Question: if you were to send some flat earther you trust to go to the South Pole and observe/record the 24h sun cycle around him/her, would you stop believing the earth is flat? If that is so, you should start some kind of crowdfunding...
Hi, this is my first post and I think all this Flat Earth discussion is quite interesting because it shows that people accept many things without thinking and even scientists sometimes make bad arguments and don't listen to the other side. Of course the same happens with flat earthers, so to me one has to avoid tricky arguments that are not strong enough (I'm tired of the Eratosthenes shadows argument, clearly does not disprove a flat earth with a close sun but scientists love it anyway) and I will leave a couple of arguments I cannot possibly explain with a flat earth. I've lived all my life in the southern hemisphere, so these things I can attest, and you could come and see.
1) There are flights from South America to Australia that last less than 15 hours and you see only water and sometimes Antarctica. I've seen this discussed lately but no satisfactory answer yet.
2) In the South we have also a celestial pole, a region around where all stars revolve (in the opposite direction than in the northern hemisphere), you cannot possibly explain this with a dome, so I've observed the 2 celestial poles myself.
I won't mention sunsets, satellites and eclipses, which are very strong round earth arguments, but I've seen flat earth answers to them that are very bad since require warping reality basically, but I'll leave them out anyway, for now.
Question: if you were to send some flat earther you trust to go to the South Pole and observe/record the 24h sun cycle around him/her, would you stop believing the earth is flat? If that is so, you should start some kind of crowdfunding...
Question: if you were to send some flat earther you trust to go to the South Pole and observe/record the 24h sun cycle around him/her, would you stop believing the earth is flat? If that is so, you should start some kind of crowdfunding...
A Flat Earther you can trust. Let's see, that would have to be someone who believes all pictures of the earth from space are fake, as are weather satellites and global positioning satellites, all part of an impossibly large grand conspiracy by all the governments, thousands of scientists and engineers, news organization and on and on.
Who would trust such a loon?
Why would a flat earther with vested flat earth interests have any desire to start a crowdfunding effort to disprove flat earth?Not necessarily disprove, but test.
Phew FE map is....Please show me where this map is. I want to know how it addresses my points, particularly the second one.
I would think anyone honest would like to put their ideas to the test. If for someone the point is not finding what is right or not but just keep ignoring facts and believing who knows what, then something would be very wrong inside that mind.
I would think anyone honest would like to put their ideas to the test.
24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.The sunset and sunrise obviously wouldn't be to the second if one is near the edge of a time zone or in a deeper valley, but more likely you needed a new watch. Only a flat earther could think it more reasonable to invent torturous maps, celestial mechanics, conspiracy theories, laws of motion, etc than to question their watch.
Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)
24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.
Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)
Yes, obviously there are a lot of things that could account for the error; inaccuracy in the position of the ship, incorrect times, etc. Nobody invented "torturous maps, celestial mechanics, conspiracy theories, laws of motion." You just made that up to feel smarter than us.Great jorb mighty kabool!
24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.Where? from the Flat Earth map I don't see how could you stand in the South Pole and see the sun go around you.
Phew FE map is....Please show me where this map is. I want to know how it addresses my points, particularly the second one.
I cannot imagine a flat earth that can account for how our sky looks from all parts of the world.
Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A"?
(I'm tired of the Eratosthenes shadows argument, clearly does not disprove a flat earth with a close sun but scientists love it anyway)
24 hour daylight has been discussed and answered many times. Seeing it in person would do nothing.
Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)
The center is on south pole. The difference is, the grids are curved.I guess you could explain the flights problem distorting grid lines (distorting reality), but I don't see how do you explain the sky, since Northern stars go around Polaris, thing that should be impossible on a dome centered on the south.
(https://gwebangethome.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/img_20190119_194157.jpg)
I certainly agree that doesn’t disprove a flat Earth of The Sun were closer, but if you add more than two points of measurements, there should be a difference in shadow lengths.Totally agree, but here we have people that are distorting the euclidean space metrics to argue that the earth is flat, they would attribute the results of your experiment to some atmospheric effect (even when you would be obtaining what exacly is expected from a round earth).
Interestingly, I noticed published sunset and sunrise times were inaccurate when I visited near the rim. I guess there must have been a typo in the almanac (lol.)I don't know what you noticed, but I know people that went to Antarctica and they haven't noticed anything like that, and it's important to know when the sun rises and sets there, or you will freeze. Anyway, I don't know what the rim is now, some people seem to think that the rim is in the much more explored and accessible north...
The northstar and the surrounding stars are just reflection of the actual bodies that are situated at extremely high altitude above the south pole. The lights are vertical.I will need some kind of drawing, cannot make much from what you say.
It takes two domes to produce such sight. From the light sources to to 1st dome to the 2nd dome. What people on northern hemiplane see is the reflection from the second dome.
Globe assumption gives wrong angle of the position of the seen northstar and surounding stars.Of course this is the case. Where do you get this easily falsifiable misinformation?
The face angle should be similar to the north latitude position, e.g. at 45° of latitude you should lift up the face 45° up. 70° face angle for latitude 70°, 90° face angle for latitude 90° etc.
In reality it isn't the case.
The northstar and the surrounding stars are just reflection of the actual bodies that are situated at extremely high altitude above the south pole. The lights are vertical.I will need some kind of drawing, cannot make much from what you say.
It takes two domes to produce such sight. From the light sources to to 1st dome to the 2nd dome. What people on northern hemiplane see is the reflection from the second dome.Globe assumption gives wrong angle of the position of the seen northstar and surounding stars.Of course this is the case. Where do you get this easily falsifiable misinformation?
The face angle should be similar to the north latitude position, e.g. at 45° of latitude you should lift up the face 45° up. 70° face angle for latitude 70°, 90° face angle for latitude 90° etc.
In reality it isn't the case.
Here's startrails at Norway as my argument:What are you trying to prove with that?
Here's startrails at Norway as my argument:What are you trying to prove with that?
>> The northstar and the surrounding stars are just reflection of the actual bodies that are situated at extremely high altitude above the south pole. The lights are vertical.Yet you have been unable to show how that works at all.
It takes two domes to produce such sight.
Globe assumption gives wrong angle of the position of the seen northstar and surounding stars.Nope. The globe conclusion gives the correct position.
Here's startrails at Norway as my argument:What are you trying to prove with that?
Here's startrails at Norway as my argument:What are you trying to prove with that?
Becase the angle doesn't fit the theory.
Here is another footage from latitude 61° N.
The North Star's angle is too low for latitude of 61°. If the North Star were 61° high, the pic wouldn't allow any try to be visible.
Good.. good... if the latitude = 90° so the angle will be 90°- 90° = 0° 8)
Danang is right with the angles, but wrong that those videos can be used for something, how can you measure any angle with that?? Just go outside and measure the altitude of Polaris, if you do it correctly it will coincide with your latitude, I've done it myself a few years ago, never found any discrepancy (as expected).
Good.. good... if the latitude = 90° so the angle will be 90°- 90° = 0° 8)
Wouldnt that mean straight up?
Also...its mostly straight up.
Akin to claiming 24hrs.
Good.. good... if the latitude = 90° so the angle will be 90°- 90° = 0° 8)
Wouldnt that mean straight up?
Also...its mostly straight up.
Akin to claiming 24hrs.
Of course that is random calculation by a guy that believes in pi. :o
Good.. good... if the latitude = 90° so the angle will be 90°- 90° = 0° 8)
Wouldnt that mean straight up?
Also...its mostly straight up.
Akin to claiming 24hrs.
Of course that is random calculation by a guy that believes in pi. :o
Yep. And you can't prove otherwise.
Yes, humans are all flawed, including astrophycisists.~And what have astrophycisists, flawed or not, got to do with the shape of the earth.
Please show us your video to disprove my argument. So many videos so far never support equality between latitude & angle.I don't understand your obsession with videos, that's the worst way to measure something, what do you do? Put a semicircle on the monitor?? Or just say "nah I don't think that that contradicts my beliefs"? It's mostly stupid, you can go and do it yourself easily and more precisely, as everyone has done it before (in navigation for example) and is continuously doing now (when aligning their telescopes for example).
Becase the angle doesn't fit the theory.You are yet to demonstrate that in any way.
The North Star's angle is too low for latitude of 61°. If the North Star were 61° high, the pic wouldn't allow any tree to be visible.Stand under a tree and look up. Tell me if you can see the tree.
Phew FE map is....Please show me where this map is. I want to know how it addresses my points, particularly the second one.
I cannot imagine a flat earth that can account for how our sky looks from all parts of the world.
Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A"?
You're so right! It's not round, its a donut! glazed donut to be exact. I love a good glazed donut. So creamy and gooey! Ughhh so good!Beg to differ.
I know I have asked this before, but I'm still looking for answers....Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A" ?Phew FE map is....Please show me where this map is. I want to know how it addresses my points, particularly the second one.
I cannot imagine a flat earth that can account for how our sky looks from all parts of the world.
Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A"?
I cannot imagine how the horizon would look on a flat earth ;
I doubt the flat earth and Globe horizon would look much different to the unaided eye.Although I am a confirmed round earther, ,I am always interested in reading FE ideas on various subjects.I've seen some "theorising" about how the flat earth horizon would look but they are just that, "theorising" because there is no way to test it out.
In this case, the horizon on a flat earth
Here are links to a couple of posts where JackBlack and I were trying to "nut it out":
If your interested in discussing with a non flat earther, please comment ;) « Message by rabinoz on October 30, 2018, 09:00:39 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78225.msg2111926;topicseen#msg2111926)
If your interested in discussing with a non flat earther, please comment ;) « Message by rabinoz on October 30, 2018, 02:57:15 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78225.msg2111981;topicseen#msg2111981)
One basic point that I was trying to bring out was that:
on a flat earth the darker undersides of cumulus clouds would be seen above the horizon but
on the Globe the white sides of these clouds would be seen above the horizon.
But I've seen nothing from flat earthers on that issue.
Maybe some "simulation expert" can step in and show what it should look like.
how far the horizon would appear to be from an observer ; and how the distance to the horizon could be estimated - on a flat earth. ?
I have just been indoctrinated in all those answers for a round earth.
Googleotomy says:Don't even try to ask anything in Q&A, its pointless. The answer you get there is basically - its magic or its something and it is so because I say so, and so on.
"Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A" ?"
Please start a thread there, we'd try to answer but since these are new subjects, and the research is ongoing... no guarantee for satisfactory answers. :o 8)
Googleotomy says:
"Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A" ?"
Please start a thread there, we'd try to answer but since these are new subjects, and the research is ongoing... no guarantee for satisfactory answers. :o 8)
Should I ask this in "Flat Earth Q&A" ?Absolutely not. You've been here long enough to know that you should never post anything in Q&A under any circumstances.
No one will ever be allowed to fly or float around the earth's poles. Who will answer why this is prohibited? I was criticized for Australia. But it remains a fact.No it is not a fact that, "No one will ever be allowed to fly or float around the earth's poles" and neither you nor anyone have proven or even present good evidence for that.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1282946600/pole-to-pole-circumnavigation-of-the-globe/posts/2268098
This was to be expected. Sensational expedition - everyone will get t-shirts ...
Why would a flat earther with vested flat earth interests have any desire to start a crowdfunding effort to disprove flat earth?
No one will ever be allowed to fly or float around the earth's poles. Who will answer why this is prohibited? I was criticized for Australia. But it remains a fact.No, it remains an outright lie repeatedly spouted as fact. Plenty of people have done it.
Jack Black - you know. All trips by independent researchers who have all impartially documented. And it is around the poles - there are no such. All such expeditions were failed. And those who tried to do something themselves were expelled and intimidated. Well, you know that I do not believe in the standard of flat land, because it is erroneous. But that we live on a ball is also unconvincing. We will not know the truth.
We have people trying to disprove RE by buying an extremely sensitive gyroscope saying it should move 15 degrees every hour if the Earth is a globe—so giddy to prove once and for all it’s flat.
They see it move 15 degrees every hour and instead of maybe, just maybe, the Earth is round, they say, “oh.....gee.....I don’t know what’s going on.....perhaps some effect we don’t know about and we will create out of thin dome air.”
I would like a link to that experiment, thanks.
All trips by independent researchersThe wording here is quite dishonest. Plenty of people have done it, but those who do just get grouped together with REers.
But that we live on a ball is also unconvincing.Why? I am yet to see any actual problem presented, just misunderstanding.
We will not know the truth.
We will not know the truth.
After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.
We will not know the truth.
After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.
Were you so morbidly curious you decided to create an alt, Pi31415?
We will not know the truth.
After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.
Were you so morbidly curious you decided to create an alt, Pi31415?
LOL you know you are trackable, right?
I'll answer that in another thread as it's a bit out if place here: Re: Bob Knodel and the laser ring gyroscope « Reply #113 on: Today at 09:18:26 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79637.msg2154640#msg2154640)We have people trying to disprove RE by buying an extremely sensitive gyroscope saying it should move 15 degrees every hour if the Earth is a globe—so giddy to prove once and for all it’s flat.I would like a link to that experiment, thanks.
They see it move 15 degrees every hour and instead of maybe, just maybe, the Earth is round, they say, “oh.....gee.....I don’t know what’s going on.....perhaps some effect we don’t know about and we will create out of thin dome air.”
No, drone. There is one watching through your window RIGHT NOW. But when you look, it darts slightly out of view.
Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on March 08, 2019, 08:26:22 PM
We will not know the truth.
After reviewing with some interest (actually, morbid curiosity) the F.A.Q.s, the Revised F.A.Q.s, and much of the conversation on this site, I propose that the above statement by Heavenly Breeze should be adopted as the official motto of the FES, since it is essentially the ultimate answer to all the technical questions posed by FE skeptics here.
For example, why a gyro responds to entropy. And moonlight, by its nature, bears in itself enthalpy.So far you are yet to substantiate these claims, and seem to just be confusing words.
It turns out that the sun emits two types of radiation that are in different time ranges.No, the radiation of the sun remains fairly constant. Yes, there are variations due to solar flares and the like, but not things like daily variations.
And the north pole - why does time flow there differently?In what way?
Nobody answered this for me so farBecause so far you are yet to raise real issues backed up by experiments/evidence.
When the earth is a plane without roundingIt isn't.
when it goes under the ground or ascends to a height, the space is bent and time flows differently ...The only time flowing differently is explained by relativity and is insignificant for most purposes.
I'm going to have to conduct an experiment to see if moon light really is colder. I think that's what they are talking about with two kinds of light.One key thing to note with this experiment is that you need to distinguish between being exposed to the night sky and being exposed to the moon.
I'm going to have to conduct an experiment to see if moon light really is colder. I think that's what they are talking about with two kinds of light.One key thing to note with this experiment is that you need to distinguish between being exposed to the night sky and being exposed to the moon.
A simple way is to carry out an experiment every night and seeing if there is any correlation to the moon phase and cloud coverage.
Doing this over a long period (such as a year) should be able to notice any significant cooling from the moon.
Another option is waiting for a full moon with no clouds and then having 2 tubes, one pointed at the moon, one pointed at a region of the sky without the moon.
But what if I simply propped up a 4x8 sheet of plywood so that it was straight up like a fence, perpendicular to the moon so that it created a shadow of the moon for several hours, but permitted the ground on both sides equal amount of view of clear night sky? (In other words, the ground immediately on each side of the sky would see half the night sky, but one side would get the moon and the other not!)The only potential issue I can immediately see with this is what is nearby.
I was thinking of taking a 2" diameter rubber air filled ball and hang it on a rope with a servo motor to slowly move it across the sky to block the moon from one small area on the ground without blocking much view of the sky.
Two tubes might be easier, but I'd still need a tracking mechanism.
But what if I simply propped up a 4x8 sheet of plywood so that it was straight up like a fence, perpendicular to the moon so that it created a shadow of the moon for several hours, but permitted the ground on both sides equal amount of view of clear night sky? (In other words, the ground immediately on each side of the sky would see half the night sky, but one side would get the moon and the other not!)
So I’m still left concluding that sunlight is hot and moonlight is cold. I can dig it. Why do some folks have such a hang up with that conclusion? Just respectfully asking.I took two containers filled with water and placed one in a location shaded from the sky (under a verandah roof or under a shrub, it moade little difference).
The sky temperature was measured with an IR thermometer directed as near as possible vertical but well away from any overhead objects and the sun (in daylight).
Here are a few of my results - with no moon in the sky.The temperature of that one in the bright sun kept rising.
There is no need for any moon in the sky. The moon does not send out "rays".
Moonlight travels in all directions and has an extremely small heating effect - maybe (50/500,000)°C and virtually impossible to measure.
The temperature of an object is due to an equilibrium between heat lost to the environment and heat gained.
The sky, day or night, is very cold and very little heat is gained from that source but shading objects are usually at about the air temperature and far warmer than the sky.
JackBlack and rabinoz - I'm happy for you. You know our world very well from the existing scientific point of view.I gave nothing "from a scientific point of view". I posted what I measured myself, a video of a prominent flat-earther and of an amateur astronomer reaching the same conclusion.
Moonlight in the literal sense of the word does not cool objects, JackBlack and rabinoz are right when they say so. Direct measurements you will not see the result. Many have failed. No wonder I talked about enthalpy. So that you can see the difference and cooling.So will it cool or wont it?
You need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight. But few people understand that such a mirror will also block the outer space.Why would it also block space?
In this experience, you will see not how it cools or heats the moonlight. You will see something else. You will see how time itself behaves.Just what do you expect to see?
But, alas, scientists often just lie to us.The scientists I find lie the most are those in "social science", not the hard physical sciences.
You need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight.Please tell me more! Why not a concave glass mirror? Or a large plastic Fresnel lens?
Therefore, many questions remain - what is actually the sun and where is it located ...Well all I know is I've lit an awful lot of camp fires with a magnifying lens or a parabolic mirror using the sunlight.
Tom Foolery - without understanding the essence of what is happening, you will have nothing to do. Moonlight in the literal sense of the word does not cool objects, JackBlack and rabinoz are right when they say so. Direct measurements you will not see the result. Many have failed. No wonder I talked about enthalpy. So that you can see the difference and cooling. You need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight. But few people understand that such a mirror will also block the outer space.Yes, I know that "you need to use a metal concave mirror and conduct the experiment correctly. Which focuses the moonlight."
Scientists in the true sense of the word don't lie. They don't have an agenda where they start with the conclusion and then try to make evidence fit while at the same time ignoring any evidence which is contrary to reaching that desired preset conclusion. That is a conspiracy theorist.I agree scientists shouldn't; I disagree that most don't. The evidence doesn't support it. "Scientists Behaving Badly" from 2004 is one example of a study showing this, but there are plenty more.
Scientists , experiment, observe and measure in order to extract a model which works best based on the conclusions. They don't state it as fact and will continually update the model based on new evidence.
Individuals can ponder which group they're a member of, if any.
These are experiments with a deliberately wrong result.You mean they show your claims to be wrong, so you reject them.
The experiment must be carried out completely differently.Then explain clearly how it needs to be carried out.
These are experiments with a deliberately wrong result. The experiment must be carried out completely differently.But I know what I see and measure myself and know that the night sky is very cold and that the presence of the moon makes no difference at all!
Read Kozyrev.
Kozyrev mirror (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kozyrev_mirror)Maybe you could show us some references where Kozyrev has anything to say about the "cooling effects of moonlight".
A Kozyrev mirror, in Russian esoteric literature from 1990s, is a device made from aluminum (sometimes from glass, or reflecting mirror-like material) spiral shape surfaces, which, according to a non-proved hypothesis, are able to focus different types of radiation including that coming from biological objects.[citation needed] They are named after the famous astronomer Nikolai Aleksandrovich Kozyrev, though they were neither invented nor described by him.
Kozyrev mirrors were used in experiments related to extrasensory perception (ESP), conducted in the Institute of Experimental Medicine of Siberia, division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Humans, allocated into the cylindrical spirals (usually 1.5 rotations clockwise, made of polished aluminum) allegedly experienced anomalous psycho-physical sensations, which had been recorded in the minutes of the research experiments.
sunlight by its nature has the property of entropy, and also of enthalpy.Just what is this meant to mean?
Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on March 13, 2019, 09:33:30 PM
sunlight by its nature has the property of entropy, and also of enthalpy.
Just what is this meant to mean?
No one will ever be allowed to fly or float around the earth's poles. Who will answer why this is prohibited? I was criticized for Australia. But it remains a fact.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1282946600/pole-to-pole-circumnavigation-of-the-globe/posts/2268098
This was to be expected. Sensational expedition - everyone will get t-shirts ...
Nowhere in the Antarctic treaty does it stop people from flying over the south pole, you just need a permit. Its honestly not that expensive to just take a flight there either, less than $10,000. Anybody with a personal plane and enough fuel can get a permit and fly over.
QuoteNowhere in the Antarctic treaty does it stop people from flying over the south pole, you just need a permit. Its honestly not that expensive to just take a flight there either, less than $10,000. Anybody with a personal plane and enough fuel can get a permit and fly over.
Hmm .. Do you have confirmation of those who have already done this?
Yes here is a little bit:QuoteNowhere in the Antarctic treaty does it stop people from flying over the south pole, you just need a permit. Its honestly not that expensive to just take a flight there either, less than $10,000. Anybody with a personal plane and enough fuel can get a permit and fly over.
Hmm .. Do you have confirmation of those who have already done this?
Flat earth claims on Dick’s vertical pole-to-pole flight 2018 (http://dicksmithadventure.com.au/special-postings-for-flat-earth-believers/)Here is Dick Smith's route:
Video with comments about whether Dick Smith really flew vertically around the world in his Twin Otter in 1988 – 89.
With some people believing the world to be flat and that Dick simply flew around in a circle.
Note: a full copy of the book is available here (http://dicksmithadventure.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Our-Fantastic-Planet.pdf) where you can see the log book itinerary on pages 252-253. Here is the map that follows the route taken.
In the interest of freedom of the press, see all the comments, below the attached video.
Dick Smith Circumnavigated the Earth via the North and South Pole
Wolfie6020 Published on Nov 29, 2016
This was done by Australian Adventurer in a Twin Otter in the late 80’s I plan a more detailed video on this book in future. Our Fantastic Planet – by Dick Smith
<< See link for the rest of the comments >>
А вот немного о другой трансполярной кругосветности:
котировка
You can contact Dick Smith on Twitter and here's another pole-to-pole one:QuoteА вот немного о другой трансполярной кругосветности:
котировка
Congratulations - good try. I asked about those who actually did it.
Yes here is a little bit:QuoteNowhere in the Antarctic treaty does it stop people from flying over the south pole, you just need a permit. Its honestly not that expensive to just take a flight there either, less than $10,000. Anybody with a personal plane and enough fuel can get a permit and fly over.
Hmm .. Do you have confirmation of those who have already done this?
Some of the trans-polar circumnavigations are illustrated here:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ib3y88pp90mhkvf/polar-circumnav.jpg?dl=1)
Transpolar Circumnavigations from: FlatEarth.ws, Debunking Flat Earth Misconceptions (https://flatearth.ws/)
And here is a bit on another trans-polar circumnavigation:QuoteFlat earth claims on Dick’s vertical pole-to-pole flight 2018 (http://dicksmithadventure.com.au/special-postings-for-flat-earth-believers/)Here is Dick Smith's route:
Video with comments about whether Dick Smith really flew vertically around the world in his Twin Otter in 1988 – 89.
With some people believing the world to be flat and that Dick simply flew around in a circle.
Note: a full copy of the book is available here (http://dicksmithadventure.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Our-Fantastic-Planet.pdf) where you can see the log book itinerary on pages 252-253. Here is the map that follows the route taken.
In the interest of freedom of the press, see all the comments, below the attached video.
Dick Smith Circumnavigated the Earth via the North and South Pole
Wolfie6020 Published on Nov 29, 2016
This was done by Australian Adventurer in a Twin Otter in the late 80’s I plan a more detailed video on this book in future. Our Fantastic Planet – by Dick Smith
<< See link for the rest of the comments >>
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/bemie08ltz6wzzq/Route%20of%20Dick%E2%80%99s%20vertical%20pole-to-pole%20flight%202018.jpg?dl=1)
Thanks, Rab, was going to do a more in-depth reply, but school and work got in the way.Sorry, but "Globe earth is best earth" ;) is not quite accurate. Try, "The Globe earth is only earth" :).
Thanks, Rab, was going to do a more in-depth reply, but school and work got in the way.Sorry, but "Globe earth is best earth" ;) is not quite accurate. Try, "The Globe earth is only earth" :).