– was that his used examples of over-the-water points of reference where mine were expressly NOT over water– but between two points purposely on LAND– in the northern and southern hemispheres. That way, we have more of a chance of TESTING the route without fuel stops– direct flights with no chance of the flight going off radar– as they do overseas. The possible examples are limited, then, to lower South American, Lower Africa, and across Australia.

Eric Dubay’s longitude arguments have no diagrams, maps or pictures either– which NOW leads me to suspect that he might not be trying hard enough to make his point clear… which lead me to consider the possibility that he is intentionally leaving clearly marked maps off of his explanation. Very few readers are going to be able to follow his line of reasoning without illustrations, fewer yet will go look at maps in reference to his explanation. This might be a classic case of controlled oppposition in the sense that the neophyte reader will think “Oh– Eric has it all explained– so I don’t have to verify it further”. He’s offereing a phony line of reasoning in support of flat earth, in other words… which is in effect a form of disinformation.
The REAL reason earth is flat is thus diverted away from… effectively. He has neutered the true case. I might have been on to it– so he neuteralized me.

Does he or anyone have a better explanation for my ban?

1. Johan Backes says:

I have had some chats with Eric, ill see if I can get an answer for you Rick, wont be till tmrw however…

1. ab says:

See if you can get Eric to come by for a broadcast. So far I can’t get a response from him.

1. LennyLeverhulme says:

Good luck with that. I’ve been on Eric’s case to address the Southern Hemisphere flights issue for weeks now but he won’t cough up. And forget about the IFERS thread about flight times he directs you to (ifers.boards.net/thread/3/flight-routes). This addresses everything BUT the vast discrepancies between flight times and FE maps; and where they do look at S Hem. direct flights, they deny these flights exist.

Thing is, they do exist. People in Australia take direct flights to South Africa regularly, and they will all tell you it only takes 14 hours max. Compare this to a Sydney-London flight — which on the FE map is a much shorter distance than Syd-Jo’burg — that is in the air for at least 23 hours.

My hunch is Eric simply doesn’t know the answer.

1. Johan Backes says:

You just speed up the plane, no one is tracking it and its on autopilot.

Rick intuitively suggested this as a simple solution with the antarctic helicopter debacle.

Water is always level, therefore bodies of water are flat, therefore the earth is flat, the rest is just sport. Think about how your inner ear works for equilibrium. If the liquid did not effortlessly find its level irrespective of your heads orientation you would be helpless to find your balance. This is what liquid does and it has nothing to do with gravity obviously or nobody in “space” would be able to be there without profound vertigo. Vestibular organs’ intrinsic ultra sensitivity is supposedly a big issue for zeroG scenarios but the actornots never demonstrate issues, what a surprise. They dont go there any way so who cares however still noteworthy for discussions sake.

7. rickpotvin says:

I think I proved latitudes are FURTHER APART in miles in the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere– again– this morning. I tried this earlier and got a bit tangled up so started fresh again this morning. It turns out longitude lines are 11 miles further apart at 33 deg. south than at 33 degrees north. That’s 18%. This seems to me consistent with a flat earth. Here is my work and as many links for sources as I had time for this morning. –Rick Potvin

Flying distance from Sydney to Perth.
distancesfrom.com
www.distancesfrom.com/au/distance-from-Sydney-to-Perth/DistanceHistory/100467.aspx?IsHistory=1&GMapHistoryID=100467

3938 km. = 2445 miles
3938 km in miles – Google Search

Latitudes and Longitudes
Sydney 34/151
Perth 32/115
Close enough… 34-32=2…. 2/32 = 6% difference in latitude should equate to 6% error on Longitude. Longitude difference 151-115 = 36.

2445 miles / 36 deg longitude = 68 miles per degree longitude with 6% error possible on the longer side since the latitudes would make the longitude distance slightly longer. That’s 4 miles possible error on the topside, i.e. distance should be about 72 miles with the slight variance in latitude. We’ll round it off to 70 miles per degree longitude to take a bit of that into account by guesstimate without getting into more detail on triangulation on a sphere vs. a plane etc. Order of magntitude is fine in this case I think. That’s why I chose cities hundreds of miles apart on the widest part of a continent in the south– to reduce the relative error.

Flying distance from Charleston to Phoenix at 33 degrees north latitude = 1877 miles.
Longitudes are Phoenix = 112 and Charleston = 80
Error % not yet calculated but it’s relatively tiny– again that’s why I chose cities as far apart on two big continents in the north and south as possible– to reduce relative error over as large a land distance as possible– without requiring overseas flight complications.

Longitude different 112-80 = 32 longitude degrees.

1877 miles / 32 longitude degrees = 59 miles per longitude degree with much less error than the Perth-Sydney route of 2 deg. latitude so I’ll set that aside for the moment.

ROUGHLY CALCULATED…. to within a 3% error… I got 70 miles per degree longitude in the south vs. 59 miles per degree longitude in the north hemisphere– both at 33 (err 6%/2=3%) which is a 11 mile difference per degree of longitude at that latitude. That’s 70/59 = 1.18 = 18% difference.

CLEARLY, the miles per longitude degree for the same number of longitude degrees in the south are 18% greater than in the north by my calculations again. The devil is in the detail of course but I did this calculation again from scratch this morning to see how it would come out with a fresh look at it. This is unfinished business of course but it’s the direction I’d like to see pushed more by others in the flat earth business. Eric Dubay seems to have been on it but he didn’t push it all the way. To push on this further, we need to do some simple geometry that looks at the size of concentric latitude rings at 33N and 33S to see if that circle is in fact 18% bigger, consistent with these measurements. As well, even though I tried to incorporate error margin today, I’m not an expert. There are people who ARE expert on this type of math. But my preliminary work is what they should look at to correct and update.

I’m convinced again, this morning, that I’m onto something very simple and provable here. The key is to STAY ON LAND MASSES– and NOT try to calculate overseas distances since that involves more complications that are not easily verified. Pick two cities on the same number latitude in the north and south, as low a latitude as possible in each for maximum distance, in the same country where travel is popular and routes can be easily checked by ordinary passengers over a several hour flight.

8. rickpotvin says:

Here’s an apparent problem that I don’t have time to deal with right now but puts a monkey wrench into my theory. On www.distancesfrom.com, they say flight distance from sydney to perth is 3923 km. On www.airtimetable.com/Air_mile_calculator.htm, they say Syndey to Perth is 2403 km. It appears that flight distance calculators, online, are not equal. This should be sorted out before proceeding any further because it makes for extremely different results.

1. rickpotvin says:

THIS MORNING, I FIND THE WORLD TO BE A GLOBE by Rick Potvin

Here is a summary of my work this morning.

Phoenix to Birmingham = 1456 miles / longitudes 112-87 = 25 degrees = 58.2 miles per degree of long at 33N latitude. +/- 1 deg.

Perth to Sydney = 2051 miles / longitudes 151-116 = 35 degrees.= 58.6 miles per degree at 33S latitude +/- 1deg

Less than 1% difference. A Flat Earth would require an 18 to 20% difference (or more).

THIS “PROVES” that the distance per degree longitude at the same latitude north and south– is the same. This is consistent with a globe. If earth were flat, miles per degree of longitude in the southern hemisphere would have to be greater. But they’re not.

SOURCES for my mileage and coordinates information were different this morning. For flight distance, I used www.travelmath.com. For coordinates, I used Wikipedia listings for cities at the same latitude here… en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_latitude

POSSIBLE TAMPERING by Globalists to hide the flat earth might be possible on these web sites. I don’t know– in a more fundamental way– what the flight miles are between the cities named above. I have to rely on the above websites. There’s no way I can verify distances more fundamentally other than to rely on reports and flight logs of people I trust. I don’t know what my next step will be other than to take a break now that I’ve proven the earth is a globe again. –Rick Potvin, April 27, 2015.

9. rickpotvin says:

Perth to Sydney crosses 135 degrees of longitude over 2786 road miles which is 21 miles per degree longitude.

It’s 1702 road mile miles from Phoenix to Birmingham over 25 deg longitude which results in 68 miles per degree longitude.

Use your own sources so you can confirm or deny this yourself. If I’m right, then longitude lines are further apart in the northern hemisphere than the south. Approximations down to round degrees and road miles are ok in this case since we’re dealing with magnitudes that should make it relatively inconsequential.

1. rickpotvin says:

MY correction: Perth to Sydney crosses only 35 not 135 degrees of Longitude…. so I had a typo or visual glitch there– maybe an arithemtic error. It turns out that both north and south routes at 33 +/- a degree amount to 69 miles per degree of longitude. This effectively proves the earth is a ball and not flat.

Eric Dubay banned me from his IFERS forum when I started down this path and he didn’t deal well with “Maria” in his Prometheus forum when she pointed out what I did using differnt locations- but making the same argument.

I now have to say that my calculations on this longitude comparison are consistent with a round earth. I can’t imagine how the numbers can be manipulated to create just an illusion that longitude lines converge again in the southern hemisphere unless you posit that all mapmakers were in on this hoax— which is certainly possible– but it takes this to a whole new level.

The only other test I can perform is to survey travellers about their travel times from Perth to Sydney and San Diego to Mertle Beach– by highway– along with honest odometer recordings. If the travel sites are “in on the conspiracy”, that’s the only way around that. As far as this goes right now– I think Eric Dubay, and thus other flat earthers have interesting points all in all and that’s all. I think space is still a problem, and there are other problems but unless I can START with proving my arithemetic wrong, I have no choice but to now concur that for me, right now, the earth is a globe– not neccessarily spinning– but a globe consistent with longitude lines that merge at the poles. I was JUST getting comforatable with flat earth too.

1. fakefinder says:

360, 33. 69 my thought is they built the ball earth around the numbers – Occult numbers

1. rickpotvin says:

I think the 360 degrees comes from a mathematical conveniance discovered in ancient Sumeria. It might be considered “occult” today (occult meaning hidden) but Sumeria was the origen of our 12 hour clock too as well as other measurements. From what I can now gather, the incredible explosion of civilization from Sumeria was “covered up” by promoting Greece and Rome in schools.

As for the 33 degree latitude, that was my choice because cities were located on that latitude as a matter of convenience for the purpose of my calculations — far enough north and south to make a different. Perth and Sydny are not ‘On” 33 but “close enough to it for example.

rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/

10. rickpotvin says:

Rick Potvin’s Latest Flat Earth Evidence

THIS MORNING, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT AGAIN.

After proving the world spherical a few days ago, I was inspired to try a new method this morning that proves just the opposite again… that it’s indeed flat. The lines of longitude appear to be further apart in the southern hemisphere than in the north for the same latitude. This can only mean longitude lines spread further and further out toward the Antarctic, consistent with a flat plane, and not a sphere.

METHOD OF THIS MORNING’S PROOF (May 2, 2015)

Take 2 cities in the northern and southern hemispheres at as close a latitude to each other as possible. (San Diego – Myrtle Beach and Perth – Sydney). If the earth is a sphere, we should see the flight time expressed as degrees of longitude per hour travelled as equal. This assumes equal modern jet travel speed and equal take off and landing times and speeds. We’re considering roughly good enough equal elements of each case in the north and south, i.e. “other things being equal” when comparing commercial flights.

The advantage of considering longitude degrees per hour rather than miles is that we can dispense with the complications introduced by measuring miles vs. nautical miles for land and sea. We can also dispense with the exact ways that an airplane’s speed is determined. We simply assume that airplane speed is calculated “in the same manner” in the north as in the south hemispheres.

To fly from San Diego to Myrtle Beach takes 7 hours, they say on several websites– give or take a few minutes. Exact sources will be written up another day– I’m simply reporting a clue here. These cities are at 33 degrees latitude north, give or take a little bit. Calculations can always be made more accurate but for the purpose of this exercise, I’m rounding off to the nearest whole number. Since both sets of numbers in the north and south are being rounded off to the nearest whole, I’m assuming we have pretty good equivalence for the purpose of getting a general feel for this approach. Readers are welcome to tighten the numbers up.

THE NUMBERS

San Diego and Myrtle Beach are both at 33 deg. latitude give or take. Flying from San Diego to Myrtle Beach takes 7 hours and you would cross 38 degrees of longitude plus or minus a degree and few minutes. That means you would fly 38 degrees divided by 7 hours or 5.4 degrees of longitude per hour.

Perth and Sydney are similarly at about 33 deg. of latitude. Flying between them they say takes 8 hours, rounded off to the nearest hour. You would cover 35 degrees of longitude which means you cover 35 degrees over 8 hours or 4.4 degrees per hour.

If both jets travel the same speed, we can clearly see that we’re covering FEWER degrees of longitude per hour in the south in the north (4.4 vs. 5.4). In fact, we’re covering 23% fewer lines of longitude per hour, which is consistent with longitude lines spreading out as we go south from the equator– not converging again as on a sphere.

RICK POTVIN VS. ERATOTHENES

When Eratothenes first conceived of latitude and longitude lines, nobody could challange him. He originally showed the earth as a sphere. Who could argue with him at that time? How would they argue with him? Not until Rick Potvin showed that covering his longitude lines in south takes more time by modern passenger jet than in the north did anyone challange Eratothenes directly using Eratothenes’ own longitude lines against him. The key to Rick Potvin’s Flat Earth Proof was Rick’s use of comparing “longitude degrees per hour” in each hemisphere effectively negating many complications. Rick now calls Eratosthenes… ERROR-tosthenes.

11. rickpotvin says:

LET’S TRY THIS AGAIN

This morning I compared flights from Wellington NZ to Perth in the south with Portland to Atlanta in the north. The latitudes are 41/31 and 45/33 respectively. I’m assuming I’m looking at a long enough distance so that this variance is negligable for the purpose of the demonstration.

Wellington to Perth is 3285 miles and crosses 58 degrees of longitude in 7 hours for a speed of 8 degrees of longitude per hour. Portland to Atlanta is 2174 miles travelled in 4 hours across 38 degrees of longitude for a result of 10 degrees per hour. In other words, you can cross more lines of longitude in the north than in the south in one hour– about 25% more.

Another way to put this is that you are able to cross fewer longitude lines in the south every hour, all other things being equal– such as air speed– assumed to be equal– and latitude which is pretty close– much closer than 25%.

Interestingly, Eric Dubay recounts Cook’s voyages around the Antarctic frequently in his talks and points out Cook was off by about 20 miles a day– If we guesstimate a ship can travel 100 miles a day, then that’s about 20% off… a number within the order of magnitude I’ve been getting.

My notes for sources on this are a mess at the moment but I just wanted to check in with this update for continuity’s sake. I’m unlikely to continue doing these calculations but will check back in a year, perhaps, to see if anyone else has followed up on this approach of calculating and comparing lines of longitude per hour crossed in the north and south at the same lines of latitude. So far, I’m getting results that are consistent with longitude lines widening toward the south making it impossible to cross as many of them as in the north where they are closer together. My error of 25% might still be explained with air speed and latitude variances but over several examples of “pretty good numbers”, I’m getting a consistent 20-25%…. which is, in itself, interesting and works in favor of a flat earth.

12. rickpotvin says:

ONLINE MILEAGE CALCULATORS VARY FROM TRAVEL COMMENTATORS EXPERIENCES

Without trying to post links and references right now, I just want to relay an potentially fatal flaw in the mileage calculations. I’m getting 2059 miles from Perth to Sydney on internet based calculators and roughly that on a globe I own. The actual experience of the drive from Perth to Sydney– which is a fairly straight road is 2700 miles. That’s a 30% difference which is more consistent with a flat earth where there are 20 to 30% more miles between longitude lines in the south than the north.

Actual reporting by actual people with diaries might be as important in today’s age of GPS and all the tech we have as it was in Captain Cook’s time. I like to stay on land based drives so we don’t have to deal with overseas flight complications. We might be in big trouble on determining distance since it is very possible– as astounding as this might seem– that “they” have control of the maps and globe publication process so that all the distances are being reported wrong. One would wonder how the world possibly gets along with wrong numbers like this… but then I “saw” the trade towers collapse too, didn’t you? I think everything is on the table this point.

I think all “pilots” must be “in on it” either knowingly or unknowingly, so we want to steer clear of the airplane industry for our numbers and use a combination of road travel and social media where road travellers can report to the world at large. I think this situation might be getting “that bad” now. I can’t for the life of me understand HOW a digital online mileage calculator can vary 30% from online social media reports. Again– I realize sources are important but I’m simply reporting here in a general alert manner– as to what to watch out for as you all proceed if you do– on this question.

If I’ve learned anything from the fake moon landing and 9/11 and other scams being pulled off today as reported by Ab and his fans, it’s that illusions don’t seem to have any bounds. The question of distance and longitudes shouldn’t be off our radar in this context. Like animals, we’ve been reduced to walking the walk or driving the drive in Australia, or South Africa or southern South America– and comparing our actual recorded experiences at similar latitudes in the north because the crazy controllers simply will not tell us the truth about mileage. We’re at square one. You cannot possibly explain why digital online media reports distance between Syndey and Perth as 2059 miles and bloggers report 2700 miles. That stinks. Of course the bloggers might be wrong– but again– I think this indicates we need to take a deeper look here.

13. ab says:

It makes me wonder, if they are spoofing us, why did they choose a round earth? Is there something (Luciferean) or magical about a sphere? Was it just the polar opposite of flat? I like Rick’s out-loud research as well.

1. rickpotvin says:

Listening to Math Boylen, he makes the point that “there is more land out there” that they’re trying to hide from us. By making the Earth a ball, you always end up where you started. It’s the ultimate trap. We’re led to believe we can’t leave so we don’t even try. Boylen’s model involves an infinite flat plane of “earth ponds” where there are more “earths” with an infinity of places we can go– if we travel across the Antarctic– now guarded and off limits apparently. That’s maybe why they chose the beach ball model. Life is a beach.

14. rickpotvin says:

DID I JUST PROVE ANTARCTICA’S Circumference is the same as as Earth’s?

“They” say that the Earth’s circumference is 25,000 miles. I think it was Archimedes or Errortosthenes who first came up with that number based on watching the overhead sunshine reach the bottom of a well in Egypt during the summer solstice one year– and comparing that with a 7 degree angle in a town a few hours north of them at the same time. I haven’t come across a description of exactly how that was coordinated since they didn’t have telephones or ham radio at the time, as far as we think we know.

In any case, I may have just proven that the Antarctica is the same ircumference– for a total of 25,200 miles– using helicopter flight times between two Antarctic bases. Here are the steps I used in the process.

Mawson and Davis are two Australian Antarctic bases. Both are on approximately the same latitude– or close enough for our purpose in demonstration of this idea. Mawson looks to be at 73 S. Lat and Davis at 71 S. Latitude. The importance of choosing the same latitude is so that the longitude degrees work out to be the same number of miles for both towns. Longitude lines spread out and coverge on a globe as well as on a flat earth– i.e. they vary in their mileage of separation. Latitudes do not. Mawson looks to be at 65 and Davis at 75 degrees Longitude.

There are 360 degrees of longitude even though they label them through 180 East and 180 West degrees. The total both on a sphere and a flat circle is 360. The degrees of longitude separate of Mawson and Davis is 75 less 65– for 10 or 1/36 of the circle.

It takes 4.5 hours flying by helicopter from Mawson to Davis according to the Australian government agency that operates the flights between them [1]. If we assume an average speed of 150 mph for the helicopter, [3] then that aircraft covers 150 mph X 4.5 hours for a total of 700 miles. From our Longitude calculation above, that 700 miles is equal to 10 of the 360 degrees. The full circle of 360 divided by 10 = 36 segments of 700 miles. 36 X 700 = 25,200 miles which is close double the official circumference of Antarctica (12,000 miles, they say). The Earth’s official circumference of 25,000 miles to make this an interesting point for further investigation.

One wonders how Antarctica’s circumference can be the same as Earth’s. Obviously this calculated model is not consistent with a sphere. Yet neither is it consistent with a plane where the equator is 25,000 around. Antarctica on a plane with an equator of 25,000 miles would have to be 50,000 miles or more. The only way I can currently imagine this as possible is to postulate that the equatorial circle is 1/2 of what “they” say it is.

EQUATOR DISTANCE TESTED

It’s difficult to find two major airports on the equator. I’ll try Bogata and Forteleza, Brazil. They say that trip takes 5 hours. [https://www.google.com/search?q=flight+time+bogata+to+forteleza&btnG=Search&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&tbas=0] At an assumed speed of 500 mph, that’s 2500 miles over 40 to 75 longitude or 35 degrees. If 2500 miles covers 35 degrees at the equatorial latitude, more or less, then that’s roughly 360/35 or 1/10th of the way around the globe. Thus the 2500 miles X 10 = 25,000 which is consistent with what they say.

HOW CAN ANTARCTIC and the EQUATOR both be 25,000 mi. in Circumference?

There is no model of the Earth that I can think of that has both the equator and Antarctica at a circumference of 25,000 miles. It’s difficult to imagine that they’re lying about the distance around the equator– and thus the distances in most of the northern hemisphere- especially on land. Previously, I discovered that internet based mileage determinations between Sydney and Perth were said to be 2000 miles when bloggers report it as 2700 miles. It might be easier to lie about mileages in the southern hemisphere and even easier to lie about them on Antarctica.

My calculation shows that Antarctica is 2X the circumference that the official sources say it is– which are 25,000 and 12,000 miles respectively. If we use “doubling” as a way to create an illusion, perhaps the flight times reported by the Aussie government on their Antarctic site need to be doubled. That way, the helicopter would require a 9 hour flight and the miles covered at 150 mile per hour would double from 700 to 1400. That would yield a doubling of already doubled 25,000, yielding 50,000 miles which would be about right for a perimeter version of Antarctica, on a flat earth.

SOURCES

2. Interestingly, no speed is given for the AS350 BA helicopter on the General Helicopter operations site.
www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/travel-and-logistics/aviation/intra-continental-operations/helicopters/general-helicopter-operations

3. Speed seems to be 150 mph according to a wikipedia article.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_AS350

1. rickpotvin says:

It occurred to me later on the morning I wrote the above report that another strange aspect to the helicopters being flown between Mawson and Davis are that they seem to have been built in the 1970’s. That’s pretty old equipment to be operating in a dangerous environment. Maybe they’re lying about using those 150 mph helicopters to cover the fact that they’re using new helicopters with top speeds of twice what they used to be. That would double the mileage covered in 4 1/2 hours from 700 to around 1400 miles. That means that 10 degrees of longitude would equat with 1400 miles. Multiply that by 36 for 360 degrees in a circle and you get 36 X 1400 = around 50,000 miles– consistent with a flat earth Antarctic perimeter again.

Interestingly, the Aussie government site above has tech stats on the helicopters they say they’re using but they don’t bother to list cruisting or top speeds. That’s one heck of a number to miss on a technical report. Perhaps they intentionally left it out knowing that they’d have to lie about he speed they’re travelling with the old 1970’s helicopters.

As Mat Boylen points out, there are no records of any real circumnaviations of Antarctica. All the circumnaviations listed on google are “partial circumnavigations”. This is highly suspicious. A jet travelling around the perimeter, such as Quantas Airlines, travelling 500 mph would require 100 hours to make the journey– which means flying for 4 straight days and nights, 24 hours a day. It might be a sort of trip that would take a cruise airliner a week with pitstops for fuel and rest. Still, it could potentially be done. With today’s super rich people looking for new hobbies, they should approach Quantas with a proposal to do just that.

A cruise ship travelling 100 miles a day– I’m guessing that’s what they can do– in order of magnitude– would take 2 years to do the same trip. Again, the super rich with nothing but time and money on their hands, could arrange such a trip. Restocking of the ship could take place as the ship visits the various stations of nations around the perimeter.

A website could be constructed that pretends to travel around the 50,000+ perimeter as a virtual cruise. It would cost nothing to “go”. I could be the virtual captain and virtual tour guide, telling virtual travellers how far they’ve travelled. There are plenty of videos and pictures via google to make this sort of Antarctic perimeter voyage very interesting and believable from a flat earth 50,000+ mile perspective. I’ve only found one helicopter flying time from station to station site so far– I’ll look for more and keep this forum posted on my virtual trip around the Antarctic perimeter…. the first of its kind in history. Can I make a case for being written up in Guiness Book of World Records? Maybe. I could crowd fund and even pay for my time.

I hope someone steals this idea from me so I don’t have to do it myself. I’m too busy trying to make a living to have any real earth-shattering fun like this.

15. rickpotvin says:

VIRTUAL ANTARCTIC CIRCUMNAVIGATION with Virtual Captain Rick

This thread has been great, thanks to everyone for the contributions. Over the next span of research, I’ll need some extra tools and space because I’ve decided that I can attempt a virtual circumnavigation of Antarctica to see if it’s 50-60 thousand miles around or just 14,000.

I’ll be using virutal helicopters, virtual planes and virtual boats. I’ll be visiting, virtually, many many research stations– in the order in which they would be gotten to on a real trip. I’ll try to meet real people via social media and other techniques along the way who live, visit and travel to and from the stations in Antarctica.

I expect my virtual tour to take two years, just like a real flat earth 60,000 mile perimeter trip. At the end of the two years, I should be in a better position to determine if the Earth is flat or a globe.

Rick Potvin’s Virtual Circumnavigation of Antarctica to Decide if Earth is a Globe or Flat
…or How Far Around Antarctica– 14,000 miles or 50-60,000 miles?
rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/

1. ab says:

Good luck Cap’n. Check in often. Let’s do an audio when you can.

1. rickpotvin says:

Thanks again for hosting my incessant obsession with this particular issue. It grabs me for reasons I don’t understand but I’ll just go with it because it’s definitely viable and interesting. I mean– if Earth is flat– that’s just out of this world. Who knows what the implications are. What’s astonishing to me at this point is that I cannot prove, by myself, that it’s not. That’s strange. Travelling around Antarctica’s perimeter, virtually, struck me as a way to do something about this here and now given the net and the case. My inital forays into mileage vs. longitude distances have given me cause for concern (alarm?). So off I go, like Captain Cook and Operation Highjump’s Admiral Byrd… the piano teacher turned virtual Antarctica circumlocution captain, Rick Potvin. This would be sad if it were not so insanely hilarious. At least it diverts me in an entertainingly pleasing way as a form of escapism when I need that.

ON THE MATTER OF AN AUDIO INTERVIEW– Yes… indeed I’m interested. I have feeling that I need to get a few Antarctic bases into my virtual trip first, before I speak to you publicly. Once I cross the straight and get into some of the Antarctic communities, I’ll be able to report on some actual contacts, flights, and distances.

Thanks again for the invitation and for not deleting me. Imagine that– we have to thank one another these days for not deleting and banning our selves. That’s what the world has come to.

1. ab says:

Rick there’s a movie Del recommended called Antarctica – a year on ice. Allegedly filmed down there with time lapse photography of sunrises and moon rises and plenty of blowing cold. Not sure it will help your research but an interesting distraction.

1. rickpotvin says:

I’ll use it for inspiration and take a look. Thanks.

I’m currently considering the Twin Otter airplane that has a top speed of 260 mph. Originally I was considering helicopter but De Havilland aircraft manufacturer built the Dash 7 Twin Otter in Montreal in the 1970s and it’s current version is being built by Viking in BC. I’ve flown in this several times (for real) while working Coast Guard in NWT on the Mackenzie. I still recall feeling “secure” in the air in this aircraft– far more than any jet engine plane. It seems to have a grasp on the air that jet engines can’t match.

At 260 mph, it should take 53 hours or a little over 2 days/nites to fly 14,000 miles over all the research stations on the perimeter of Antarctica. But it should take 150 hours or 10 days if its a 60,000 mile perimeter. Of course these are ridiculous theoretical numbers only– but they’re a start.

I’m currently virtually stuck in Comodoro RivaDavia in my hotel room over an Irish Pub here looking for a way to fly into the Rothera research station. Comodoro Rivadavia is a large city here in southern Argentina with all the comforts of Phoenix. Most of the flights to Rothera, the largest British research base on Antarctica, leave from the Falklands. I can’t find any way to get from Argentina to the airports in the Falklands however, There are flights leaving from Southern Chile to Rothera. I’m not sure what I’ll do yet.

One important discovery I’ve made is that those expensive tourist cruise ships to Antarctica are useless. They go down there and loop back up without having gone any distance along Antarctica’s coastline or visiting the big research stations… and they overcharge. These trips cost \$10,000 or more. It’s ridiculous. I’ve decided that my status will have to be a “volunteer researcher”. I think I can make a good case for “researching” the actual distance of the Antarctica coastline. It’s a credible idea and certainly is at the heart of what my mission is.

For pictures and videos related to my virtual mission, I try to update my blog routinely here…
rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/

Virtual Captain Rick
Antarctica Coastline Measurement Project

2. xileffilex says:

Fascinating work, Rick.
The BAS site itself cites 8 hours for the flight between Halley and Rothera
www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/virtual/travel/halley.php
but I am not sure why the word “often” is used to describe refuelling at either of the two bases. One plane, one distance…surely it either needs to refuel or it doesn’t.
www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/virtual/travel/halley.php

www.antarctica.ac.uk//images/bas__aircraft_operations.jpg

NASA [usual warning bells] has issued some out and back flight times for reconnaissence C130 planes from Argentina 11.6 or so hours out and back according to the map. Not sure what the speed is.

www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/fall14/oib-antarctic-2014-flight-lines/#.VUyHYfDuetB

The index for the NASA missions is here
www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/news/past.html#.VUyKsPDuetB

3. xileffilex says:

and see where you “often”refuel en route to Halley VI: at Fossil Bluff [ho ho…] map/video: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21341044

www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/research_stations/fossil_bluff/
www.antarctica.ac.uk/living_and_working/research_stations/skyblu/index.php
The station is 90 minutes flying time from Rothera. It is used extensively as a jumping-off point for further operations into Antarctica. The next ‘traditional’ stop for the Twin Otters is Sky Blu, 85 minutes away. [wiki Fossil Bluff]

4. rickpotvin says:

Its 8 hours from Rothera to Halley. Yet planes OFTEN refuel just 90 minutes out at Fossil Bluffs.

It can only be because the range of a Dash7 or TwinOtter is 8 hrs less 90 minutes = 6.5 hours. It must be because they can’t make it from rothera to Hally in one jump.

The “often” part might deal with different planes besides TwinOtter and Dash7 OR… it might deal with SOME TwinOtters and Dash7s carrying or NOT carrying EXTRA drums of fuel on them for their OWN use.

Hercules aircraft are routinely dropping off fuel all over Antarctica too… I wonder what their range is and what their routes are?

I liked your map from NASA showing FLIGHT LINES. Note that all the orange lines are LONGER, longitudinally than laterally or latidudinally. You would think out of ALL those missions and ALL those orange lines that SOME or at least a FEW would CROSS latitude wise across the entire range covered. But NOPE. They ALL goe down and back– despite fuel depots all over the place.

And besides, I was surprised to find the fakers at NASA in Antarctica in the first place. Who put THEM on this assignment? Geez.

16. xileffilex says:

The great circle route from Sydney to Johannesburg only touches 48 S . Today’s flight which took about 13h 15 mins touched -50.6842 S at longitude 94.4373 E
uk.flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA63/history/20150521/2350Z/YSSY/FAOR/tracklog
We learn that it sometimes brushes Antarctica depending on winds
www.gotravelyourway.com/2013/07/20/qantas-flight-qf63-from-sydney-to-johannesburg/#.VV9pyFLuetC
and this map is produced
u.jimdo.com/www37/o/scb3c95bbd722dc02/img/ia72e6342c6ebeb79/1396092237/std/flight-route-of-qfa63.jpg
Whereas today’s flight crosses 90 E very close to the dashed line rather than the red line. That’s some deviation,and nowhere near Antarctica.
Yet we have several videos showing flight QF63 over Antarctica

Perhaps someone can explain.

Hi Rick

Before reading your post I went through a similar exercise which confirms what you have done. I am also feeling that maybe I made a mistake and would appreciate it if others can check it and let us know if there is any error in the calculation. Otherwise it seems solid proof that the earth is not a ball…

I think I just came across the most obvious and totally undeniable proof that the earth is not a globe.

Global coordinates are latitude and longitude. Both are in degrees. Latitude is the circles that go around the globe. The circle around the equator is zero and it goes up to 90 degrees north, that is the north pole and down to 90 degrees south, that is the south pole. The distance each degree covers is about 81 miles I think and that is going to be the same on a ball earth and a flat earth. So not controversy here.

But Longitude is the number of degrees starting from Greenwich, which is close to London. That is zero and it goes around the globe 360 degrees back to Greenwich…

So on a globe the distance that one degree would cover changes dramatically. It is very small at the poles and at its maximum at the equator.

So if the Earth was a globe we would expect the distance covered within one degree of latitude to increase from the north pole up to the equator where it would be at its maximum and then it should start to decease back to zero at the south pole…

This is very easy to check and it appears that it does not decrease as you go into the southern hemisphere but instead increases. It is very simple to check and anyone can do it.

For example:

Very roughly the distance from the equator and of the trip from New York to Los Angeles and the distance from the equator of the trip between Sydney and Perth is about the same. Very roughly the trip in the US is around 35 degrees North of the Equator and the trip in Australia is roughly 35 degrees South of the Equator…

So we would expect to travel roughly the same distance as we travel through one degree of longitude on both trips. But the big surprise is we do not. We have to travel a lot more kilometeres to cover one degree of latitude in Australia than we have to do in the US. Which can not be if the earth is a globe…

New York: 40° 45′ N, 73° 59′ W — Los Angeles: 34° 3′ N, 118° 14′ W

On this trip you cover 44.25 degrees of longitude (118.23 – 73.98 = 44.25) so 3936 km / 44.25 = 89 Kilometers per degree of longitude. Which is OK for a globe earth because if you multiply 89 * 360 (360 degrees makes a complete circle) that comes to 32040 km which is considerably less than the circumference of the earth at equator = 40075 km. So everything is good for a globe earth. Great.

But things start to get very crazy when we do the same thing for the Sydney – Perth trip…

Sydney: 33° 52′ S, 151° 12′ E — Perth: 31° 57′ S 115° 52′ E

Here we cover 35 degrees of longitude and the distance is about 4110 km so that means we have to travel 117.5 km (4110 / 35) to cover one degree of longitude. Which is much more than the 89 kilometers we had to travel to cover one degree in the Northen Hemisphere at roughly the same distance from the equator… Very strange. Very strange indeed.

And even stranger if we multiply out the distance we have to travel in one degree by 360 to get the circumference of the ‘ball’ earth in Australia it comes to 117.5 * 360 = 42300 km. Which is totally impossible if the earth is a globe… Because the circumference at the equator is only 40075 km… So in Australia, South of the Equator, the circumference of the earth must be less than 40075… If the earth is a globe. But it is not and anyone can easily check this.

So unless you can point out some mistake in this calculation this is 100% solid proof that the earth is not a globe…

It is rather uncomfortable for me so if I have made a mistake please someone point it out…

We should get much the same circumference for the earth in Australia as they have in the USA… Something like 32000 km. But it is not 32000 km, it is about 42000 km… This is impossible. 10,000 km bigger than what we would expect if the earth was a globe… More than 2000 km bigger than the earth is at the equator. Certainly not a globe…

1. Rick says:

I just found this post now– and will check your numbers against my own in coming days and weeks. Thanks. You’re on the right track– right off the bat here. This type of comparison between northern and southern hemisphere twin-city distances to derive comparitive miles/km is “tricky” but should be confirmable– and is a variation of measuring the distance around the Antarctic coast as being either 60K or 15K for rim vs. sphere.

18. AM says:

I get it now, after reading all of your post, really great by the way, this is why the globalist are pushing for a pear shape earth now, so they can explain why the south lines are more than the north.

19. Alan Creech says:

here is how i see it. god created the world, just as the bible puts forward. satan, who has to mirror every act of god, but in his name, has created round spinning earth. Just as god has his people who follow him, satan has his followers who, work every day to push forward his agenda, to make people think they came from monkeys, are small insignifigant beings, living on a spinning globe in the middle of a unending universe. It makes it easer for satan to convence the world that there is no god, if they believe in his earth, of his creation, and not in the reality of god’s creation.

1. ab says:

Biblical perspective has its place, and the controllers know how to push your buttons. It’s easier to upset believers than nonbelievers.