Point to Kiev on this map

If you are closer than average you are allowed to post about the Ukraine

Attached: 7.Peirce_quincuncial_projection.jpg (720x720, 204.68K)

Ohio is pretty close bro :/

more or less here
too lazy to get more accurate because OP is a faggot

Attached: kiev.png (720x720, 940.73K)

What happens in the Pacific?

>point to kiev.
>point to Rhodesia.


Okay.

Where’s the ice wall?

faggot at least start by posting a real map

Attached: uRpMCAmQo33CV4M2srWivf.jpg (543x543, 97.79K)

Attached: 1306005-1576611756679-70443a02a80eb.jpg (3000x3000, 944.49K)

that was the tiniest dot ever

I've been obsessed with Ukraine since 2010 now fuck off
It's a bit south of Chernobyl along the Dnieper

Attached: 1646547783788.png (720x720, 922.52K)

Attached: 1641786647152.jpg (2101x2101, 411.35K)

This isn't reddit, faggot, we're smarter than you.

Retards

Attached: 2A316F2E-F392-4CBE-B196-3A51073E3ECF.jpg (1125x1591, 1.19M)

somewhere around here.
not like i need your approval though.

Attached: F8F3BB23-909A-49B6-A420-D6440E2033E5.jpg (1307x1461, 1.23M)

Easy. You just zoom in near europe, and look for the radioactive fallout patterns from the nuked biolabs. Kiev is the eastern cluster of three to the right. A single RS-28 should be able to hit all of the major areas for 5Mt a hit, then a few border or coastal areas are struck with tactical 300Kt devices to minimise environmental damage to nearby countries. The fallout is just the default wind, I was too lazy to tweak it - just make sure wind's blowing towards Romania, or better yet, is still, and you're good!

Attached: 1635548797287.png (1478x965, 919.65K)

You think Australia is that long?

It's spelt KYIV, bigot!

unless you have ever travelled far enough to find out on your own, you don't know if it is right or wrong. or are you one of those trust the science types

You could literally drive across it and measure the mileage.
I havent, but I could.

Attached: 1646549289621-pol.gif (407x407, 421.65K)

>unless you have ever travelled far enough to find out on your own, you don't know if it is right or wrong. or are you one of those trust the science types

Australia could be a different size from that suggested by the FE maps.
The entire argument behind FE is that no curvature can be found. That means the globe model is wrong. It says nothing about what a true map would look like.

Attached: fe7.jpg (641x866, 163.43K)

Actual scale map
America and Canada are noticeably smaller than on the widespread Mercator Map

Attached: 1evcjsfm8qs11[1].png (627x450, 119.49K)

this gif's course was 100,000 miles, stated as a fact by ((them)).

Attached: globe.gif (240x240, 630.51K)

Now do this one

Attached: 1646549703256m.jpg (1024x724, 173.86K)

Attached: 1621264086509.webm (190x286, 2.63M)

why is the mountain that's supposed to be the tallest (Pic Gaspard) visually the shortest(by a huge amount), even though it's only 12% further away?

Attached: unnamed.jpg (1400x1400, 349.26K)

>why is the mountain that's supposed to be the tallest (Pic Gaspard) visually the shortest(by a huge amount), even though it's only 12% further away?

That's how perspective works. Things further away appear smaller. If you had a 6 foot man standing behind a 5 foot man, the shorter man would appear taller if they were far enough away.

The point is that the peaks of these mountains should be over a mile underground on a globe with a circumference of 25000 miles.

There is no curvature. Simple as that.

Attached: fe8.jpg (2823x972, 226.22K)