Except 3 angles, to be fair. Knowing all 3 angles doesn't give a unique triangle.

There's also the flight from Santiago to Sydney, which I think is probably the worst possible one on a flat earth.

didnt you know, nasa is powerful enough that plane pilots fly at twice the speed and consume drastically more fuel than they should, then the fuel lackeys come out and lie about how much fuel they're putting in the tank. because they're scared they'll lose their job. and the millions of people throughout the last few decades, including those who have been fired and lost their jobs, have all stayed quiet and kept the secret myth of cruising speed. all to protect the flat earth, of course.

ive said all along logical proof is the best u have against a flat earther, the problem is that Card Sultan and his like see nothing wrong with the above situation. instead they'll try to minimize (without a single source or any inside knowledge) the number of people it would take to keep a conspiracy that size running then they'll act like you're a fool to not think a massive shadow organization could make it happen.

if u go after physics they make up physics on the fly, if you go after logic they make up bad logic on the fly.

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 9 2017 09:35am

Dodged what question? I obviously made your question irrelevant when I noted that planes successfully fly the route in both directions simultaneously. The wind can't blow both directions at the same time. The shortest route between the two cities on retardo world is a straight line that is 14,558 miles long that passes over the Himalayas. And yet, here's the real ball Earth route the aircraft take: (in this case, Qantas flight number QFA63 with daily nonstop service from SYD to JNB using a Boeing 747-400) https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/qf63/#d53e3c0 But you know what was dodged? You dodging how the jet stream works absent a Coriolis Effect.

Because aircraft are not cars, derp. The maximum airspeed of the Boeing 747-400 that flies SYD to JNB is 0.92 mach, and is certified for that maximum speed by airworthiness tests, the results of which can be viewed here: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/75d4c3215c58345386257df9007c3763/$FILE/A20WE_Rev_57.pdf

I don't need to post the flight data for every flight on Earth. You need to explain how something that is physically impossible on a retardo world (an aircraft with a range of less than 9000 miles can cover 14,558 miles in ~12-13 hours while only flying ~660 mph. In the real world, the distance is 6,871 miles, which IS within the range of the aircraft, and can be traversed at speeds a Boeing 747-400 can achieve.

No, the video does not prove a flat Earth. Not in the slightest. There is zero evidence presented within it that supports a flat Earth hypothesis, and I challenge you to note a single time frame in the video where it does.



Well, I had considered making note of that when I composed the post, but considering my target audience, I figures that was just extra information that would confuse him or offer him another opportunity to dodge the point.

No proof standard aircraft is used
No proof all speeds of all jet streams (theirs more than one idiot and they flow in multiple directions)
No speedometer/odometer/altimeter readings
No mechanical inspection of all equipment, instrument on plane that they aren't altered in any way

As planes fly higher the air is thinner, the means they can go faster cause the air is less dense, perhaps they are flying at an higher altitude then they say. The get away with this by claiming they are flying at optimal speed/height – optimal for what – to lie to you?

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.”

Dodge more.



One can clearly see from the top picture that the world is already looking curved from ground height so obviously a slightly wide angle lense is used - not fish eye but it looks like about a 28mm lense so definitely wide angle. Once you account for this distortion , the sky has the same slightly curved look as the ground, but of course idiots would not account for this, just looking at a single frame of a video like you want to do would allow you spew your lies and bs and this understanding makes the whole video proof as to a flat earth.



Your blatant lies are utterly destroyed and you should forever hide your head in shame with this thrashing of your retarded logic.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 9 2017 11:08am

im curious, why would the top of an enclosed dome over a flat object have the thinnest air?

air pressure aka The moronic reason:gravity



Do you not think there can be a dome and we are in a totally open enviroment?

If that's the case the air in the atmosphere is whipping around at the exact same speed as the spin of the earth in a direction to the east and that speed/force of the air would need to be resisted when we traveling by plane in the opposite direction of the spin - but that's simply not true.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 9 2017 11:31am

just saying it over and over doesnt prove it to be true.

an open environment isnt open for all things in all cases, neither is a closed environment closed for all things in all cases. to use your oversimplified example of a car as a closed environment that stops wind and other objects such as bugs, would that still be closed if it encountered a bug travelling 1000mph? how about a bullet?

This post was edited by thesnipa on May 9 2017 11:36am

Just denying it over and over doesn't make it true. And its also not my example, idiots claim we can walk around trains and planes and big cars , so its proof of the earth being a ball - but that only true cause its on the inside of a closed environment, try walking outside on top of a plane and tell me about how closed/open does not affect the force of the air.

If a bullet hit a moving vehicle's windshield and shattered it completely (it probably wouldn't but lets say it did) the inside of the car would be resisting the air it traveled through and the environment wouldnt be closed anymore.

So let's say you were bouncing a balloon inside the car before, no problem in a closed environment - bullet smashed front windshield - no more bouncing the balloon anywhere near that former window.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 9 2017 11:55am

im glad you got my point. some things can pass beyond a closed environment, and that what is sometimes a closed environment for a solid state of matter is not necessarily the same for a gas state of matter.

i'm just glad we're on the same page.

Well if your saying the dome is just a gaseous state of matter, I would disagree. If you discount the Moon missions which claim to have gone 240,000 miles away, all other manned space missions are at what they call "low earth orbit" and that doesn't sound like "space" to me.

A few months ago, astro-not Don Pettit claimed that we destroyed the technology that allowed us to go to the moon and accomplish the greatest feat in human history - #opps



See how the story changes.

BTW Alan Bean who use to privately sell paintings with ground up moon rock for about $300,000 [http://www.alanbean.com/available_originals.cfm]

Thought that was funny someone would buy this, children are starving but someone bought a painting supposedly made with moon rock for 300k, um yeah what a joke.

This post was edited by card_sultan on May 9 2017 12:32pm