What a plank you are. Keep sucking crack head.

Quote theearthisflat="theearthisflat"Provide the pictures of curvature, I can guarantee a curve in the glass. No curvature in this one '" There is a slight curvature on that one but there is cloud cover and the horizon is "lumpy". It all of course depends on the altitude, the greater the altitude, the better the view of the curvature. Quote theearthisflatWhilst traditional subsonic jetliners usually reach a cruising altitude of thirty to thirty-five thousand feet, Concorde nearly doubled that, cruising at an altitude of between fifty-five and sixty thousand feet. ...At this high altitude, the sky was an intense indigo blue, and the view was truly remarkable. Looking out the window, one could make out the gradual curve of the earth below, and it was even more evident when viewed from inside the cabin over the span of a few windows. Here are some photos of this unique view from Concorde, flying on “the edge of space”'" www.heritageconcorde.com/#!views ... space/cz0s Of course, you'll go to your fallback that anyone who provides such evidence or testimony is either in on the conspiracy, lying, or has defective eyesight.

Quote theearthisflat="theearthisflat"Provide the pictures of curvature, I can guarantee a curve in the glass. No curvature in this one '" There is a slight curvature on that one but there is cloud cover and the horizon is "lumpy". It all of course depends on the altitude, the greater the altitude, the better the view of the curvature. Quote theearthisflatWhilst traditional subsonic jetliners usually reach a cruising altitude of thirty to thirty-five thousand feet, Concorde nearly doubled that, cruising at an altitude of between fifty-five and sixty thousand feet. ...At this high altitude, the sky was an intense indigo blue, and the view was truly remarkable. Looking out the window, one could make out the gradual curve of the earth below, and it was even more evident when viewed from inside the cabin over the span of a few windows. Here are some photos of this unique view from Concorde, flying on “the edge of space”'" www.heritageconcorde.com/#!views ... space/cz0s Of course, you'll go to your fallback that anyone who provides such evidence or testimony is either in on the conspiracy, lying, or has defective eyesight.

What also tickles me is, that even in the horizons that our friend selects as level ... they clearly curve.
The higher you go the more pronounced ...unless you resort to severe truncating.
No brainer.

Nope, I've personally been to various parts of it, and can confirm that it is indeed the shape everyone but a few flatearth nutters understand it to be.

Also, anyone who wishes to, can see it in millions of images from hundreds of different space missions.

Also, the fact that it is a globe fits entirely with Newton's laws of motion, and all modern physics and astronomical observation.

Also the world runs on the information provided by innumerable satellites that orbit the globe endlessly, providing comms, sat nav, weather and all the rest.

Also, we have an ISS which has been continuously manned for 15 years now and has been orbiting the globe continually since, and is regularly visited by craft which use the known trajectory, speed and orbit to successfully rendezvous with it and to successfully return from it.

Now, why is it that the moon looks "upside down" if viewed from Australia?

Maybe our resident flat earthist is going to tell us next that the Moon is also flat.

Here we go Concorde lovers . Those who don't know what Auto Cad is it's a geometry tool.
Here's a pilots view of both globe and flat earth models. Ha ha globe head's wake up
.[urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgM1XG0mgbE[/url

Planes don't fly in AutoCAd they fly in air and gravity fields.

A plane's aerodynamic surfaces are angles such that, when ity wants to maintain an altitude - eg 35,000 ft - it does. This is achieved either by constant checks and adjustments by the autopilot, as is the norm, or if necessary, manually.

Your made expert on the video makes the same basic mistake as many of these delusionals, they think once a plane has taken off, it heads off on a straight vecotr and "if the earth was curved it would end up in space". It is that nutty delusion that is at the root of every one of these pseudo-scientific bunkum videos. If a plane reached 35,000 ft and kept on in a straight line instead of levelling off and MAINTAINING THAT ALTITUDE RELATIVE TO THE GROUND then it would indeed still be climbing and (until it ran out of atmosphere) would indeed be heading for space.

But they don't. A flight from (eg) Dallas Fort Worth to Sydney does not travel in a straight line once it reaches its cruising altitude, it maintains that altitude as it cruises which means it follows a very gradual curve.

All the bull in such vids is schoolboy errors since a plane's systems know exactly (a) where it is and at what speed and heading and (b) where it should be. It adjusts (a) constantly to make sure it coincides with (b). This adjustment takes into account every force operating on the aircraft including wind and gravity.

The other basic error most such YT nutters and flatearthers make is they think once airborne, you should be able to hover or something, let the earth rotate, and drop back down when it has rotated under you. What they fail to understadn is that the atmosphere is just as much a part of the globe as the ocean and the land, and the earth's blanket of atmosphere rotates with the planet.

As you can see on a million videos from space. Within that overall rotation there are many and well known major variable currents - such as the Jet Stream - but the basic starting point is a plane is flying through a mass of air, and its airspeed is simply the difference between the speed of the plane and the surrounding air, in the desired direction of travel.

This is also why the recent transatlantic passenger jet record had the jetliner traveling at a ground speed of almost the speed of sound - the plane's airspeed however was far less, as it was in a favourable Jet Stream and so its movement through the air was its normal airspeed.

Ha ha your copy and pasting from you tube testimonials you freak. I've just read the same comment on YT. You can't even give your own opinions. You really couldn't of watched that video and type that drivel in that time.

Go and watch your cartoons

Not necessarily, I might of course have seen it before.

Re: your "copy/paste" bull - go on then, provide a link to anything i copied and pasted! Or else admit you are (again) lying.

So, why is it that the moon appears "upside down" when viewed from Australia?

The OP likes to respond to simple points involving pictures but never to any more fundamental question. I wonder why that is given his obvious intellectual abilities?

I too have just watched this video.
That man should feel ashamed of himself.
He knows fook all about science in the real world (a spherical one with errrr GRAVITY)
His analysis is a only snapshot in a video, the plane is describing a curved trajectory in level flight and the discrepancy he THINKS he has identified is continually taken up and in essence does not practically exist.
A numpty!
FA is bang on!

He is an intellectual pygmy. He watches videos with more holes than a containership full of Swiss cheese, but can't recognize cranks and the deluded, and is easily seduced by people he thinks are far cleverer than him, as long as they are on his delusional side, ignoring everything else.

The basic problem is, he cannot present an intellectual argument. That is why he instead resorts in turn to ad hominem abuse, or just provides links to interminable videos, as if it were a reasonable way to debate any given point, to simply say, "watch these videos". It isn't. Posting links to videos or whatever is fine, but not as a SUBSTITUTE for explaining your proposition. He either doesn't WANT a debate or is simply not equipped for a debate, or probably both.

But - you think he may respond to simple pictures? Fair enough - I'll try anything once: flatearther - why is it that the moon appears upside down when viewed from Australia?