The first link in the post you quoted has the proof of the aircraft used, the Boeing 747-400, noted as "B744" on the upcoming flights, and with the tail numbers of the completed flights. But you're not interested in verifiable fact, so who am I kidding. You're already spewing that the airlines are now in on the scheme alongside NASA.
High altitude winds are known to break 100 mph. But even a 100 mph tailwind (assuming you actually have this wind the ENTIRE WAY does not turn a 660 mph cruising speed into a 1027 mph overland speed. And I was using a Google average for flight times. Some of the flights listed in that link are landing after just a 13 hour flight instead of 14:10. So on that particular flight, the aircraft would have had to averaged 1120 mph, close to double its optimal cruising speed. And to answer your question, "optimal" is the term used to note getting to your destination having used the least amount of fuel possible. So optimal air speeds are just the airlines' way of saying "go XXX this fast to get there using the least amount of fuel."

Altered equipment? You really want to cling desperately to an all encompassing conspiracy, don't you? Is this like a defense mechanism for you? A real life manifestation of the backfire effect? It certainly appears to be the case, so no matter how well we all demolish all your bullshit proofs, it will never sink in. Your primitive mind won't allow it. You are intellectually INCAPABLE of accepting criticism.

So obviously you didn't read my facts and want to desperately cling to your uneducated bias while dodging proving any proof beyond what your told and expected to think.
Its funny how so many of the globe myths have fallen and yet your still clinging to a thread of hope. I think that should the name for the next Star Wars film -"A Thread of Hope" Hold on tight ok?

Which "facts" do you believe were missed?

The fact that mach is different at different altitude and airspeed doesn't work properly
The fact that the ground is curved a bit while even at 20 feet proves that people dont see the curve from Airplanes
The fact you dodged all my questions
The fact that you think a number painted on a tail fin must be that the plane is normal in every way, its like your in war and you see a guy in an American Uniform, then you think that must be because hes an American

Dude your anger is misplaced, i'm not the one lying to you - are you still 1000% sure the Earth is a ball still? Really?

Mach 1 at 35,000 feet is 663 mph. The higher you go, the lower the number. A 747-400 doing .85 mach at 35,000 feet is travelling 564 mph. Just because you asked a question that wasn't addressed doesn't mean it makes your point or that it's not contestable.
I don't know how many times I have to tell you this: I'm not disagreeing. People generally can't see curvature from airliner altitudes. You have to go higher, like in the area of 60,000+ feet.
Dude, you dodge all the fucking time. I'm not going address every absurd claim you manage to concoct.
Do you know what "publicly available" information means? It means any schlep in the world can go out and disprove it. You should fly to Sydney and see if they lie about the type of aircraft the send to JNB.

I'm positive the Earth is ball shaped. Absolutely positive.

I just read all 59 pages to be sure

Monoliths*, the "i" isnt flat

I already posted a myth buster picture meme that showed the flat horizon at 70,000 ft.

You're never gonna convince me and you're never going to wake up.

so believe whatever you want, just try to find a a better way to deal with your anger and rage. You really need to chill out, seriously.

...and individual pictures are subject to lens distortion, just like you always tell us.

Explain how daily flights make it to JNB from SYD on your mythical flat Earth.

Why would I "chill out?" You're still spreading lies.

In both the myth buster altitude test and Red bull jump from space - the camera inside the vehicles are using a normal lense and show the clearly flat horizon

and then switch to a very wide angle lense to trick you, its plainly obvious once you chill out, relax, start to process information properly, start to think critically and realize goverment military space fantasy propaganda is not actual science.




https://www.quora.com/Do-airplanes-fly-faster-at-higher-altitudes

“As altitude increases, air temperature decreases. The speed of sound in air varies directly with temperature, so as temperature decreases, so does the true airspeed associated with a given Mach.
As aircraft climb to the transition zone at a constant indicated airspeed (the speed shown on their instruments), their true airspeed (actual speed through the air) increases. This is because as air gets thinner it has less impact on the sensors that drive the airspeed indicators, so for a given indicated airspeed, true airspeed increases with altitude. So, Yes.”

You've failed at proving anything is a lie, all you've done is lie yourself, dodge and rage. You have absolutely no credibility. Please take your anger from having battered wife syndrome and try to direct it toward something positive.

GL2U




its actually the "eye" in illuminati, that higher levels of freemasonry have known the truth

and not knowing this truth is why life is out of balance.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 10 2017 08:11am

If I recall correctly, the Red Bull jump from space had a very distorted camera, including your favorite shot of curvature from ground level.

The mythbusters didn't use a normal lens, you can clearly see curvature even at 10,000 feet, which is not perceptible to the human eye yet. And while HE saw curvature at 70,000 feet, it was obvious that the curvature in the camera view was exaggerated.



http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/british-airways-777-plane-blown-across-atlantic-supersonic-speeds-by-freak-jetstream-1482875 <-- a Boeing 777 managed to eclipse the sea-level speed of sound at high high altitude, crossing the Atlantic with a record tailwind. Its ground speed? 745 mph. Still not even in the ballpark of 1000+.

Now keep in mind, it didn't break the sound barrier at altitude, broad nosed aircraft aren't built to manage the immense stresses an aircraft undergoes when it exceeds the sound barrier. But a trans-Atlantic RECORD of 745 mph for a subsonic aircraft (which all modern airliners are)? It is beyond safe to say that ordinary air traffic from SYD to JNB is physically impossible with current airliners.