davey_83

I'm calling ships going over the horizon too as proof back in the day of curve. That ship should have been well out of possible view by now. Furthermore the mass should has showed signs of tiling top first away from the base due to sailing over the curve and yet it remained proportional from start to finish. #whatif Watch all or from 8:20

Forget Antarctica, at no point in all those years at sea did he ever go in a southernly direction and pop up the other side. South South South and oh we're going North now, champion. He'd have done this surely, surely this is achievable. No, documented ice wall with no way through. Not able to stay a steady course and find yourself heading back up North.

I've looked and it's documented to have gone to 71' latitude, that's pretty low and on the map Antarctica actually reaches higher than that figure. http://www.south-pole.com/p0000071.htm Remember our winter is the best time to explore the Antarctica circle. Instead of fighting what I'm reading, I'm reading it for what it was. On his third voyage he didn't even both to explore Antarctica as he felt it was all he could do by sea ie not a continent at the bottom of the world. On December 11 the crew of the ADVENTURE thought they found it. What they actually sighted was an iceberg and by the following day they found themselves at the edge of an endless pack of ice. On January 17, 1773, the ships most likely became the first to cross the Antarctic Circle. For two months Cook sailed alongside the pack, looking for an entrance to travel further south. He once again reached the ice pack, in mid December, and continued his search for a way through to the south. Cook's skill as a seaman and navigator cannot be challenged...through heavy storms and dangerous seas filled with huge icebergs the RESOLUTION survived without the loss of a single man. On January 30 he reached his furthest south but could go no further. The ice "extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height...It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the Pole, or perhaps joins to some land to which it has been fixed since creation".

and yet it read as if he saw it clearly, let not forgot he had a good eye for detail. in 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote: “The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.” Obviously he could have been lying, clearly not wanting to go back with his tail between his legs. However you can not do that sort of mileage and not circle the icy continent at least from a far. “I had now made the circuit of the Southern Ocean in a high latitude … in such a manner as to leave not the least room for the possibility of there being a continent, unless near the Pole and out of the reach of navigation …” If it was there to circle I believe he would have.

And does that make sense? He maps countries so why would he not wish to not map Terra Australis? He mapped new Zealand only to come to find it wasn't a continent. Using logic look at the length of travel, why would you do that if only to view one small part of the land mass? You can only prove or disprove a supposed continent by circumnavigating it, not view it from a fixed point ie the closest point to South America. Let's use some logic, without any preconceived notions. You can get to this icy place easily from the southern tips of south America, south Africa and new Zealand but I can't map it?? Hello McFly!!!!

Rotten pal, we'll have another soon enough!!! Plenty of room for us lot at least #DrfitTime

On the way back I dint see land or don't recall, tbf IF you're flying along the coast out the of one side of the plain you will see land and the other you'll see sea which makes sense. Again maybe its a safety thing, who knows however I trust my eyes *but not after much stella LOL The flat earth map is derived from opening up and making flat a globe, its proportions will be tough to be true. Airline staff aren't paid to keep a secret they don't know. The curve of the earth from models of the globe isn't high enough to see a curve. The ISS isn't far enough from the earth to see anywhere near 20% *iirc on the one side for example.

Haha I will. My biggest no no with the FE is the model for the sun and moon. Their mock ups are elementary and would have you think a rocket in a short period of time could fly higher. Or that on certain points on the map way down south you'd see another side of the moon. A sunset isn't the object getting smaller into the distance to a pin point, but appearing to go over the horizon very much off the earth - that's my biggest gripe. Is it possible Cook couldn't find away to circumnavigate a simple land mass, unlikely given his credentials but possible. Is it more likely dude on the flat frozen lake has his calculations out by 20 inches or 20ft? Lakes don't crown or bow in the middle and neither does a laser. Do certain flight paths appear odd on the globe model, undoubtedly. Is the quickest route from south Africa to Australia mostly over sea? Or UK to Jamaica, yeah should be.

Mint!! Nice one Buster, free delivery yO!!

Oh yeah, I had forgotten. Oh Lisa such an easy path to find also when you know. https://my.yb.tl/ClimateActionNow

Haha they'll have too

It's there alright, just maybe not in the way Captain Cook had imaged or hoped. Unlearning what you've been told, I find it very interesting along with project highjump & also certain flight paths that I've witnessed myself as a yout.

Any takes on those flight paths making more sense on a flat plain? This is what Captain Cook was looking for all those years Terra Australis, he should have updated his sat nav lol At the time Europeans were obsessed with exploring, descovering new animals, plants and mapping the world in detail for the first time, as so much of it was unknown and ready to be claimed!!! All that time, distance and effort to which he could not find the mystical land at the bottom of the earth. Either he couldn't find it because it's not there or he was misinformed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis

Pretty sure at long range say after 100 miles atmosphere even on a clear day kills visibility. FE doesn't for a lot of reasons hold water, however a amateur laser across a flat frozen lake which is seen without needing to go up a ladder is there to make of what you will. Again a salt flat filled with a thin layer of rain water looks pretty flat also, fake NASA footage of astronauts just isn't cricket and there's more. Jay's flight path was funny also as its as straight as you like, I personally have been on a plane and the route was coastal from the top of the US down to Jamaica starting from Manchester. That makes no sense on a globe, wait maybe the pilot wanted a detour for the benefit of the guests onboard. Check out operation highjump, why send nearly 5000 men and women, 13 ships, 33 aircraft to Antarctica staright after a world war? You do not send that type of might and spend that type of money for no good reason!!!! Sooooo strange when you look into it.

Again I don't think the flat earth model hold an intellectual debate, how could it but I find the topic interesting. For me the Captain Cook matter I still see as a mystery, he wasn't looking for the south pole, wasn't intending to get off his boat at Antarctica - he wanted to circumnavigate and map it. Something he could have at least done a long way of from the coast to do so. Even 1/2 miles away he could at least circle it without risk from hazardous floating ice. There's no escaping this guy was smart, very smart I do not buy he simply ran out of talent as his 250yr old maps are used today and are being reproach. The FE eclipse is caused from the same reasons as the globe, the moon *same size as the sun passes in front of the sun. I watched sea shore amateur videos whereby the out of site ship is seen again with a powerful zoom lens. Something not possible to do at the time when the globe model was beginning to take shape nearly 2000 years ago. Weather something appears flat over 7 miles or 70, it's still flat. Salt flats covered in a think layer of water proves this. The video below unless a fake of course again proves there is no 20ft of curve drop that is said to be present after 7 miles of distance. What's your thoughts on the flights paths I and Jay put up?

Folks have used high end lasers across serval miles (7.5miles) of frozen lake and it shows to be flat shore to shore. This should not be possible using the globe model as there should be cicra 20ft of curve bend.

A total eclipse can happen regardless of the shape of the earth. A round object casing a shadow on a spherical one, would show a elliptical shadow as the shadow begins to wrap and follow the shape of the globe. Ships that sail over the horizon appear to show a globe earth, however a strong zoom lens brings the object back into view. That would be impossible if the ship went over the curve. Also the ship should sail up the curve and then down the other side. The nature of gravity was confirmed when the light from stars were found to bend due to the gravitational forces from the sun during a total eclipse in the 1910's hhmmmmmm OK. Info from NASA has its limitations due to green screen. Pretty sure Bruce Willis went to space too, I saw the footage and everything. The Antarctica peace treaty shows governments can work together despite what scandals come up during an election.

ACEA C3 is recommended for the VQ35DE https://www.oilspecifications.org I say go for it, if you don't like it after 100 miles swap it out.

Has the Roadster passed the earth at night as yet, I wanna see Vegas or Toyko at night - would look cool.

Exactly, cool indeed

What do you make of the Bolivias salt flats?

Again this is interesting and doesn't fit the globe model. Either the water is flat as per every test ever conducted or the salt flat is curved over the 10.5km sq and the water curves with it. I guess water need for surface area to start doing its thing. https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2017/feb/23/bolivias-salt-flats-in-pictures

To avoid assumptions, I'm not a FEer. I like our globe, the model works it looks good, I see it at the start of every Fast & Furious movie

^ straight shot on a flat earth map if you look LOL

Yeah never a straight answer but it's not easy model to get one's head around. I also like flight paths, in 2004 when going to Jamaica I thought why for hours on end are we following the coast line all the way to the west Indies? UK, to a country with nowt but Ice *later looking and Greenland or parts of Canada fits that bill. Then New York very recognisable out the O/S window, then followed by land and then coast until there wasn't any left. I remember this vividly as I thought we were going to Vegas, seem to be over land so long from the view out the window. Anyone who has flown over the US on a clear day will know the east cost is peppered with ovals. For miles and miles, at a guess honestly saw between 50 and 70 ovals. Either race tracks or horse racing tracks, then followed the coast thereafter. At for I thought it was a safety thing as should the plan go down, your buy land. Since then I never thought about it. However looking at this again and that path we took is a straight shot on a flat plain oddly enough. From what I gather advertised flight paths to the west indies go across the Atlantic ocean and doesn't trace the coast.