Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Eric Dubay's Long Haul Argument for Flat Earth applied to Antarctica


I've been reading Dubay off and on-- getting discouraged and excited off and on--- going around in circles-- during the past year. I wanted to zero in on Antarctica's perimeter because I thought it would be easier than the non-stop flight argument. It hasn't been that way. I went back to look at Dubay-- who banned me from his forum inexplicably after one post-- to review Captain Cook and his 3 journeys around the bottom of the world that took 60,000 miles. Dubay points to Cook and makes a good case-- except for the fact that its not clear to me that the 60.000 miles was one trip or 3, because Cooke make 3 trips. So 60,000/3 = 20,000 which is order of magnitide consistent with a globe, not flat earth. Debay doesn't drill down on Cooke's journey's enough for me to confirm a 60,000 mile perimeter. Nonetheless, I followed more Dubay today and found this.

This is interesting. It's not Antarctica but I found, over the past year, that the argument dealing with these commercial airliners in the southern hemisphere were interesting. I didn't end up drilling down on the case studies because I didn't think I could get into arial navigation systems and how they determine how far planes fly. In the case of Eric Dubay's Atlantian blog however, after looking deeper into his Captain Cooke arguments, I found a few graphic panels that make interesting points relevent to Antarctica. The flight path seen above makes more sense on a flat earth.

So... the key question for me is-- do flight paths look the same in Antarctica? IN other words... do flight paths in Antarctica make more sense on a flat earth than a globe? That's what occurred to me. I've been looking a flights inside Antarctica as well as AROUND the perimeter of Antarctica. I think Eric Dubay has a lot of good points-- his presentation style makes me cringe however. His dry speaking voice, for one thing, irks me. I can't take it. His blog makes many good points, but he doesn't seem to understand how to emphasize the MOST important things over the lesser things. Still-- he's like a raw data base. What they say about him is likely true. He's an accumulator and attention hog rather than an original thinker. However, he's accumulated stuff in a way that is a bit easer to search than raw google searches.



14 comments:

  1. Eric Dubay didn't make that image, Greg Stump did :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that. I'm not being very careful about attributions but should be-- and will be in the future. I just grab what looks interesting on Bing image search and go with it.

      Delete
  2. Eric Dubay is, and there's not really any polite way of saying this, a total, complete and utter RETARD with a splash of window-licker thrown in for good measure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He certainly strikes me as a social retard-- however true retards are functioning lower than Eric. Eric's monotone voice might be indicative of certain kind of brain damage, I must admit.

      Delete
    2. yea well is is much more intelligent than you are Rick& far better versed on the F.E. subject

      Delete
    3. True. On the subject of Antarctica's perimeter distance, however, he only cites Captain Cook whose journey zig zagged all over the place and isn't clearly a proof of a circumnavigation distance. I'm merely trying to expand on that one issue.... not the other 199 proofs Eric Dubay presents. In this sense, I'm 1/200th or 0.05% of the level of Dubay.

      By the way, for you and other readers here in this particular post, if you go to my latest posts, I'm close to abandoning any proof of a distance that goes further south than 60S latitude because of the legal hot water- so to speak. I think it's easier to charter a cruise ship or plane to go the distance around 60S like the Vendee sailboats are said to do (which I don't think they do)-- to capture time and distance as it "is" (normative) to compare it with what it "should be" (subjective).

      Thanks for visiting!

      Delete
    4. what do you think about all the polar regions and there wildlife refuge scam the land grab by bogus trusts either heritage,historic,or conservation,or nature preserve and finally reserve and become private and defined as being owned,

      Delete
    5. Well, it all just sucks big time, doesn't it? For a few years, I was getting really hungry for penguin meat-- savoring barbecued penguin, living off penguin meat and hides, whale oil and running an Antarctic brothel where I would be the piano player. I viewed the entire place as the old American West when first being settled. I still occasionally lapse into fits of fantasy like that but I'm getting too old to make that happen and must conserve my energy and resources by "merely" planning/dreaming of-- a cruise ship with a piano around 60S. You would think retirees who made money off the last 10 years in the stock market would propose such a thing or, see my blog and work with me. It turns out that their minds are too calcified by retirement age so that they only think about golf, SUV's, believing falsely that that's "enjoying themselves". TRUMP ought to claim Antarctica for the USA and expand and exploit everything there, taking it all over-- and nullify all the Antarctica treaties. I wonder what Penquin meat tastes like?

      Delete
  3. The commercial flight patterns cannot be considered in reference to a flat earth theory because there are too many factors at play. How many people are traveling, where are they traveling, gas, and something NO ONE has mentioned...the weather.

    What are air currents like in the south, how cold does it really get in those altitudes...all these factor in gas as well as the weight of the airplane. Flight paths are irresponsible evidence at best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well possibly But if there are NO GPS tracking in the southern hemisphere raises questions. I think it was more so focused around that plus no recorded flights over antarctica.

      Delete
  4. If the planets circumference is roughly an 8 inch drop per mile, wouldn't planes have to dip down constantly to ajust, otherwise would leave earths atmosphere? After an in depth evaluation I think we all need to focus on answers and not arguments. There will always be a little bullshit in any truth we are told, its our ability to distinguish facts from fiction that will aid or distort our point of views

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I guess my question would be-- how do planes stay at any particular altitude right now? Do they have altimeters that sense distance to ground? Does the pilot merely fly "at" the horizon? Does he use a "carpenter's level" and watch the bubble between the lines? I don't even know that much, misundereducated fool that I am.

      Delete
  5. Fun discussion here. I drove Lyft a coue years near an international flight school in the Phoenix Arizona area. Each time I picked up a group of pilots I'd tell them about my "otherwise smart pilot friend with this crazy conspiracy theory...."

    Contextualized non-confrontationally like this, they were ususally happy to help me see the flaws in his logic (it really is a pilot friend who got me into FE).

    I wish I had a camera going on my rearview mirror for when I got to my friends reasoning about having to tilt downards to compensate for the curve. You could see the realization hit, get sucked into the unconscious by some emergency neurocircuitry that keeps our genes dumb-but-at-least-still-in-the-gene-pool, and then one blink later they would say, "huh, I never thought about that," and switch to doing something other than talk with their driver.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "You could see the realization hit, get sucked into the unconscious by some emergency neurocircuitry that keeps our genes dumb-but-at-least-still-in-the-gene-pool, and then one blink later they would say, "huh, I never thought about that,"

    Ha, good writing! Do you have your own blog?

    ReplyDelete

Hi, I'm Captain Rick of the Virtual Circumference Voyage of Antarctica. I intend to prove definitively if Earth is flat or a sphere by paying careful attention to how many miles we cover as we travel "around" Antarctica. Flat earth theory says it's 50-60,000 miles. Spherical Earth theory says it 14,000 miles. Join me and ask any questions that you think would help our mission.