The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: daz on March 30, 2009, 04:23:26 AM

Title: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on March 30, 2009, 04:23:26 AM
People have been to Antarctica, and visited the South Pole, how can you disprove its existence?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on March 30, 2009, 01:47:20 PM
anyone? no?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 30, 2009, 07:18:09 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 30, 2009, 07:35:22 PM
The lesser Ice Wall.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Paralyzed Night on March 30, 2009, 08:39:46 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Nobody here has shown proof that the continent Antarctica is an ice wall.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Proleg on March 30, 2009, 08:48:13 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Nobody here has shown proof that the continent Antarctica is an ice wall.
It is an obstruction covered in ice that impedes progress rimward. "Ice wall" is a perfectly logical term for it.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Paralyzed Night on March 30, 2009, 08:49:29 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Nobody here has shown proof that the continent Antarctica is an ice wall.
It is an obstruction covered in ice that impedes progress rimward. "Ice wall" is a perfectly logical term for it.

Thanks for clarifying what you guys mean by "Ice Wall".

But yet, still no proof. Even since the existence of this Forum, no proof.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Proleg on March 30, 2009, 08:53:10 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Nobody here has shown proof that the continent Antarctica is an ice wall.
It is an obstruction covered in ice that impedes progress rimward. "Ice wall" is a perfectly logical term for it.

Thanks for clarifying what you guys mean by "Ice Wall".

But yet, still no proof. Even since the existence of this Forum, no proof.
What more proof do you need? The earth has been shown, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be flat and "Antarctica" is therefore the limits of planar navigation thus permitted.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Paralyzed Night on March 30, 2009, 09:01:48 PM
Oh darn, I must have missed the thread that showed "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the earth is flat. Man that would have been a good read.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Parsifal on March 30, 2009, 09:05:06 PM
Oh darn, I must have missed the thread that showed "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the earth is flat. Man that would have been a good read.

Don't worry, you're only on 42 posts. There's plenty of time to lurk moar.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Proleg on March 30, 2009, 09:06:03 PM
Oh darn, I must have missed the thread that showed "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the earth is flat. Man that would have been a good read.
There are several threads. Being the complete fucktard that you are, I suppose it should not be surprising that you are unable to use a simple search function.

Also, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Look into it.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Paralyzed Night on March 30, 2009, 09:10:08 PM
Oh darn, I must have missed the thread that showed "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the earth is flat. Man that would have been a good read.
There are several threads. Being the complete fucktard that you are, I suppose it should not be surprising that you are unable to use a simple search function.

Also, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Look into it.

Reported for abuse.

They probably shouldn't have given you another chance with another user name, Oscey boy!  ::)
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Paralyzed Night on March 30, 2009, 09:11:12 PM
Oh darn, I must have missed the thread that showed "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the earth is flat. Man that would have been a good read.

Don't worry, you're only on 42 posts. There's plenty of time to lurk moar.

I love your logic. I've actually been reading for a very long time. Only decided to join up recently.

Or are you saying there is a thread that I missed, where FE was proven correct?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on March 31, 2009, 02:37:24 AM
If there is an ice wall, then where are the south pole, the magnetic south pole and the southern pole of innaccesability located?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Parsifal on March 31, 2009, 03:32:49 AM
If there is an ice wall, then where are the south pole, the magnetic south pole and the southern pole of innaccesability located?

The magnetic south pole is located near the centre of the disk, in the Arctic Ocean near Canada.

The Geographic South Pole is located at the centre of the disk, on the opposite side to the Geographic North Pole.

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is located directly beneath the South Celestial Pole to the south of Australia. This point holds no significance other than being beneath a South Celestial Pole.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on March 31, 2009, 07:08:07 AM
So if the magnetic south pole is actually near Canada in the west, how do people reach there after docking at a port in South Africa, and heading south? Are you saying that after leaving the South African port they head back up north-west towards Canada, and all of a sudden, they're moving south?

How do compasses work?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on March 31, 2009, 08:11:41 AM

How do compasses work?

I once heard gravity makes compasses work.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Marcus Aurelius on March 31, 2009, 08:20:40 AM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Agreed, however FE does deny the existence of 24 hour daylight in Antarctica.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: niceguybut on March 31, 2009, 10:58:15 AM
If there is an ice wall, then where are the south pole, the magnetic south pole and the southern pole of innaccesability located?

The magnetic south pole is located near the centre of the disk, in the Arctic Ocean near Canada.

The Geographic South Pole is located at the centre of the disk, on the opposite side to the Geographic North Pole.

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is located directly beneath the South Celestial Pole to the south of Australia. This point holds no significance other than being beneath a South Celestial Pole.

In that case, would it not be better then if the FE folks made more use of the terms "hubward" and "rimward", rather than "north" and "south", as adjectives to describe geographic features on the surface of the disc?  What you're saying seems to describe them all as being "north"?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on April 01, 2009, 01:55:47 AM
Haha you're exactly right! it doesnt matter though because doing simple things like that is too confusing for the FE folks. I dont think theres anyone on the whole forum thats had a straight answer that has made sense hahahaha.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 01, 2009, 11:56:56 AM
If there is an ice wall, then where are the south pole, the magnetic south pole and the southern pole of innaccesability located?

The magnetic south pole is located near the centre of the disk, in the Arctic Ocean near Canada.

The Geographic South Pole is located at the centre of the disk, on the opposite side to the Geographic North Pole.

The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is located directly beneath the South Celestial Pole to the south of Australia. This point holds no significance other than being beneath a South Celestial Pole.

In that case, would it not be better then if the FE folks made more use of the terms "hubward" and "rimward", rather than "north" and "south", as adjectives to describe geographic features on the surface of the disc?  What you're saying seems to describe them all as being "north"?

Well, north and south are relative directions, in both FE and RE.  So if something is to the north of me it is closer to the center; if it's south of me it's closer to the edge.  It's not that difficult to figure out.

There was an attempt at one time to change the directional names to hubward, rimward, turnwise, and widdershins, but that proved too confusing to many of the noobs here so we've pretty much just gone back to the directional names with which everyone is familiar.

Haha you're exactly right! it doesnt matter though because doing simple things like that is too confusing for the FE folks. I dont think theres anyone on the whole forum thats had a straight answer that has made sense hahahaha.

Hmm.  Tell me what you don't understand and I will try to explain it like I would to a six-year-old, so it's at a level you might be able to comprehend.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: DD2014 on April 01, 2009, 05:27:59 PM
Get in a boat and see for your self.

Antarctica is there.
You can sail around it.
There are no "Guards" patroling in -60 degree weather

And as soon as you find some proof, I'll shit out a gold brick for ya!
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: LUNCH on April 01, 2009, 11:52:41 PM
Get in a boat and see for your self.

Antarctica is there.
You can sail around it.
There are no "Guards" patroling in -60 degree weather

And as soon as you find some proof, I'll shit out a gold brick for ya!

this is the part where they say "you could go around the 'continent' but all you would be doing is going around outter rim/coast of FE"

(other than the obvious distance difference of the two (Antarctica: continent & Antarctica: ice wall) there is no way to disprove the ice wall theory by circling the continent, you would have to fly directly south over the continent (assuming your navigational equipment will allow you to do so)

*question*
Does FET have a guesstimation on the circumference of Antarctica/Ice Wall?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: DD2014 on April 02, 2009, 02:07:30 PM
Get in a boat and see for your self.

Antarctica is there.
You can sail around it.
There are no "Guards" patroling in -60 degree weather

And as soon as you find some proof, I'll shit out a gold brick for ya!

this is the part where they say "you could go around the 'continent' but all you would be doing is going around outter rim/coast of FE"

(other than the obvious distance difference of the two (Antarctica: continent & Antarctica: ice wall) there is no way to disprove the ice wall theory by circling the continent, you would have to fly directly south over the continent (assuming your navigational equipment will allow you to do so)

*question*
Does FET have a guesstimation on the circumference of Antarctica/Ice Wall?

Quote from: myself
Well all you really must do is sail back to the same place while keeping said "ice wall" to one side.

In RE: Antarctica coastline is approx. 14000 miles

In FE: Ice Wall inner coastline approx. 75000 miles

If you only travel about 14000 miles while keeping the "ice wall" to your left, and end up back where you started, RE proven

If you travel about 75000 miles while keeping the "ice wall" to your left and end up in the same place....I'll Fucking Shoot My Self
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 02, 2009, 05:34:49 PM
'Hmm.  Tell me what you don't understand and I will try to explain it like I would to a six-year-old, so it's at a level you might be able to comprehend.'

To start, 'Roundy the Truthinessist', I have an I.Q. of 164, and I will not be insulted by someone displaying a level of ignorance normally reserved for the religious purists that complain about heavy metal.

Hey, if you don't want to be insulted, don't start with the insults.  You just seem pretty slow on the draw for someone with an IQ of 164.  Mine's in the 150s, by the way.

Quote
You have provided no proof whatsoever, for any of your theories.
None.
Whatsoever.

That's fine because I'm not trying to prove anything.  You must have our positions reversed in your mind for some reason.  Of course, I'm sure I don't have to tell someone with an IQ of 164 that "proof" has no place in science.

Quote
Some ignoramus on a web forum clearly making it up as he goes along is NOT proof,  so don't ever attempt to say you will clearly be able to explain anything, because, to repeat what i said before, you are nothing but an ignoramus.

Before you retort with the expected, 'no YOU are the ignoramus', i urge you to give me solid, pictorial proof of absolutely ANYTHING you have put forward.

There you go with the insults again.  You seem like an extremely enlightened person.  How's this: proof is important to you, not me.  I feel no obligation to prove anything to you because that is not what this website is about.  So I'm afraid you're being a huge ignoramus.  Call a spade a spade.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Taurondir on April 08, 2009, 12:17:33 AM
Oh darn, I must have missed the thread that showed "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the earth is flat. Man that would have been a good read.

Don't worry, you're only on 42 posts. There's plenty of time to lurk moar.

Good example of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule, but not science. Try again.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Round Man on April 10, 2009, 12:26:26 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Nobody here has shown proof that the continent Antarctica is an ice wall.
It is an obstruction covered in ice that impedes progress rimward. "Ice wall" is a perfectly logical term for it.

Yea but people have been to the north pole.

Fuck, Jeremy Clarkson and James May drove right ontop of the geographical north pole.

Actually they only drove to the magnetic north pole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_Polar_Special (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Gear:_Polar_Special)

Read the fist paragraph.

Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Parsifal on April 10, 2009, 12:36:36 PM
So if the magnetic south pole is actually near Canada in the west, how do people reach there after docking at a port in South Africa, and heading south? Are you saying that after leaving the South African port they head back up north-west towards Canada, and all of a sudden, they're moving south?

They don't. They reach the magnetic north pole by such a journey.

How do compasses work?

They align themselves with the local magnetic field.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Taurondir on April 11, 2009, 09:00:56 PM
Look at all the countries involved in the conspiracy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

Apparently each country has a non existent section of Antarctica, had a fictional base camp there, as per here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_research_stations_in_Antarctica

and a nice map of all the fictional expeditions that have gone there is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctica_expeditions

Happy reading.

Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on April 18, 2009, 04:41:13 AM
IQ tests prove nothing except that youre good at IQ tests. I told you mine cos i knew this weird lot would start the engines trying to proves whos is larger haha. Also, 238, do not make me laugh.

The fact you're following this weird strain of society proves you are not smart.

You're all just good at wriggling your way out of explaining things properly.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on April 19, 2009, 01:46:43 PM
Nothing is explained properly! Absolutely everything is left at a loose end, because of the fact there is absolutely no proof!

All you have are people saying things.

No photographs, no scientific basis, nothing.

This site doesn't go over my head, however what i can't understand is the fact there is no proof, and no matter where you go with your claims, you cannot get past the fact that there is no proof.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 19, 2009, 03:32:46 PM
Nothing is explained properly! Absolutely everything is left at a loose end, because of the fact there is absolutely no proof!

All you have are people saying things.

No photographs, no scientific basis, nothing.

This site doesn't go over my head, however what i can't understand is the fact there is no proof, and no matter where you go with your claims, you cannot get past the fact that there is no proof.

What does proof have to do with it?  You can't prove your theory either.  I'm not on any mission here to prove anything.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: daz on April 20, 2009, 04:10:01 AM
There is proof of a round Earth, bucketloads and bucketloads of proof. So much so that it is fact.

Why do you believe it to be true? Surely a smart man would require scientific basis before making any kind of judgement?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 12:48:10 PM
Quote
There is proof of a round Earth, bucketloads and bucketloads of proof. So much so that it is fact.

Really? Where can I find a book which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe?

Quote
Why do you believe it to be true? Surely a smart man would require scientific basis before making any kind of judgement?

There is a well established scientific basis. Consult the library of resources in my signature link.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 01:02:44 PM
Quote
There is proof of a round Earth, bucketloads and bucketloads of proof. So much so that it is fact.

Really? Where can I find a book which proves through experiment that the earth is a globe?

http://books.google.com/books?q=geodesy&btnG=Search+Books

What's wrong Tom, didn't they cover that in your geophysics course?
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 20, 2009, 03:16:07 PM
http://books.google.com/books?q=geodesy&btnG=Search+Books

What's wrong Tom, didn't they cover that in your geophysics course?

Where does anyone conduct an experiment to determine the shape of the earth? Sending a submarine to the bottom of the ocean to map features and sending someone to survey some mountains doesn't tell me anything about the earth's shape.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: markjo on April 20, 2009, 04:55:14 PM
http://books.google.com/books?q=geodesy&btnG=Search+Books

What's wrong Tom, didn't they cover that in your geophysics course?

Where does anyone conduct an experiment to determine the shape of the earth? Sending a submarine to the bottom of the ocean to map features and sending someone to survey some mountains doesn't tell me anything about the earth's shape.

Geodesy (the study of the size and form of the earth) is a branch of geophysics.  Geodesic surveys have been conducted to determine shape of the earth, and that shape was found to be an oblate spheroid.  But as a geologist, you would already know that.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Scientific_revolution
The French Academy of Sciences dispatched two expeditions. One expedition under Pierre Louis Maupertuis (1736-37) was sent to Lapland (as far North as possible). The second mission under Pierre Bouguer was sent to what is modern-day Ecuador, near the equator (1735-44).

The measurements conclusively showed that the earth was oblate, with a ratio of 1:210. Thus the next approximation to the true figure of the Earth after the sphere became the oblong ellipsoid of revolution.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on April 20, 2009, 06:07:54 PM
There is proof of a round Earth, bucketloads and bucketloads of proof.

I haven't seen any.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: DD2014 on April 22, 2009, 12:50:18 PM
http://books.google.com/books?q=geodesy&btnG=Search+Books

What's wrong Tom, didn't they cover that in your geophysics course?

Where does anyone conduct an experiment to determine the shape of the earth? Sending a submarine to the bottom of the ocean to map features and sending someone to survey some mountains doesn't tell me anything about the earth's shape.

Actually it does Tom. Its called GPS
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: A Physicist on April 23, 2009, 05:10:00 PM
There is proof of a round Earth, bucketloads and bucketloads of proof.

I haven't seen any.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Shiphorp.jpg)

Horizon.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: Henrythecamel on April 23, 2009, 06:24:01 PM
How's this: proof is important to you, not me.

lol that about sums it up..
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: caelan96 on May 08, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Agreed, however FE does deny the existence of 24 hour daylight in Antarctica.

Clearly you have never been to the poles. Maybe you should listen to someone who has.
Title: Re: Antarctica.
Post by: WardoggKC130FE on May 08, 2009, 07:32:10 PM
Nobody here denies that people have been to the Ice Wall.

Agreed, however FE does deny the existence of 24 hour daylight in Antarctica.

Clearly you have never been to the poles. Maybe you should listen to someone who has.

Like who?  And what exactly does it show?