The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: sockless74 on September 19, 2014, 08:33:13 AM

Title: Antarctica questions
Post by: sockless74 on September 19, 2014, 08:33:13 AM
I am not convinced that the Earth is a ball, but I am also not convinced that it is flat either. I am still in between trying to make sense of all of this. There are things that don't make sense to me with both models. The Antarctica issue is one of my questions. I have read some other threads about it, but none have given me answers that convince me.

The flat Earth model says that there is an ice wall that is 150' high that no one can pass, some even say it is guarded by the military. If it is guarded, what proof is there of it being guarded? That is an enormous area to protect, even if there were guard posts only every 10 miles, there would be 7,800 guard posts. There would be some evidence of this. Why is it that there are no ice wall guards talking about there experiences there? Or soldiers from the military talking about spending time in Antarctica? Or military families members telling people that their son is stationed in Antarctica?

How do you explain that you can take an expedition to the South pole? http://www.polar-quest.com/trip/fly-to-the-south-pole/ (http://www.polar-quest.com/trip/fly-to-the-south-pole/) That is just one company that offers trips to Antarctica, there are others. If this area was guarded by the military wouldn't they prevent people from coming there?

Also, if the ice wall surrounds the Earth, it would have a circumference of about 78,000 miles since 78,000 miles is the circumference of the flat Earth. But Antarctica has only about 11,000 miles in coastlines. That is an enormous difference that anyone who sails around Antarctica would notice. Many people have been to Antarctica over the past several hundred years, many people have sailed around it and anyone can go there now. So if the Earth is flat how is it that no one notices that the coastline of Antarctica is so much longer than they expected?

Some people explain this by claiming that the ice wall and Antarctica are two different things, okay, fine, then where is Antarctica on a flat Earth map? Why is it that there is a South pole on Antarctic that you can go see, taking a compass with you to verify that it really is the Southernmost point on Earth? Why is it that you can sail around Antarctica from the Australian side and be on the South American side? Shouldn't you be able to sail from Antarctica in a certain direction and arrive at the ice wall?

Now all that being said, I of course haven't been to Antarctica or sailed around it and I don't know anyone who has. So all the stories and photos online could be fake, conspiracy, etc etc... But this is one of the main areas that I am stuck on in accepting the flat Earth model and so far no one has explained it well enough that I am convinced.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2014, 09:11:50 AM
Like you say, you've never been and anyone else that has has either flown or sailed.... the issue for them is, they are reliant on simply following a set pattern. They really  may not know where they are going.
It's also possible that most of the rim is inaccessible due to too much expanse of water or too cold a temperature for ships, subs, planes to get anywhere near most of it.

The other theory is that there is a rim but not as we see it. It's maybe too far for the sun to penetrate (assuming a central Earth sun) and where people are going is merely around the North pole or some land mass purported to be Antarctica.

The absolute truth is we will never know unless we can gain the means of looking but where do you look if something is out of bounds?
We can only go on what we are told; and because most of us are cocooned, we have to rely on third party info.

If you think about it. We get told about seeing the sun for 6 months on the north pole and 6 in the south pole. What if the sun is on one side of the north pole for 6 months and on the other for 6 months, as in from the point of view of an observer from whichever part of that pole they are on, giving the illusion of actually being on top or bottom of a supposed sphere, yet doing nothing other than sailing around the other side of an ice rim in the centre of Earth's circle.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 19, 2014, 11:35:04 AM
Like you say, you've never been and anyone else that has has either flown or sailed.... the issue for them is, they are reliant on simply following a set pattern. They really  may not know where they are going.
It's also possible that most of the rim is inaccessible due to too much expanse of water or too cold a temperature for ships, subs, planes to get anywhere near most of it.

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 

Quote
The other theory is that there is a rim but not as we see it. It's maybe too far for the sun to penetrate (assuming a central Earth sun) and where people are going is merely around the North pole or some land mass purported to be Antarctica.

Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth? In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!

Quote
The absolute truth is we will never know unless we can gain the means of looking but where do you look if something is out of bounds?
We can only go on what we are told; and because most of us are cocooned, we have to rely on third party info.

You might be cocooned, but by no means is everyone. If you are, unless you're a complete invalid or involuntarily confined for some reason, its your own fault, so stop navel-gazing and whining about how everything we're told is a lie (everything, that is, except "everything we're told is a lie"), and do something! Travel to Antarctica if you can afford it; it's expensive (but not hideously expensive), but can be done, and little there is "out of bounds" other than for logistical difficulties (which are significant).  Better yet, if you have a useful skill, get a job with a contractor or government agency that maintains and operates the facilities there and stay for a year or longer; they need tradesmen, professionals, and labor of all kinds as well as scientists and engineers.  If that's not practical (it's certainly not easy), go out and watch the stars.  Especially watch the stars for a few hours as they appear to circle the pole - that's easy and cheap.  If you can, travel to the opposite hemisphere and watch a different set of stars circle the other pole - in the opposite direction. 

Or just sit around and complain how "they're trying to trick all of us." Boo-hoo. It's much easier.

Quote
If you think about it. We get told about seeing the sun for 6 months on the north pole and 6 in the south pole. What if the sun is on one side of the north pole for 6 months and on the other for 6 months, as in from the point of view of an observer from whichever part of that pole they are on, giving the illusion of actually being on top or bottom of a supposed sphere, yet doing nothing other than sailing around the other side of an ice rim in the centre of Earth's circle.

If you think about it, all we have here is the "we're told" whining again.  Your "what if" makes little sense, but should be easy enough to observe, if true. So go check it out for yourself. 

[Edit] Fixed nested quotes. Removed gratuitous snarky comment.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 19, 2014, 01:13:30 PM
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.

Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Nope. You see, if you haven't been all around the inner circle, once part can differ from another. You could be on one side, then sail around to the other and bear in mind it would be a fantastic circular distance to the other side of it, you could almost believe you had went over a globe to the south pole if you were naive.
In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!
It's only easy if you know what you're looking at when you're travelling from one side to another and because you are merely a dot on the circle, I doubt you would know anything at all.

You might be cocooned, but by no means is everyone. If you are, unless you're a complete invalid or involuntarily confined for some reason, its your own fault, so stop navel-gazing and whining about how everything we're told is a lie (everything, that is, except "everything we're told is a lie"), and do something!
In your home you're cocooned. In the street, you're cocooned in the street. Ina car driving you are cocooned and see only what's around your limited vision. In a plane is the same. On a boat is the same. Basically unless you go into your space and look over a globe, seeing north and south poles, you're cocooned. Now since space does not exist and is therefore impossible to be in, you are cocooned. No disability required.
Travel to Antarctica if you can afford it; it's expensive (but not hideously expensive), but can be done, and little there is "out of bounds" other than for logistical difficulties (which are significant).  Better yet, if you have a useful skill, get a job with a contractor or government agency that maintains and operates the facilities there and stay for a year or longer; they need tradesmen, professionals, and labor of all kinds as well as scientists and engineers.
Same thing applies to my earlier post.

 
If that's not practical (it's certainly not easy), go out and watch the stars.  Especially watch the stars for a few hours as they appear to circle the pole - that's easy and cheap.
From one side, that would be fine. Go around it and your perception has changed to the so called stars you see from that point.A full change of perspective.

  If you can, travel to the opposite hemisphere and watch a different set of stars circle the other pole - in the opposite direction. 
You can do that around the centre. You're getting mixed up with thinking that you could see the same thing from one side of the north pole to the other which your eyes would not allow, even with optics.

Or just sit around and complain how "they're trying to trick all of us." Boo-hoo. It's much easier.
I'm not complaining. There's nothing I can do about it. As long as I know I'm not being duped then I'm fine.

If you think about it, all we have here is the "we're told" whining again.  Your "what if" makes little sense, but should be easy enough to observe, if true. So go check it out for yourself. 
Like I said earlier.
[Edit] Fixed nested quotes. Removed gratuitous snarky comment.
Entirely up to you what comments you put in. They're all the same to me.  ;D










 


Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 19, 2014, 03:40:05 PM
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.

Really? That's remarkable and sad. You must have no curiosity at all; what a wasted opportunity!

Quote
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Nope. You see, if you haven't been all around the inner circle, [one] part can differ from another. You could be on one side, then sail around to the other and bear in mind it would be a fantastic circular distance to the other side of it, you could almost believe you had went over a globe to the south pole if you were naive.

If you have been all around the inner circle (what is that, by the way?) would parts still not differ?  I mean, what is it about you (or me, or anyone) traveling that would cause all parts of of earth to become the same? Note the change from 'once' to 'one' in the quoted passage - is that what you meant to type?  It didn't scan as it was written; it still doesn't make sense.

Quote
In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!
It's only easy if you know what you're looking at when you're travelling from one side to another and because you are merely a dot on the circle, I doubt you would know anything at all.


Do you really mean you can't think of a single observation you could make - for yourself - that would immediately reveal the lie if someone told you you were in Antarctica when they had in fact taken you to the Arctic? I can see why you are so suspicious.

Even if you can't think of anything, let's let this question stand for a while and see if any of your compatriots can.  If none of them can, either, won't it make the whole "Wake up people! Think for yourselves!" schtick a little thin?

Quote
You might be cocooned, but by no means is everyone. If you are, unless you're a complete invalid or involuntarily confined for some reason, its your own fault, so stop navel-gazing and whining about how everything we're told is a lie (everything, that is, except "everything we're told is a lie"), and do something!
In your home you're cocooned. In the street, you're cocooned in the street. Ina car driving you are cocooned and see only what's around your limited vision. In a plane is the same. On a boat is the same. Basically unless you go into your space and look over a globe, seeing north and south poles, you're cocooned. Now since space does not exist and is therefore impossible to be in, you are cocooned. No disability required.

You can be cocooned anywhere if you want to be. Coming from someone who was in Antarctica for six months but still missed the trip, this isn't a surprise.

Quote
Travel to Antarctica if you can afford it; it's expensive (but not hideously expensive), but can be done, and little there is "out of bounds" other than for logistical difficulties (which are significant).  Better yet, if you have a useful skill, get a job with a contractor or government agency that maintains and operates the facilities there and stay for a year or longer; they need tradesmen, professionals, and labor of all kinds as well as scientists and engineers.
Same thing applies to my earlier post.


I am sorry you had to endure that. Even worse, if someone else had gone they might have gotten something out of it.

Quote
If that's not practical (it's certainly not easy), go out and watch the stars.  Especially watch the stars for a few hours as they appear to circle the pole - that's easy and cheap.
From one side, that would be fine. Go around it and your perception has changed to the so called stars you see from that point.A full change of perspective.

Not sure I follow. From one side of what? Go around what?

If you mean the North Pole, then, no, you're wrong.  Someone in London (51.5 N, 0 W) has the same stars in his evening sky as someone else on Adak Island (51.6 N, 177 W) has in his 12 hours earlier or later.  Both will see the same stars directly below Polaris in the early evening rotate slowly through the night in a counterclockwise direction until they're directly above Polaris after 12 hours, and those that start directly above Polaris rotate counterclockwise to directly below. If it's dark in both locations at the same time, the stars that appear highest from London appear lowest from Adak, and vice versa, since those locations are almost exactly on opposite sides of the pole. And, for the terminally obtuse: those locations were selected to be fairly far north and almost exactly 180 degrees apart in longitude. This circumpolar ("around the pole") rotation is visible from anywhere north of the equator, but the number of stars visible below the pole varies from few when viewed from near the equator to all the northern stars when viewed from the North Pole.

Quote
If you can, travel to the opposite hemisphere and watch a different set of stars circle the other pole - in the opposite direction. 
You can do that around the centre. You're getting mixed up with thinking that you could see the same thing from one side of the north pole to the other which your eyes would not allow, even with optics.

By opposite hemisphere, I meant Northern and Southern; I thought the "other pole" made that clear enough, but perhaps not. Restating more explicitly, if you watch northern stars appear to circle a point in the sky due north of you,  then travel to the Southern Hemisphere, you can see a different set of stars circle a different point in the sky, in the opposite direction, due south of you.   

Quote

Or just sit around and complain how "they're trying to trick all of us." Boo-hoo. It's much easier.
I'm not complaining. There's nothing I can do about it. As long as I know I'm not being duped then I'm fine.

If you think about it, all we have here is the "we're told" whining again.  Your "what if" makes little sense, but should be easy enough to observe, if true. So go check it out for yourself. 
Like I said earlier.

If I understand what you said earlier, it was "I can't be bothered. 'They' are trying to dupe me and I don't know how to tell, so by refusing to believe anything, 'they' can't dupe me."

Quote
[Edit] Fixed nested quotes. Removed gratuitous snarky comment.
Entirely up to you what comments you put in. They're all the same to me.  ;D

They have a tendency to derail conversations; I try to avoid them.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: The Ellimist on September 19, 2014, 03:51:51 PM
I am not convinced that the Earth is a ball,

Why not?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on September 19, 2014, 05:28:05 PM
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 19, 2014, 09:34:10 PM
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.

Never even thought of that one... but I suppose it would be possible for "them" to have caged animals for display when needed, though, so I don't think that would be quite convincing enough. I was thinking more along physical, not biological, lines. Things that would be extremely hard to fake.

And the ones I'd really like to hear from are the hard-core flat-earth enthusiasts; the ones demanding everyone who disagrees with them to "think for yourselves!" They accept, apparently without question, that the earth is flat, but, since it's unconventional, say believing it proves they're free thinkers.  I'm just wondering if any of them could figure out a way to recognize which polar region they're in, because the claim was made by sceptimatic that scientists who thought they were in the Antarctic couldn't really tell if they really were or not. He already admitted that he couldn't. Any others?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 20, 2014, 03:09:52 AM
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2014, 03:23:23 AM
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: guv on September 20, 2014, 03:32:10 AM
Septic, if the guard penguins saw your little sissy, city boy arse you would have penguin puppies by now.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 20, 2014, 03:46:06 AM
Septic, if the guard penguins saw your little sissy, city boy arse you would have penguin puppies by now.
I wore a penguin suit so it was easy to walk past them. I was even given a machine gun by one. They're easily duped.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 20, 2014, 07:27:51 AM
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.
Interesting.  What kind of samples were you collecting and for whom?  What research did you do?  And you don't seem to have said where you were based....
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on September 20, 2014, 07:56:02 AM
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.


Assuming (for the moment) that you have actually travelled to Antarctica, I find it strange that you've not once mentioned this in any of the many other threads discussing this very topic.  Why is that?

Anyway, giving you the benefit of the doubt, can you answer a couple of simple questions?

•  By what means did you travel and from which point of departure did you transit?

•  Which existing support base did you stay at (US, AUS, UK, NZ) for the necessary food and accommodation, and how much did you pay for it?

•  What type of "samples" were you collecting, and what collection method did you employ?

•  Which organisation(s) were you collecting the samples for, and what sort of research were they carrying out?

•  What academic/scientific/engineering qualifications do you possess in order to be able to correctly identify, gather, and transport the samples?

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on September 20, 2014, 12:11:35 PM
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.

Never even thought of that one... but I suppose it would be possible for "them" to have caged animals for display when needed, though, so I don't think that would be quite convincing enough. I was thinking more along physical, not biological, lines. Things that would be extremely hard to fake.
Okay, how's this?  If you see any dry land at the coast, then your at the Antarctic.  If it's all one giant ice pack, then your at the Arctic.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 20, 2014, 03:50:47 PM
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.

Never even thought of that one... but I suppose it would be possible for "them" to have caged animals for display when needed, though, so I don't think that would be quite convincing enough. I was thinking more along physical, not biological, lines. Things that would be extremely hard to fake.
Okay, how's this?  If you see any dry land at the coast, then your at the Antarctic.  If it's all one giant ice pack, then your at the Arctic.
Another reasonable clue. This one only works if you're in a place with dry land, though.

Still no word from sceptimatic about what kind of samples he was collecting.  Since he said "the ground was covered in snow and ice" I presume it wasn't rock or soil samples.

You seem to be the only one to come up with anything at all.  sceptimatic says he's thrown in the towel. jroa? legion? charles bloomington? Any flat-earth proponents with an idea how to tell which ice-covered polar region you've been taken to?

Come to think of it, mr. bloomington vanished soon after asserting he could  clearly demonstrate the earth had no curvature using "A clear long length of hose filled with water with its ends held up" (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61954.msg1629069#msg1629069) and then being asked for more details.  If you're still there, I'd still like to know.  Probably best to resume that in the old thread.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 21, 2014, 05:41:21 AM
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.
Interesting.  What kind of samples were you collecting and for whom?  What research did you do?  And you don't seem to have said where you were based....
I can't divulge this information as it's classified.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 21, 2014, 06:57:23 AM
Of course it is.

If by "classified" you mean "made up", that is.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on September 22, 2014, 07:07:14 AM
I can't divulge this information as it's classified.


Fair enough.  For which government organisation or corporate entity were you working?  What level of official classification did your research hold?  Why specifically was your sample collecting classified—national security or commercial in confidence?

And can you tell us exactly what academic qualifications you possess in order that you were chosen to gather these samples?  Presumably a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences?


Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 07:40:52 AM
I can't divulge this information as it's classified.


Fair enough.  For which government organisation or corporate entity were you working?  What level of official classification did your research hold?  Why specifically was your sample collecting classified—national security or commercial in confidence?

And can you tell us exactly what academic qualifications you possess in order that you were chosen to gather these samples?  Presumably a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences?
All I can tell you is that it's to do with energy and magnetism. I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on September 22, 2014, 08:13:21 AM
All I can tell you is that it's to do with energy and magnetism. I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.


That's okay.  Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research?  As I said earlier, I'd presume a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences considering you're talking about geophysics?

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 08:33:23 AM
All I can tell you is that it's to do with energy and magnetism. I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.


That's okay.  Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research?  As I said earlier, I'd presume a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences considering you're talking about geophysics?
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on September 22, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.


Again I thank you for apparently admitting that you possess no formal academic qualifications to fit you for this research.  If you did—as do all other scientists—then you'd simply post them.

So in this case?  Nope, I'm not calling you a liar, but simply suggesting that you're misrepresenting the facts.  Please prove me wrong.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 09:46:13 AM
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.


Again I thank you for apparently admitting that you possess no formal academic qualifications to fit you for this research.  If you did—as do all other scientists—then you'd simply post them.

So in this case?  Nope, I'm not calling you a liar, but simply suggesting that you're misrepresenting the facts.  Please prove me wrong.
Prove you wrong as to what?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: 29silhouette on September 22, 2014, 10:27:44 AM
•  Which organisation(s) were you collecting the samples for, and what sort of research were they carrying out?
He works with the N. Koreans remember?  Obviously they are building a secret base there with some sort of high powered magnetosphere disruptor beam, or at least a phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range, judging by the "energy and magnetism" research. 

Kim Jong-un will be most displeased with your revealing of this information Scepti.  Have fun in the gulag.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2014, 10:31:41 AM
•  Which organisation(s) were you collecting the samples for, and what sort of research were they carrying out?
He works with the N. Koreans remember?  Obviously they are building a secret base there with some sort of high powered magnetosphere disruptor beam, or at least a phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range, judging by the "energy and magnetism" research. 

Kim Jong-un will be most displeased with your revealing of this information Scepti.  Have fun in the gulag.
I haven't revealed anything, you have. I'll send you some rations in.  ;D
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Macpie on September 22, 2014, 01:14:26 PM
a phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range(...)
Is he working for Skynet or something?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 23, 2014, 07:38:04 AM
I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.
There is good reason for that, and it has nothing to do with it being classified  ::)
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 29, 2014, 01:25:05 PM
I've been away for a while but did check in from time to time. It's been long enough to give the suspicious types a chance to answer the challenge below (quotes rearranged from my post, but true to the original):

The other theory is that there is a rim but not as we see it. It's maybe too far for the sun to penetrate (assuming a central Earth sun) and where people are going is merely around the North pole or some land mass purported to be Antarctica.

The absolute truth is we will never know unless we can gain the means of looking but where do you look if something is out of bounds?
We can only go on what we are told; and because most of us are cocooned, we have to rely on third party info.


Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth? In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!

No one other than markjo has ventured a test to confirm which polar region you're in.

The following observations should be simple to do without any equipment, impossible to fake, and give unequivocal confirmation:

1) Apparent motion of the Sun.  If you stand facing the sun and it appears to move from your left to your right you're in the Arctic.  If it appears to move from right to left, you're in the Antarctic. For this reason, the shadow of a near-vertical stick will move clockwise in the Arctic and counterclockwise in the Antarctic.

2) If it's night, which constellations are nearly overhead and which direction do they appear to move?  If it's the far northern constellations like Cassiopeia, Perseus, Ursa Major and Minor, etc., you're in the Arctic. If it's the deep southern constellations like Crux, Octans, Carina, Centaurus, Eridanus, and friends, you're in the Antarctic. Even if you're not familiar with the near-polar constellations of the other hemisphere, the presence or absence of the near-polar constellations from "your" hemisphere indicates which polar region you're in. Further, in the Northern Hemisphere, the constellations appear to circle the pole in a counterclockwise direction; in the Southern Hemisphere, they appear to circle the pole in a clockwise direction.

3) Seasons. The relation of length of daylight to darkness differs between the hemispheres - radically when near the poles at times of year other than the equinoxes. If daylight is longer than night in the April to August time period, you're in the Arctic. If daylight is longer than night in the October to February time period, you're in the Antarctic. Around the equinoxes, it may be harder to tell. Even if it were completely socked in the whole time, it's still possible to tell night from day.

Easy peasy, and I don't see how any of this could be faked.

The point is, despite sceptimatic's claims, you're not going to fool many scientists (if any at all) or, for that matter, many others if they're reasonably observant, by lying to them about which pole they've been taken to. The lie would be immediately apparent and just wouldn't work.

We don't have to just accept what we're told.  Much is simple enough to check for ourselves; some is very simple. You do have to have some curiosity and think a little, though.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 30, 2014, 01:08:11 AM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 30, 2014, 06:01:49 AM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 30, 2014, 06:56:04 AM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204)
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on September 30, 2014, 07:18:51 AM
your idea (coherently, please)
Good luck with that.

Quote

 better yet, draw it or provide an illustration?
He can't draw it, as it

Quote
Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets?
It doesn't account for anything, let alone sunsets.  For example, when asked how seasons worked under his ice dome I got this:

Quote
As for seasons. It's because the super glowing carbon at the centre loses and gains energy which drops and raises it. This causes changes in the waves through the crystal prisms causing the light to shift angles of reflection.
Really.

Quote
From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
It can be quite funny, that's the best you can say about it.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on September 30, 2014, 01:53:14 PM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204)

Thanks for the link, but, yikes... almost 100 pages! On the other hand, if that thread is anything like most of them here, the last half or more will be a flame war and off-topic digressions with little actual discussion, so maybe it's not as daunting as it looks. I do recall references to the Ice Dome now, but forgot - or never really knew - the details.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on September 30, 2014, 03:49:52 PM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204)

Thanks for the link, but, yikes... almost 100 pages! On the other hand, if that thread is anything like most of them here, the last half or more will be a flame war and off-topic digressions with little actual discussion, so maybe it's not as daunting as it looks. I do recall references to the Ice Dome now, but forgot - or never really knew - the details.
Serious deep thinking will only allow you to probe deeper into what I'm talking about. I don't expect you to take any notice of any of it unless you are prepared to allow your mind to process it. If you can't, won't or cannot grasp it in any way, shape or form, then no problem; that's your prerogative.
That's my unindoctrinated theory.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Moosedrool on September 30, 2014, 06:22:05 PM
The simple act of spinning and momentarily stopping a raw egg disproves a large portion of scepti's nonsense.

Think that's enough reason for everyone to refrain from reading a 100 page thread with your "unindoctrinated theories" smeared all over it.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 01, 2014, 01:28:48 AM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.


The North pole (and the South pole) are not imaginary locations.  They're both defined precisely—to the metre scale in fact.  This location however does vary steadily and periodically by around 9m every 433 days—check out "Chandler wobble".  The precise point of the pole at any given moment is known as the "instantaneous pole".  Both Newton and Euler predicted this wobble 300 years ago, based on their studies of the dynamics of rotating bodies, and the known ellipticity of the earth.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 01, 2014, 01:45:40 AM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.


The North pole (and the South pole) are not imaginary locations.  They're both defined precisely—to the metre scale in fact.  This location however does vary steadily and periodically by around 9m every 433 days—check out "Chandler wobble".  The precise point of the pole at any given moment is known as the "instantaneous pole".  Both Newton and Euler predicted this wobble 300 years ago, based on their studies of the dynamics of rotating bodies, and the known ellipticity of the earth.
Don't waste your time telling me this nonsense, Geoffrey. You know my thoughts on these past so called super scientists and their so called thoughts on what gullible people accept even today, based on absolutely nothing physically provable, except for some to say, "it is provable."...IT ISN'T.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 01, 2014, 02:40:04 AM
Don't waste your time telling me this nonsense, Geoffrey. You know my thoughts on these past so called super scientists and their so called thoughts on what gullible people accept even today, based on absolutely nothing physically provable, except for some to say, "it is provable."...IT ISN'T.


So now you're telling me that you're more academically qualified than all the other geophysicists in the world, but at the same time you refuse to name even one of the 13 formal qualifications you claim to hold.

Is there any particular reason that you won't disclose even commonly held qualifications such as a BSc or a BEng for example?  What's the big secret?

Or have I called your bluff, and you've been untruthful about your alleged qualifications?  Oh dear.  Not good enough at all my friend.

At least I can honestly claim a diploma of civil engineering from the RMIT University in Melbourne.  You can telephone their archives division at +61 3 9925 6067 if you want hard evidence.  Tell them you're searching my credentials as a job applicant with the first name GEOFFREY (no middle name) and the surname PXXXXXXN for the year 1964.  They'll give you a ticket number, which you can post here.  Once I get that, I'll contact RMIT and authorise the release of my surname and diploma details to you.  But... RMIT will require your full name and address in order to do that.

The ball is in your court now.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 01, 2014, 02:56:54 AM
So now you're telling me that you're more academically qualified than all the other geophysicists in the world, but at the same time you refuse to name even one of the 13 formal qualifications you claim to hold.
I didn't claim anything. I said I had 13. I didn't say anything other than 13.
Is there any particular reason that you won't disclose even commonly held qualifications such as a BSc or a BEng for example?  What's the big secret?
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.
It's like me telling someone  too have a look around my Bugatti and then asking them what they think of it. When they say, "wow" or something like that, I can then print them out a qualification as a Bugatti expert, even though all they've done is seen it's presence and have no clue about anything in it or what makes it work.
Or have I called your bluff, and you've been untruthful about your alleged qualifications?  Oh dear.  Not good enough at all my friend.
I can only be untruthful if I state my qualifications whilst not having them. Have I?
At least I can honestly claim a diploma of civil engineering from the RMIT University in Melbourne.  You can telephone their archives division at +61 3 9925 6067 if you want hard evidence.  Tell them you're searching my credentials as a job applicant with the first name GEOFFREY (no middle name) and the surname PXXXXXXN for the year 1964.  They'll give you a ticket number, which you can post here.  Once I get that, I'll contact RMIT and authorise the release of my surname and diploma details to you.  But... RMIT will require your full name and address in order to do that.

The ball is in your court now.
Ok, I'll do this. I'll get back to you on this.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 01, 2014, 04:38:49 AM
Quote
It's like me telling someone  too have a look around my Bugatti and then asking them what they think of it. When they say, "wow" or something like that, I can then print them out a qualification as a Bugatti expert, even though all they've done is seen it's presence and have no clue about anything in it or what makes it work.
What hell are you rambling on about?

Only 14 year olds with self confidence problems pretend they have a Bugatti.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: macrohard on October 01, 2014, 07:42:21 AM
PXXXXXXXN is a strange last name.  How do you pronounce that?  Also, I an as well a 14 year old with a Bugatti.

Source: my IQ is over 180
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 01, 2014, 11:00:54 AM
You scumbag! Publishing someone's full name on an Internet forum without their permission after they've made an effort to obscure it is a huge breach of netiquette. I realize that you don't like him, but this is a really low-class thing to do.

Twit.

[Edit] The referred-to post has been removed. This does not change my opinion of sceptimatic or his lack of ethics.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 01, 2014, 02:19:56 PM
You scumbag! Publishing someone's full name on an Internet forum without their permission after they've made an effort to obscure it is a huge breach of netiquette. I realize that you don't like him, but this is a really low-class thing to do.

Twit.
How about screwing on your head and stop acting like a frenzied schoolgirl.  ;D
How about not acting like an ass.

[Edit] forget it...  ain't gonna happen
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Rama Set on October 01, 2014, 02:39:19 PM
You scumbag! Publishing someone's full name on an Internet forum without their permission after they've made an effort to obscure it is a huge breach of netiquette. I realize that you don't like him, but this is a really low-class thing to do.

Twit.
How about screwing on your head and stop acting like a frenzied schoolgirl.  ;D

You have acted similarly when someone posted a mere PM, so it looks like you are leading the schoolgirl charge.  Anyway I reported it to the moderators as it is a breach of the rules and one of the more serious ones I think.  Hopefully something happens.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 01, 2014, 10:00:00 PM
Hopefully something happens.
I reported it more than 10 hours ago asking no more than the last names be redacted. At least one of the people named is an innocent bystander.

Nothing yet...

[Edit] The offending post is now gone.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 02, 2014, 02:20:11 AM
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.


So of the thirteen academic qualifications you claim to hold, you're now admitting that not one of them is related to the sciences?  Can you tell me then exactly what fields of research your qualifications are involved with?

You're also claiming that science or engineering degrees or doctorates are "worthless"?  Why do you claim that, and how can you explain the millions of scientists all over the world that utilise those sorts of academic qualifications every day?  Stephen Hawking for example holds several; so are you claiming that his qualifications as an astrophysicist are bogus?

I also can't understand that you managed to secure a position as a researcher "gathering samples" in Antarctica without any science qualifications at all.  As far as a I know, a Bachelor at least, or preferably a Doctorate, is required for that sort of high-tech research.  What non-scientific qualification enabled you to carry out strictly scientific work?  And were you working for a government organisation, or a private company?

Anyway... can you name for us a few of your qualifications not "commonly" recognised by the science community—or even the community at large?



Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 02, 2014, 03:37:46 AM
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.


So of the thirteen academic qualifications you claim to hold, you're now admitting that not one of them is related to the sciences?  Can you tell me then exactly what fields of research your qualifications are involved with?

You're also claiming that science or engineering degrees or doctorates are "worthless"?  Why do you claim that, and how can you explain the millions of scientists all over the world that utilise those sorts of academic qualifications every day?  Stephen Hawking for example holds several; so are you claiming that his qualifications as an astrophysicist are bogus?

I also can't understand that you managed to secure a position as a researcher "gathering samples" in Antarctica without any science qualifications at all.  As far as a I know, a Bachelor at least, or preferably a Doctorate, is required for that sort of high-tech research.  What non-scientific qualification enabled you to carry out strictly scientific work?  And were you working for a government organisation, or a private company?

Anyway... can you name for us a few of your qualifications not "commonly" recognised by the science community—or even the community at large?
I could name you all kinds of things that you would reject, which is why I won't waste my time. The best thing for you to do, is to accept that I will disclose something when I'm ready to do so. Until then, you will be rendered guessing.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 02, 2014, 05:49:21 AM
I don't recognise commonly held qualifications in sciences that cannot be proven, only the ones that can.
Anyone who has qualifications in unprovable sciences is holding onto a worthless piece of paper.

Anyway... can you name for us a few of your qualifications not "commonly" recognised by the science community—or even the community at large?
I could name you all kinds of things that you would reject, which is why I won't waste my time. The best thing for you to do, is to accept that I will disclose something when I'm ready to do so. Until then, you will be rendered guessing.


Uh... how do you know that I'd "reject" them out of hand?  Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant?

Apparently you're concerned that they won't stand up to close scrutiny by saying that.

How about just giving me a few, and letting me decide whether or not I accept them?  I can't understand why you're so afraid of actually naming any of these alleged "qualifications" of yours?  And if they're legitimate, I'll be the last person to reject them.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 02, 2014, 07:07:15 AM
Uh... how do you know that I'd "reject" them out of hand?  Are you now claiming to be clairvoyant?
Why would I need to be clairvoyant? all I need is the use of observational skills and intuition to know how you work, Geoffrey.
Apparently you're concerned that they won't stand up to close scrutiny by saying that.
Close scutiny by who? you?...nahhhhh. You mean nothing to me ,Geoffrey - nothing.
How about just giving me a few, and letting me decide whether or not I accept them?
What you accept or not is of no concern to me.
I can't understand why you're so afraid of actually naming any of these alleged "qualifications" of yours?  And if they're legitimate, I'll be the last person to reject them.
You're not in any position to confirm or reject anything, Geoffrey.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 02, 2014, 07:24:41 AM
ausGeoff, this is not a debate forum.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 02, 2014, 09:17:38 AM
ausGeoff, this is not a debate forum.  Thanks.
To be fair, it's not as if sceptimatic is answering any questions either.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 02, 2014, 10:25:26 PM
ausGeoff, this is not a debate forum.  Thanks.
To be fair, it's not as if sceptimatic is answering any questions either.


Don't be to concerned markjo.

This is just another of the many examples of unsatisfactory moderation on these forums.  A flat earther gets away with repeated debate-type responses, but it's inevitably the round earther that earns the reprimand for doing exactly the same thing.

You'll also notice—all too conveniently—that it effectively lets sceptimatic off the hook as far as answering my question about his academic qualifications, but receiving—thus far—no answer.

A Q&A forum has a different meaning for round earthers and flat earthers apparently LOL.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 03, 2014, 12:11:27 AM
Many of the academic qualifications thar Scepti claims to have will have been gained at school when he was 16 or 18.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 03, 2014, 02:22:49 AM
Many of the academic qualifications thar Scepti claims to have will have been gained at school when he was 16 or 18.

Plus I think he'll find that science has advanced a lot in the last 18 months to two years.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 06, 2014, 05:09:01 PM
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.

Which is it... left to right or right to left? It can't be both from one place at a given time can it? The pole is a circle with the Sun at the center?

I've read here recently that you have a different model for the flat earth than others here do. I can understand why, because their models don't work. I'm having a hard time imagining what your model is like, though; can you describe your idea (coherently, please) or, better yet, draw it or provide an illustration? If there's already a thread or post that does this, a link to it would be helpful.

Does your model account for commonly-seen phenomena like sunrises and sunsets? From the description so far, it doesn't sound too promising.
Here you go, read through this.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.msg1527204#msg1527204)

Thanks for the link, but, yikes... almost 100 pages! On the other hand, if that thread is anything like most of them here, the last half or more will be a flame war and off-topic digressions with little actual discussion, so maybe it's not as daunting as it looks. I do recall references to the Ice Dome now, but forgot - or never really knew - the details.
Finally slogged through that thread. It was mostly repetition with relatively little actual description of how or why things we can see in the sky behave. The "Ice Dome" idea presented is terribly incomplete, seems very poorly thought out, and no less preposterous - perhaps more, if that's possible - than the other FE ideas we've seen here. There is no plausible explanation for the apparent motion of the sun across the sky at all, much less sunrises and sunsets - at least not in that thread.

Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 01:00:25 AM
Finally slogged through that thread. It was mostly repetition with relatively little actual description of how or why things we can see in the sky behave. The "Ice Dome" idea presented is terribly incomplete, seems very poorly thought out, and no less preposterous - perhaps more, if that's possible - than the other FE ideas we've seen here. There is no plausible explanation for the apparent motion of the sun across the sky at all, much less sunrises and sunsets - at least not in that thread.

Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.
What you think of it is entirely up to you. That's the beauty about it all - you can decide.
That's why I have an alternative thought, because the one given out - the one you adhere to, makes absolutely no sense at all when it's logically thought about - but can make sense to anyone that reads into fantasy and embraces that.

The difference with mine is, it's not given out as any official model, it's merely a thought process that requires a lot of work, which I admit.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 07, 2014, 01:19:53 AM
Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.


Your latter assumption is the correct one.  Despite his totally unevidenced claim that he'd been to Antarctica on a secret research mission, and gathering samples of an unidentified nature, the whole thing was nothing more than a fabrication stemming from some kind of weird self-delusion on seceptimatic's part—or, as some would rightly say—a fabric of lies.

Unfortunately for sceptimatic, he's got a lousy memory, and his earlier lies often catch him out later on.  To be a competent liar, one has to have an excellent memory, and that's one thing—amongst many other mental attributes—that he lacks.

In previous threads, he's repeatedly told us that—as a continent—Antarctica doesn't exist (it's simply our misinterpretation of the flat earth "ice wall" and that it's unapproachable).  Now he's admitting that Antarctica does exist, and he's actually been there physically.  Although, surprisingly, he must've forgotten to take his camera, as he's unable to post any of the photos of the sort that any normal person would take during such an epic journey.

I'll be interested in seeing how sceptimatic responds to these claims—if he does, that is—but I'm also guessing he'll simply post a couple of lines of totally meaningless "excuses" or personal invective in an attempt to avoid providing any confirmatory evidence of his alleged visit to Antarctica.
 
—We'll see.   :P


Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 07, 2014, 06:19:28 AM
Finally slogged through that thread. It was mostly repetition with relatively little actual description of how or why things we can see in the sky behave. The "Ice Dome" idea presented is terribly incomplete, seems very poorly thought out, and no less preposterous - perhaps more, if that's possible - than the other FE ideas we've seen here. There is no plausible explanation for the apparent motion of the sun across the sky at all, much less sunrises and sunsets - at least not in that thread.

Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.

What you think of it is entirely up to you. That's the beauty about it all - you can decide.

Quote from: Daniel Patrick Moynihan
You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

What's the value in deciding something if it's wrong?

The Universe doesn't care what you (or I, or anyone else) think. You can think and wish with all your might that something should or will to happen, it won't have any effect on whether it happens or not. You can, however, try to understand what has happened in the past, what is happening now, and use what has been learned to make predictions about what will happen in the future. The value of this is how well the predictions work.

Quote
That's why I have an alternative thought, because the one given out - the one you adhere to, makes absolutely no sense at all when it's logically thought about - but can make sense to anyone that reads into fantasy and embraces that.

Where are the logical flaws in mainstream models for life, the Universe, and everything? Note: your simply not liking or not believing them - for whatever reason - is not a logical flaw.

They're mainstream not because some evil cabal is forcing them down our unwitting throats; they're mainstream because they explain what we see, and predict what hasn't happened yet very well.

So where, specifically, is a flaw in the heliocentric spheroidal-earth model? Pick any one you think you see. How does your model explain it better? What predictions can your model make that will be different than the mainstream model? Predictions that can only be tested in the distant future aren't particularly useful in discussions such as these.

Quote
The difference with mine is, it's not given out as any official model, it's merely a thought process that requires a lot of work, which I admit.

This is an advantage? "Given out as an official model", even if true, doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. See earlier comments about why mainstream is mainstream and useful predictions.

"Merely a thought process" devoid of actual observations and checks against reality is usually described as "arm waving", or, in some cases, "raving". It can be amusing to dream up, and to poke holes in, but has limited usefulness otherwise.

Since I asked you for an example of a flaw in the mainstream model, I'll describe what I see as a major shortcoming in yours:

Someone is in, say, New Orleans, Louisiana (approx. Lat 30 N, Lon 90 W) and watching the Sun as it moves across the sky on a summer afternoon until it sets to his west. You suggest what he sees as "the Sun" is actually a reflection of a big bright thing fixed at the center of a disk-like earth that doesn't move. The reflection is coming from a fixed dome that covers the entire earth-disk and holds in the "atmosphere". A similar observer in Jacksonville, Florida (approx. 30 N, 82 W) will have seen the Sun move similarly and set about a half-hour earlier.  If nothing is moving, how and why does the reflection move from east to west? How and why does it "set"? When it's setting in Jacksonville, how and why is it still higher in the sky in New Orleans?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 06:27:27 AM
Given that, and presuming he actually believed this stuff at the time, I can see why sceptimatic would be at a total loss how to tell where in the world he was without simply accepting his masters' word for it. If he had bothered to go outside and look around at all during his "six-month stay in Antarctica", he might have noticed the Sun appearing to move across the sky in the opposite direction it would in the far north. Oh well, missed opportunity, I guess; that or it's a complete fabrication.


Your latter assumption is the correct one.  Despite his totally unevidenced claim that he'd been to Antarctica on a secret research mission, and gathering samples of an unidentified nature, the whole thing was nothing more than a fabrication stemming from some kind of weird self-delusion on seceptimatic's part—or, as some would rightly say—a fabric of lies.

Unfortunately for sceptimatic, he's got a lousy memory, and his earlier lies often catch him out later on.  To be a competent liar, one has to have an excellent memory, and that's one thing—amongst many other mental attributes—that he lacks.

In previous threads, he's repeatedly told us that—as a continent—Antarctica doesn't exist (it's simply our misinterpretation of the flat earth "ice wall" and that it's unapproachable).  Now he's admitting that Antarctica does exist, and he's actually been there physically.  Although, surprisingly, he must've forgotten to take his camera, as he's unable to post any of the photos of the sort that any normal person would take during such an epic journey.

I'll be interested in seeing how sceptimatic responds to these claims—if he does, that is—but I'm also guessing he'll simply post a couple of lines of totally meaningless "excuses" or personal invective in an attempt to avoid providing any confirmatory evidence of his alleged visit to Antarctica.
 
—We'll see.   :P
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica. Your problem is, you make things up to suit your own needs.
You need to learn to absorb what people are saying before you pipe in with a foot in your mouth. 8)
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 06:45:37 AM
What's the value in deciding something if it's wrong?

The Universe doesn't care what you (or I, or anyone else) think. You can think and wish with all your might that something should or will to happen, it won't have any effect on whether it happens or not. You can, however, try to understand what has happened in the past, what is happening now, and use what has been learned to make predictions about what will happen in the future. The value of this is how well the predictions work.
There is no universe, it's in your mind. It's tehre because you are brainwashed to believe it's there because you only have your eyes as witness to what you are told is there.
The chances are that most people iniside Earth think like this, with very few actually knowing the real truth of it ALL, if they actually do know the truth of it all.
Not even I know the truth of it all but one thing I do know. We are not being told the entire truth or maybe even a quarter of it, yet this is why debates and questions are asked.
You can tell me anything till you're blue in the face but you are only using what you have been trained to use by process of brainwashing. This isn't a dig, because we are all brainwashed. It's just the severity of it which separates people.


Where are the logical flaws in mainstream models for life, the Universe, and everything? Note: your simply not liking or not believing them - for whatever reason - is not a logical flaw.
I won't go into it as it's been done before and this is a question and answer forum. All I will say is, gravity is a flaw which I've also explained in depth but won't explain in here.
There's may flaws, they are just rejected as being flaws because people have been taught to accept fantasy science.
They're mainstream not because some evil cabal is forcing them down our unwitting throats; they're mainstream because they explain what we see, and predict what hasn't happened yet very well.
Of course they explain what we see. We can be made to believe anything we see if we can't physically prove otherwise. Space being one prime example.
So where, specifically, is a flaw in the heliocentric spheroidal-earth model? Pick any one you think you see. How does your model explain it better? What predictions can your model make that will be different than the mainstream model? Predictions that can only be tested in the distant future aren't particularly useful in discussions such as these.
I'll pick one simple spherical flaw which, again, will be denied, naturally by using fantasy, but again, I will not discuss it in Q&A as this forum is too techy as to what constitutes what.
Anyway, oceans staying on Earth is a simple one.


This is an advantage? "Given out as an official model", even if true, doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. See earlier comments about why mainstream is mainstream and useful predictions.
Nobody is saying ALL mainstream science is wrong but much of it requires serious questioning, which is what I'm doing.
"Merely a thought process" devoid of actual observations and checks against reality is usually described as "arm waving", or, in some cases, "raving". It can be amusing to dream up, and to poke holes in, but has limited usefulness otherwise.
Of course I'm arm waving. I'm not armed with the tools to set anything out as anything but. To make something believable you have to have backing of people that are capable of selling it to the masses. It's still arm waving for them but it's not seen as that because it becomes a national or worldwide truth.
Since I asked you for an example of a flaw in the mainstream model, I'll describe what I see as a major shortcoming in yours:

Someone is in, say, New Orleans, Louisiana (approx. Lat 30 N, Lon 90 W) and watching the Sun as it moves across the sky on a summer afternoon until it sets to his west. You suggest what he sees as "the Sun" is actually a reflection of a big bright thing fixed at the center of a disk-like earth that doesn't move. The reflection is coming from a fixed dome that covers the entire earth-disk and holds in the "atmosphere". A similar observer in Jacksonville, Florida (approx. 30 N, 82 W) will have seen the Sun move similarly and set about a half-hour earlier.  If nothing is moving, how and why does the reflection move from east to west? How and why does it "set"? When it's setting in Jacksonville, how and why is it still higher in the sky in New Orleans?
I never said the central sun was static. You'll need to read up a bit more on what I have said. I won't explain it here.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 07, 2014, 06:55:10 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 07:15:47 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 07, 2014, 08:39:41 AM
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.

Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Nope. You see, if you haven't been all around the inner circle, once part can differ from another. You could be on one side, then sail around to the other and bear in mind it would be a fantastic circular distance to the other side of it, you could almost believe you had went over a globe to the south pole if you were naive.
In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!
It's only easy if you know what you're looking at when you're travelling from one side to another and because you are merely a dot on the circle, I doubt you would know anything at all.

You might be cocooned, but by no means is everyone. If you are, unless you're a complete invalid or involuntarily confined for some reason, its your own fault, so stop navel-gazing and whining about how everything we're told is a lie (everything, that is, except "everything we're told is a lie"), and do something!
In your home you're cocooned. In the street, you're cocooned in the street. Ina car driving you are cocooned and see only what's around your limited vision. In a plane is the same. On a boat is the same. Basically unless you go into your space and look over a globe, seeing north and south poles, you're cocooned. Now since space does not exist and is therefore impossible to be in, you are cocooned. No disability required.
Travel to Antarctica if you can afford it; it's expensive (but not hideously expensive), but can be done, and little there is "out of bounds" other than for logistical difficulties (which are significant).  Better yet, if you have a useful skill, get a job with a contractor or government agency that maintains and operates the facilities there and stay for a year or longer; they need tradesmen, professionals, and labor of all kinds as well as scientists and engineers.
Same thing applies to my earlier post.

 
If that's not practical (it's certainly not easy), go out and watch the stars.  Especially watch the stars for a few hours as they appear to circle the pole - that's easy and cheap.
From one side, that would be fine. Go around it and your perception has changed to the so called stars you see from that point.A full change of perspective.

  If you can, travel to the opposite hemisphere and watch a different set of stars circle the other pole - in the opposite direction. 
You can do that around the centre. You're getting mixed up with thinking that you could see the same thing from one side of the north pole to the other which your eyes would not allow, even with optics.

Or just sit around and complain how "they're trying to trick all of us." Boo-hoo. It's much easier.
I'm not complaining. There's nothing I can do about it. As long as I know I'm not being duped then I'm fine.

If you think about it, all we have here is the "we're told" whining again.  Your "what if" makes little sense, but should be easy enough to observe, if true. So go check it out for yourself. 
Like I said earlier.
[Edit] Fixed nested quotes. Removed gratuitous snarky comment.
Entirely up to you what comments you put in. They're all the same to me.  ;D

QFT.  It's not that we don't trust you, but...
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 07, 2014, 08:43:19 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You said you were there and gave a specific length of time. This was followed on the same line by the statement that you couldn't tell where you were. Why did you make the first statement if it wasn't what you meant? This doesn't look like a typing error; since you're retracting it now it must have been an intentional fabrication all along.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 08:57:51 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You said you were there and gave a specific length of time. This was followed on the same line by the statement that you couldn't tell where you were. Why did you make the first statement if it wasn't what you meant? This doesn't look like a typing error; since you're retracting it now it must have been an intentional fabrication all along.
Take it however you want to and think what you please. None of it has any bearing on my thoughts about what I said.



Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 07, 2014, 09:05:47 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You're the one twisting.  You said you were in Antarctica for 6 months.

Now you are saying you have no idea where you were for 6 months?  Are you sure this wasn't a dream?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 09:39:02 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You're the one twisting.  You said you were in Antarctica for 6 months.

Now you are saying you have no idea where you were for 6 months?  Are you sure this wasn't a dream?
I said I had no idea where I was in the first place, can't you absorb that?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 07, 2014, 09:45:45 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You said you were there and gave a specific length of time. This was followed on the same line by the statement that you couldn't tell where you were. Why did you make the first statement if it wasn't what you meant? This doesn't look like a typing error; since you're retracting it now it must have been an intentional fabrication all along.
Take it however you want to and think what you please. None of it has any bearing on my thoughts about what I said.
What you do say is all that matters here, and it clearly means nothing.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 07, 2014, 09:46:27 AM
Quote
I said I had no idea where I was

And you spent 6 months there?  Were you blindfolded and kidnapped?  How did you escape the icy wastes in the end?

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 09:56:36 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You said you were there and gave a specific length of time. This was followed on the same line by the statement that you couldn't tell where you were. Why did you make the first statement if it wasn't what you meant? This doesn't look like a typing error; since you're retracting it now it must have been an intentional fabrication all along.
Take it however you want to and think what you please. None of it has any bearing on my thoughts about what I said.
What you do say is all that matters here, and it clearly means nothing.
Ok, let's leave it at that. Don't beat yourself up over trivialities.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 10:01:04 AM
Quote
I said I had no idea where I was

And you spent 6 months there?  Were you blindfolded and kidnapped?  How did you escape the icy wastes in the end?
I was told I was going to Antarctica. I arrived on a place that I was told was Antarctica. There was no way of knowing how I got there. For instance, I dd not know if I was going around an inner circle or if I was going over and upside down on a globe. My senses told me I wasn't going upside down, so the globe was ruled out but then I didn't know if I was going to some inner rim  of an outer circle or an outer rim of an inner circle of ice.
All I know is, I walked on some land of ice and snow and hadn't a clue what it was.
Can you grasp it now?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2014, 10:55:00 AM
All I know is, I walked on some land of ice and snow and hadn't a clue what it was.
Which 6 months were you there?  How much daylight was there during those 6 months?  Did you see any polar bears or penguins?  Was there any night time while you were there?  If so, did  you look at the stars?  Why would you spend 6 moths at a place where you didn't know where you were?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 07, 2014, 10:55:36 AM
Quote
I said I had no idea where I was

And you spent 6 months there?  Were you blindfolded and kidnapped?  How did you escape the icy wastes in the end?
I was told I was going to Antarctica. I arrived on a place that I was told was Antarctica. There was no way of knowing how I got there. For instance, I dd not know if I was going around an inner circle or if I was going over and upside down on a globe. My senses told me I wasn't going upside down, so the globe was ruled out but then I didn't know if I was going to some inner rim  of an outer circle or an outer rim of an inner circle of ice.
All I know is, I walked on some land of ice and snow and hadn't a clue what it was.
Can you grasp it now?
I think I'll go along with this tall tale because, if true, what this story seems to say is you're terribly unobservant and apparently not real bright. You couldn't tell if you were traveling by ship, plane, or land vehicle, or were you drugged and simply dumped somewhere and told to do a job? If the latter, why did you cooperate with whoever did this to you? Why not try to investigate where you were for six months by, like, looking around? Were you at gunpoint the whole time?

Exactly which senses did you rely on to tell if you were "upside down on a globe"? If your feet are toward the ground and head toward the sky what would feel different? Hint: if you had looked at the skies you could easily tell if you were in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. By changes in the length of day and night you could tell what season it was (they're at different times of year in the north and south, in case you didn't know). This may have been too difficult for you to think of, though.

Are you sure what you said is what you think you said, or is it just more balderdash and you really meant something entirely different? As already noted, what you do say means nothing. But it can be amusing, so thanks for that.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 12:01:41 PM
All I know is, I walked on some land of ice and snow and hadn't a clue what it was.
Which 6 months were you there?  How much daylight was there during those 6 months?  Did you see any polar bears or penguins?  Was there any night time while you were there?  If so, did  you look at the stars?  Why would you spend 6 moths at a place where you didn't know where you were?
I spent 6 months at this place to study a lot of relevant stuff concerning what I do.
I did not see any Polar bears or penguins. I did look at the sky at but not in any scientific capacity. It was back in the 90's and I was a global brainwashed person so I had no need for questioning, until later on when I realised that I could have been anywhere and how would I know I was on a ball that was rotating.
If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 07, 2014, 12:12:17 PM
Quote
I said I had no idea where I was

And you spent 6 months there?  Were you blindfolded and kidnapped?  How did you escape the icy wastes in the end?
I was told I was going to Antarctica. I arrived on a place that I was told was Antarctica. There was no way of knowing how I got there. For instance, I dd not know if I was going around an inner circle or if I was going over and upside down on a globe. My senses told me I wasn't going upside down, so the globe was ruled out but then I didn't know if I was going to some inner rim  of an outer circle or an outer rim of an inner circle of ice.
All I know is, I walked on some land of ice and snow and hadn't a clue what it was.
Can you grasp it now?
I think I'll go along with this tall tale because, if true, what this story seems to say is you're terribly unobservant and apparently not real bright. You couldn't tell if you were traveling by ship, plane, or land vehicle, or were you drugged and simply dumped somewhere and told to do a job? If the latter, why did you cooperate with whoever did this to you? Why not try to investigate where you were for six months by, like, looking around? Were you at gunpoint the whole time?

Exactly which senses did you rely on to tell if you were "upside down on a globe"? If your feet are toward the ground and head toward the sky what would feel different? Hint: if you had looked at the skies you could easily tell if you were in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere. By changes in the length of day and night you could tell what season it was (they're at different times of year in the north and south, in case you didn't know). This may have been too difficult for you to think of, though.

Are you sure what you said is what you think you said, or is it just more balderdash and you really meant something entirely different? As already noted, what you do say means nothing. But it can be amusing, so thanks for that.
It's best to ask normal questions first to understand instead of going off on one.
I started off just like you. I just accepted a rotating Earth, I had no reason not to. It was only over time I started to believe the Earth wasn't spinning but in fact it was a globe that was stationary withthe stars and stuff going around it.

Yeah, you see, I went through all of this but didn't have any real inclination to fully question anything. I just went about my business experimenting for my business, which included tests in conditions all over the world.

My focus was primarily on my work not on stars or universes or suns, planets, etc.
Coming to this forum was the eye opener. It got me thinking more in depth. I don't even subscribe to a lot of what this forum stands for in many things, except the Earth is essentially sort of flat. I like to say "concave"...slightly.

The best way to go along with me is to be a bit more open minded and less of following the norm of the globalites in attempting (and always failing) ridicule.

Play me at this game and you will lose, always because I can soak it up like a sponge...a never ending sponge.
Play nice and I'll afford you the very same. ;D
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: hoppy on October 07, 2014, 01:49:32 PM
Scepti, is it too much to ask what you were workng on?. All over the world(Antarctica) whatever, why would you need to to those different places?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2014, 04:57:34 PM
If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
When you first got there, did you notice if the daylight hours seemed unusually long or were they seem unusually short?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sokarul on October 07, 2014, 05:15:13 PM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 07, 2014, 05:18:58 PM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Rama Set on October 07, 2014, 05:30:53 PM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You're the one twisting.  You said you were in Antarctica for 6 months.

Now you are saying you have no idea where you were for 6 months?  Are you sure this wasn't a dream?
I said I had no idea where I was in the first place, can't you absorb that?

In the first place, you said you were there for 6 months.  Implying you were there for 6 months.  You then modified this statement with "and I couldn't tell where I was."

So, if we are to rely on your testimony, you were there.  Like you said.  In the first place.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sokarul on October 07, 2014, 05:36:34 PM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
We don't need to argue about anything. Sceptic was never in Antarctica.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 08, 2014, 01:12:22 AM
Quote
I said I had no idea where I was

And you spent 6 months there?  Were you blindfolded and kidnapped?  How did you escape the icy wastes in the end?
I was told I was going to Antarctica. I arrived on a place that I was told was Antarctica. There was no way of knowing how I got there. For instance, I dd not know if I was going around an inner circle or if I was going over and upside down on a globe. My senses told me I wasn't going upside down, so the globe was ruled out but then I didn't know if I was going to some inner rim  of an outer circle or an outer rim of an inner circle of ice.
All I know is, I walked on some land of ice and snow and hadn't a clue what it was.
Can you grasp it now?
Not really, you sound completely deranged.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 03:14:41 AM
Scepti, is it too much to ask what you were workng on?. All over the world(Antarctica) whatever, why would you need to to those different places?
All I can say is, we needed certain minerals, etc to aid in various projects. These minerals are more abundant and cheaper in various parts of the world.
It was  drill/mining work and costly but worth it.
This was work undertaken for my fathers companies. It helped set me up solidly from that point on.
The other part of the team were on the research and innovative side.
Here's one thing I can tell you, let's see if anyone knows this on here.
Where I was based, (on what I was told was Antarctica, as being on the bottom (south) of a ball Earth, of which I don't know to this day where I was other than it was a place that allowed us to get the required minerals, etc)...we found that the energy we could produce from a machine we invented was 100 times more efficient than it can produce here.
Why?
Magnetism is the key.

There are companies on that base and further afield that are using our equipment to run massive machinery for a day using 1% of the fuel compared to a days usage here which uses 100% more.

I'll give you an example of one such fuel. A diesel generator inside a double shipping container normally has a fuel tank that holds around 2,000 litres of diesel.
The generator of ours fits inside a horse box with a fuel tank of 50 litres capacity that can run the equivalent of 30 fully functioning homes for 12 hours. Bear in mind that when I mean fully functioning homes, I mean a home using all of it's lighting sockets and appliances.

I can't go into the details of it all as it classified as to what and how, as you can understand.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 03:28:31 AM
If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
When you first got there, did you notice if the daylight hours seemed unusually long or were they seem unusually short?
It was day forever it seemed. I was actually amazed but it went on for a good while and I got so used to it that I started to get the blues when the daytime started to change.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 03:29:55 AM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
I was close to the coast.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 03:35:10 AM

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 


Quote
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
...

Quote
It's quite easy to respond. I have never, ever said I visited Antarctica.

You are losing track of your own lies.
No, I'm not but I've fixed your attempt at playing your game of twister.  ;D
You're the one twisting.  You said you were in Antarctica for 6 months.

Now you are saying you have no idea where you were for 6 months?  Are you sure this wasn't a dream?
I said I had no idea where I was in the first place, can't you absorb that?

In the first place, you said you were there for 6 months.  Implying you were there for 6 months.  You then modified this statement with "and I couldn't tell where I was."

So, if we are to rely on your testimony, you were there.  Like you said.  In the first place.
I was told it was Antarctica but the truth is I actually don't know what it was. I could have been taken anywhere that was ice and snow covered, apparently down under a ball when in truth I could have simply been going around a circle.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 03:37:33 AM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
We don't need to argue about anything. Sceptic was never in Antarctica.
I was told it was Antarctica. Maybe I was in Antarctica but not as the Antarctica we have come to believe. Maybe I went around a circle to the other side and not over and under a ball.
I can only go by what I was told was Antarctica.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 03:38:33 AM
Quote
I said I had no idea where I was

And you spent 6 months there?  Were you blindfolded and kidnapped?  How did you escape the icy wastes in the end?
I was told I was going to Antarctica. I arrived on a place that I was told was Antarctica. There was no way of knowing how I got there. For instance, I dd not know if I was going around an inner circle or if I was going over and upside down on a globe. My senses told me I wasn't going upside down, so the globe was ruled out but then I didn't know if I was going to some inner rim  of an outer circle or an outer rim of an inner circle of ice.
All I know is, I walked on some land of ice and snow and hadn't a clue what it was.
Can you grasp it now?
Not really, you sound completely deranged.
I wasn't aware that my typing made sounds. Do you have one of those speak and spell machines or something?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 08, 2014, 03:40:11 AM
scepti, you really need a job or a girlfriend or something.  Maybe a hobby which isn't "making up shit and typing it into random forums"
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 03:47:39 AM
scepti, you really need a job or a girlfriend or something.  Maybe a hobby which isn't "making up shit and typing it into random forums"
Terminators don't have girlfriends, silly.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 08, 2014, 04:48:43 AM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
We don't need to argue about anything. Sceptic was never in Antarctica.
I was told it was Antarctica. Maybe I was in Antarctica but not as the Antarctica we have come to believe. Maybe I went around a circle to the other side and not over and under a ball.
I can only go by what I was told was Antarctica.
What did GPS tell you?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 08, 2014, 06:10:36 AM
If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
When you first got there, did you notice if the daylight hours seemed unusually long or were they seem unusually short?
It was day forever it seemed. I was actually amazed but it went on for a good while and I got so used to it that I started to get the blues when the daytime started to change.
If the daylight seemed to last forever during February, then you were, indeed, in (or near) Antarctica.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 06:34:28 AM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
We don't need to argue about anything. Sceptic was never in Antarctica.
I was told it was Antarctica. Maybe I was in Antarctica but not as the Antarctica we have come to believe. Maybe I went around a circle to the other side and not over and under a ball.
I can only go by what I was told was Antarctica.
What did GPS tell you?
I didn't have GPS.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 06:40:17 AM
If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
When you first got there, did you notice if the daylight hours seemed unusually long or were they seem unusually short?
It was day forever it seemed. I was actually amazed but it went on for a good while and I got so used to it that I started to get the blues when the daytime started to change.
If the daylight seemed to last forever during February, then you were, indeed, in (or near) Antarctica.
I'm not doubting I was in a place called Antarctica, I'm saying that I could have been anywhere but where I was told Antarctica is on the map, as in, under the globe.
All I'm saying is, I could have travelled half way around the inner circle or to put it simpler, let's look at it another way.

I could have been on the so called north side of the north pole and went around it to the south side of the north pole for all I knew.
Anyway, I didn't actually take any notice of bearings at the time because I wasn't interested in questioning being on a globe at that time. It was only later that I thought about it in a sort or mild questioning way.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 08, 2014, 07:37:57 AM
I'm not doubting I was in a place called Antarctica, I'm saying that I could have been anywhere but where I was told Antarctica is on the map, as in, under the globe.
All I'm saying is, I could have travelled half way around the inner circle or to put it simpler, let's look at it another way.

I could have been on the so called north side of the north pole and went around it to the south side of the north pole for all I knew.
No.  The daylight conditions that you reported during February are consistent with what RET says that you should see during February in Antarctica.  If you had been in the Arctic, then RET says that it would have been dark all the time during February. 

Also, you mentioned drilling and mining.  Well, it seems to me that it should have been pretty obvious to someone as well educated as yourself to tell the if you were drilling through a floating ice cap or drilling through ice into solid ground.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2014, 10:24:06 AM
If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
When you first got there, did you notice if the daylight hours seemed unusually long or were they seem unusually short?
It was day forever it seemed. I was actually amazed but it went on for a good while and I got so used to it that I started to get the blues when the daytime started to change.
If the daylight seemed to last forever during February, then you were, indeed, in (or near) Antarctica.
I'm not doubting I was in a place called Antarctica, I'm saying that I could have been anywhere but where I was told Antarctica is on the map, as in, under the globe.
All I'm saying is, I could have travelled half way around the inner circle or to put it simpler, let's look at it another way.

I could have been on the so called north side of the north pole and went around it to the south side of the north pole for all I knew.
Anyway, I didn't actually take any notice of bearings at the time because I wasn't interested in questioning being on a globe at that time. It was only later that I thought about it in a sort or mild questioning way.

Under the globe means nothing.  Top/bottom and up/down are only relative ideas when talking about global position. But then you know that.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 10:31:19 AM
I'm not doubting I was in a place called Antarctica, I'm saying that I could have been anywhere but where I was told Antarctica is on the map, as in, under the globe.
All I'm saying is, I could have travelled half way around the inner circle or to put it simpler, let's look at it another way.

I could have been on the so called north side of the north pole and went around it to the south side of the north pole for all I knew.
No.  The daylight conditions that you reported during February are consistent with what RET says that you should see during February in Antarctica.  If you had been in the Arctic, then RET says that it would have been dark all the time during February. 

Also, you mentioned drilling and mining.  Well, it seems to me that it should have been pretty obvious to someone as well educated as yourself to tell the if you were drilling through a floating ice cap or drilling through ice into solid ground.
The drilling through ground told me nothing of where I was on Earth. As I said, I could have been on the opposite side of the inner ice covered land circle known to us as the north pole but equally could be the south of the north pole as you go around it.
I'm just a dot on Earth.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 08, 2014, 10:32:43 AM
If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
When you first got there, did you notice if the daylight hours seemed unusually long or were they seem unusually short?
It was day forever it seemed. I was actually amazed but it went on for a good while and I got so used to it that I started to get the blues when the daytime started to change.
If the daylight seemed to last forever during February, then you were, indeed, in (or near) Antarctica.
I'm not doubting I was in a place called Antarctica, I'm saying that I could have been anywhere but where I was told Antarctica is on the map, as in, under the globe.
All I'm saying is, I could have travelled half way around the inner circle or to put it simpler, let's look at it another way.

I could have been on the so called north side of the north pole and went around it to the south side of the north pole for all I knew.
Anyway, I didn't actually take any notice of bearings at the time because I wasn't interested in questioning being on a globe at that time. It was only later that I thought about it in a sort or mild questioning way.

Under the globe means nothing.  Top/bottom and up/down are only relative ideas when talking about global position. But then you know that.
Exactly and understand that when I went, I wasn't interested in any of this stuff, only the experiments.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2014, 11:35:02 AM
Then why are you raising being "under the globe" as a meaningless objection, by your own admission?

A genius can surely follow their own train of thought I hope ;)
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 08, 2014, 01:16:14 PM
Is there any valid reason as to why sceptimatic has been allowed to continue this silly fairy story of his by the moderators?  It reads like a Monty Python script (or a Goons script for the oldies LOL).

If any round earther were trying to keep this comedic farrago alive, it would've been jumped on pages ago.  And as we've been reminded numerous times by jroa, this forum is intended to be solely for Q&As regarding the flat earth, and not a "normal" debating forum.

So... I have a legitimate question:  Why is sceptimatic permitted to flood these forums with his pseudo-scientific, fictional, mindless drivel?  Is he merely tolerated as the village idiot, or the court jester maybe?

—Can someone please tell me?

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 08, 2014, 01:34:22 PM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
We don't need to argue about anything. Sceptic was never in Antarctica.
I was told it was Antarctica. Maybe I was in Antarctica but not as the Antarctica we have come to believe. Maybe I went around a circle to the other side and not over and under a ball.
I can only go by what I was told was Antarctica.
What did GPS tell you?
I didn't have GPS.
How inconvenient.  How do you know where you are wherever you are?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2014, 01:51:00 PM
Is there any valid reason as to why sceptimatic has been allowed to continue this silly fairy story of his by the moderators?  It reads like a Monty Python script (or a Goons script for the oldies LOL).

If any round earther were trying to keep this comedic farrago alive, it would've been jumped on pages ago.  And as we've been reminded numerous times by jroa, this forum is intended to be solely for Q&As regarding the flat earth, and not a "normal" debating forum.

So... I have a legitimate question:  Why is sceptimatic permitted to flood these forums with his pseudo-scientific, fictional, mindless drivel?  Is he merely tolerated as the village idiot, or the court jester maybe?

—Can someone please tell me?

It is like a scale.  If you go, he goes.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 08, 2014, 02:15:06 PM
It is like a scale.  If you go, he goes.


Ahh... my dear stalker is back!    ;D

If I were to go, the genuine round earth population posting here would be diminished by around 10 per cent.  And that's not including quasi-round earthers such as yourself my friend.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sokarul on October 08, 2014, 06:06:47 PM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
We don't need to argue about anything. Sceptic was never in Antarctica.
I was told it was Antarctica. Maybe I was in Antarctica but not as the Antarctica we have come to believe. Maybe I went around a circle to the other side and not over and under a ball.
I can only go by what I was told was Antarctica.
Well from February to July Antarctica would have short days. It would not have been 24 hour light. So unless you were masturbating there all by yourself someone you were with who had half a brain would notice it was light when it was supposed to be dark.
Next time try not to be so stupid when trolling.

Hope this answers your question.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 08, 2014, 07:37:57 PM
The drilling through ground told me nothing of where I was on Earth.
Then you obviously know nothing about drilling or mining.

As I said, I could have been on the opposite side of the inner ice covered land circle known to us as the north pole but equally could be the south of the north pole as you go around it.
No.  There are huge differences between the Arctic regions and Antarctica.  Among other things, the north polar ice cap is just that, a large sheet of ice floating in the ocean.  It should be pretty easy to figure out that if you drilled through the ice and hit water instead of dirt, then you were in the Arctic. 
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 08, 2014, 09:46:16 PM
There are huge differences between the Arctic regions and Antarctica.  Among other things, the north polar ice cap is just that, a large sheet of ice floating in the ocean.  It should be pretty easy to figure out that if you drilled through the ice and hit water instead of dirt, then you were in the Arctic.
 

Haha... I'm sure this fact will come as a complete surprise for our resident dullard. 

The funny thing is that firstly he assured us he had been to Antarctica;  now he says he doesn't know exactly where he was—within a 13,000km distance!  But that he was collecting unspecified "samples" for an unnamed agency, and for an undisclosed reason.  Top secret stuff.  All without any scientific qualifications at all.

Hmmm... that sounds perfectly reasonable LOL.


Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 12:17:01 AM

If I recall correctly, I think I was there from February to the middle of July.
Would be pretty tough to leave Antarctica in July when there wouldn't be a flight out until October.
Unless he was at one of the stations closer to the coast.
We don't need to argue about anything. Sceptic was never in Antarctica.
I was told it was Antarctica. Maybe I was in Antarctica but not as the Antarctica we have come to believe. Maybe I went around a circle to the other side and not over and under a ball.
I can only go by what I was told was Antarctica.
Well from February to July Antarctica would have short days. It would not have been 24 hour light. So unless you were masturbating there all by yourself someone you were with who had half a brain would notice it was light when it was supposed to be dark.
Next time try not to be so stupid when trolling.

Hope this answers your question.
No it doesn't. When I was there in the early part of the year it was daylight at midnight. How about you getting a brain because it's clear you haven't been there.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 12:27:10 AM
Then you obviously know nothing about drilling or mining.
Says the worlds leading expert on everything.  ::)
No.  There are huge differences between the Arctic regions and Antarctica.  Among other things, the north polar ice cap is just that, a large sheet of ice floating in the ocean.  It should be pretty easy to figure out that if you drilled through the ice and hit water instead of dirt, then you were in the Arctic.
Who's on about a polar ice cap?
You need to get to grips with what I'm telling you before you simply jump in and telling me about large ice sheets and what not.
You have never been there to any of these places so you don't really have a clue what you are talking about to be honest.

I've already told you my thoughts on why things may not be what we have been told. Simply landing on a piece of land edge with ice and snow does not give you any real knowledge of where you actually are.
It certainly doesn't give you any thoughts of being on a globe that's for sure, in fact I'd say quite the opposite.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 02:50:23 AM
Then you obviously know nothing about drilling or mining.
Says the worlds leading expert on everything.  ::)
No.  There are huge differences between the Arctic regions and Antarctica.  Among other things, the north polar ice cap is just that, a large sheet of ice floating in the ocean.  It should be pretty easy to figure out that if you drilled through the ice and hit water instead of dirt, then you were in the Arctic.
Who's on about a polar ice cap?
You need to get to grips with what I'm telling you before you simply jump in and telling me about large ice sheets and what not.
You have never been there to any of these places so you don't really have a clue what you are talking about to be honest.

I've already told you my thoughts on why things may not be what we have been told. Simply landing on a piece of land edge with ice and snow does not give you any real knowledge of where you actually are.
It certainly doesn't give you any thoughts of being on a globe that's for sure, in fact I'd say quite the opposite.
Measured distances confirm a round earth.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 06:07:52 AM
Then you obviously know nothing about drilling or mining.
Says the worlds leading expert on everything.  ::)
No.  There are huge differences between the Arctic regions and Antarctica.  Among other things, the north polar ice cap is just that, a large sheet of ice floating in the ocean.  It should be pretty easy to figure out that if you drilled through the ice and hit water instead of dirt, then you were in the Arctic.
Who's on about a polar ice cap?
You need to get to grips with what I'm telling you before you simply jump in and telling me about large ice sheets and what not.
You have never been there to any of these places so you don't really have a clue what you are talking about to be honest.

I've already told you my thoughts on why things may not be what we have been told. Simply landing on a piece of land edge with ice and snow does not give you any real knowledge of where you actually are.
It certainly doesn't give you any thoughts of being on a globe that's for sure, in fact I'd say quite the opposite.
Measured distances confirm a round earth.
What physically measured distances are these?... and who done the measuring?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 09, 2014, 06:29:01 AM
No.  There are huge differences between the Arctic regions and Antarctica.  Among other things, the north polar ice cap is just that, a large sheet of ice floating in the ocean.  It should be pretty easy to figure out that if you drilled through the ice and hit water instead of dirt, then you were in the Arctic.
Who's on about a polar ice cap?
You need to get to grips with what I'm telling you before you simply jump in and telling me about large ice sheets and what not.
You have never been there to any of these places so you don't really have a clue what you are talking about to be honest.

I've already told you my thoughts on why things may not be what we have been told. Simply landing on a piece of land edge with ice and snow does not give you any real knowledge of where you actually are.
It certainly doesn't give you any thoughts of being on a globe that's for sure, in fact I'd say quite the opposite.
Wow, Scepti.  This level of willful ignorance is staggering, even for you.  You're right, simply landing somewhere doesn't necessarily tell you much about where you are.  But, there are other clues that can give you an idea of where you are.  Granted, I've never been to Antarctica, but your own personal testimony about the amount of daylight that you personally witnessed during February is consistent with the testimony of the countless people who have been (or at least claim to have been) to Antarctica.  On the other hand, people who live or have been to the Arctic claim that there is little to no daylight at all during February.  Based on this one clue alone, which pole do you think that you were closer to?  Or do you think that they may have been lying to you about it being February?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 06:45:49 AM
No.  There are huge differences between the Arctic regions and Antarctica.  Among other things, the north polar ice cap is just that, a large sheet of ice floating in the ocean.  It should be pretty easy to figure out that if you drilled through the ice and hit water instead of dirt, then you were in the Arctic.
Who's on about a polar ice cap?
You need to get to grips with what I'm telling you before you simply jump in and telling me about large ice sheets and what not.
You have never been there to any of these places so you don't really have a clue what you are talking about to be honest.

I've already told you my thoughts on why things may not be what we have been told. Simply landing on a piece of land edge with ice and snow does not give you any real knowledge of where you actually are.
It certainly doesn't give you any thoughts of being on a globe that's for sure, in fact I'd say quite the opposite.
Wow, Scepti.  This level of willful ignorance is staggering, even for you.  You're right, simply landing somewhere doesn't necessarily tell you much about where you are.  But, there are other clues that can give you an idea of where you are.  Granted, I've never been to Antarctica, but your own personal testimony about the amount of daylight that you personally witnessed during February is consistent with the testimony of the countless people who have been (or at least claim to have been) to Antarctica.  On the other hand, people who live or have been to the Arctic claim that there is little to no daylight at all during February.  Based on this one clue alone, which pole do you think that you were closer to?  Or do you think that they may have been lying to you about it being February?
You are not allowing yourself to understand what I'm saying.

I'm simply saying that I could very well be on a circle Earth with what I'm told is Antarctica being a land mass on the south (to what we are told) side whilst the north side is the ( what we are told) arctic.

Look at it from my point of view of just one so called pole, kind of thing, only on a much bigger scale, so being on one side you will see a much different climate to the other side, hence the difference with the sun...and you know where the sun is in my model, right?

Anyway, that's all I'm basically saying. It would change nothing as far as navigation is concerned because it would be the same appearance as the dupe of a globe, except you aren't going down under or up over, just around.

If you can't grasp what I'm on about then I'll try and explain it better with one of my (should be in an art gallery) diagrams.  ;D
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 09, 2014, 07:12:22 AM
Simply landing on a piece of land edge with ice and snow does not give you any real knowledge of where you actually are.

Well, that combined with...
When I was there in the early part of the year it was daylight at midnight.
... does (or at least can, if you'll let it) tell you a lot.

I think you said you arrived in February. Was the Sun up 24 hours a day in the earliest parts of your visit, or was it twilight for part of the time then? If it was 24-hr sunlight, do you know approximately the date the Sun first touched or went below the horizon?

You were on a coastline, I think (is that what "land edge" means here?) Were there mountains, or was the dry or ice-covered land generally flat, or somewhere between? By "mountains", I mean Alpine Peaks - high, jagged ones.

Did you arrive by ship, air, or overland? I asked this a couple days ago and got little more in response than a lecture about how I should not ridicule you.

It certainly doesn't give you me any thoughts of being on a globe that's for sure, in fact I'd say quite the opposite.
FTFY.

Really? None at all?

The sun traveling a tilted circle in the sky, lowest directly south until it ducks below the horizon doesn't suggest exactly that? OK. For you maybe. For me it absolutely does, which is why I resent the second-person pronoun in your quote.

How about you getting a brain because it's clear you haven't been there.

This quote wasn't addressed to me and doesn't apply since I was in Antarctica in the early part of the year, but how this relates to anyone "having a brain" is not clear. What was that you were requesting about ridicule?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 07:29:58 AM
I think you said you arrived in February. Was the Sun up 24 hours a day in the earliest parts of your visit, or was it twilight for part of the time then? If it was 24-hr sunlight, do you know approximately the date the Sun first touched or went below the horizon?
It's sketchy but from my memory it appeared like it was day, forever. I can't recall how long it lasted but it was a while. Remember I'm trying a recall here and I also didn't exactly document the sun or anything as that wasn't my goal.
You were on a coastline, I think (is that what "land edge" means here?) Were there mountains, or was the dry or ice-covered land generally flat, or somewhere between? By "mountains", I mean Alpine Peaks - high, jagged ones.
Sort of, yes - in the distance.
Did you arrive by ship, air, or overland? I asked this a couple days ago and got little more in response than a lecture about how I should not ridicule you.
Air, then ship, then helicopter.

The sun traveling a tilted circle in the sky, lowest directly south until it ducks below the horizon doesn't suggest exactly that? OK. For you maybe. For me it absolutely does, which is why I resent the second-person pronoun in your quote.
Nope - it didn't suggest anything like a rotating globe, at all.


This quote wasn't addressed to me and doesn't apply since I was in Antarctica in the early part of the year, but how this relates to anyone "having a brain" is not clear. What was that you were requesting about ridicule?
Correct, it wasn't addressed to you and if you look at who I quoted you will see I was simply returning the favour, one which I would gladly return to you if you decide to be clever.
In future just respond to me with what's on your mind. No need to stick up for others, I'm quite sure they can all manage that themselves.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 09, 2014, 07:43:04 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 07:55:38 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 09, 2014, 08:39:40 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
You should have checked on a GPS.

It sounds like you were on a lot of very strong drugs at the time though, considering how hazy the whole escapade is....
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 08:59:50 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 09:27:58 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 09, 2014, 09:52:19 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 10:03:20 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
How long is it going to take you people to actually think about what I've said?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 10:09:10 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
How long is it going to take you people to actually think about what I've said?
You are saying the person that took you to that place was lying.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 10:19:02 AM
You are saying the person that took you to that place was lying.
If I thought that I would say it, but no, I'm not.
If 10,000 people went with me I would accept that they all thought we were going over and under a globe. I mean, why shouldn't they if they are not questioning it?

What I'm saying is, people can harp on as much as they want and they wouldn't have a clue that they were travelling to Antarctica "under a globe"...they would simply assume that, because that's what they were told.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 10:21:39 AM
You are saying the person that took you to that place was lying.
If I thought that I would say it, but no, I'm not.
If 10,000 people went with me I would accept that they all thought we were going over and under a globe. I mean, why shouldn't they if they are not questioning it?

What I'm saying is, people can harp on as much as they want and they wouldn't have a clue that they were travelling to Antarctica "under a globe"...they would simply assume that, because that's what they were told.
Despite all the knowledge and training for navigation being based on a round earth.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 09, 2014, 10:23:30 AM
inquisitive, this is not a debate forum.  If you don't have a flat Earth question or answer, please refrain from posting.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 10:27:13 AM
inquisitive, this is not a debate forum.  If you don't have a flat Earth question or answer, please refrain from posting.  Thanks.
Where can I find proven distances between major cities that are consistent with a flat earth?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 09, 2014, 10:29:54 AM
inquisitive, this is not a debate forum.  If you don't have a flat Earth question or answer, please refrain from posting.  Thanks.
Where can I find proven distances between major cities that are consistent with a flat earth?

Do I look like a road guide?  Maybe you could try google for yourself for a change? 
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 10:41:18 AM
inquisitive, this is not a debate forum.  If you don't have a flat Earth question or answer, please refrain from posting.  Thanks.
Where can I find proven distances between major cities that are consistent with a flat earth?

Do I look like a road guide?  Maybe you could try google for yourself for a change?
For ones that prove a flat earth?  All distances are consistent with a round earth, eg. Cape Town to Perth.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 09, 2014, 10:50:39 AM
This is not a debate forum, inquisitive.  Please post in the appropriate forum.  Thanks. 
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 11:06:34 AM
This is not a debate forum, inquisitive.  Please post in the appropriate forum.  Thanks.
I asked a question about distances and look forward to the answer.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 09, 2014, 11:07:19 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
How long is it going to take you people to actually think about what I've said?

When you start thinking before you type maybe?
Did you not say that you knew where you were after getting off a bus because there was a sign telling you?  How is that different if there was a sign telling you in Antarctica?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 09, 2014, 11:25:41 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
How long is it going to take you people to actually think about what I've said?

When you start thinking before you type maybe?
Did you not say that you knew where you were after getting off a bus because there was a sign telling you?  How is that different if there was a sign telling you in Antarctica?
Because I'm not questioning what a place is called, I'm questioning where that place actually is.

I'll tell you what. I'll stick you on a plane and send you to Antarctica from where you live. You tell me how you will know for sure that you are going under a globe, based on simply travelling as an observer of leisure.


Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 09, 2014, 11:45:51 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
How long is it going to take you people to actually think about what I've said?

When you start thinking before you type maybe?
Did you not say that you knew where you were after getting off a bus because there was a sign telling you?  How is that different if there was a sign telling you in Antarctica?
Because I'm not questioning what a place is called, I'm questioning where that place actually is.

I'll tell you what. I'll stick you on a plane and send you to Antarctica from where you live. You tell me how you will know for sure that you are going under a globe, based on simply travelling as an observer of leisure.
But why would you believe a sign saying what a place is called but not a sign telling you where a place is at?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: inquisitive on October 09, 2014, 11:51:25 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
How long is it going to take you people to actually think about what I've said?

When you start thinking before you type maybe?
Did you not say that you knew where you were after getting off a bus because there was a sign telling you?  How is that different if there was a sign telling you in Antarctica?
Because I'm not questioning what a place is called, I'm questioning where that place actually is.

I'll tell you what. I'll stick you on a plane and send you to Antarctica from where you live. You tell me how you will know for sure that you are going under a globe, based on simply travelling as an observer of leisure.
GPS will tell me my location.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 09, 2014, 11:56:33 AM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
And I'm asking why you would think that you were anywhere but where they told you that you were?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 09, 2014, 12:46:26 PM
Scepti, if someone tells you that they're sending you to Antarctica to do some research and everything that you see and experience is consistent with what Antarctica is supposed to be like, then why should you think that you were anywhere but Antarctica?
I have no problem with being told I went to a place called Antarctica. I'm questioning where I actually went to, on the Earth. This is what I'm saying.
Do you have the same problem when you go on a bus?
No, because I know exactly where I'm going on a bus. Why? Because it's sign posted if it's over distance or by knowing where I'm at if it's more local.

Is this the best you can do?

So you believe what you are told if it is written on a sign?  So if a sign was posted saying "You are here" with a big arrow on a globe pointing to Antarctica, you would believe that the world is a globe and that you were in Antarctica?
How long is it going to take you people to actually think about what I've said?

When you start thinking before you type maybe?
Did you not say that you knew where you were after getting off a bus because there was a sign telling you?  How is that different if there was a sign telling you in Antarctica?
Because I'm not questioning what a place is called, I'm questioning where that place actually is.

I'll tell you what. I'll stick you on a plane and send you to Antarctica from where you live. You tell me how you will know for sure that you are going under a globe, based on simply travelling as an observer of leisure.

BJ - TAKE HIM UP ON IT!  It sounds like it would be a great trip! And easy enough to tell where you are on the globe, to meet the conditions of passage.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 09, 2014, 01:10:11 PM
I think you said you arrived in February. Was the Sun up 24 hours a day in the earliest parts of your visit, or was it twilight for part of the time then? If it was 24-hr sunlight, do you know approximately the date the Sun first touched or went below the horizon?
It's sketchy but from my memory it appeared like it was day, forever. I can't recall how long it lasted but it was a while. Remember I'm trying a recall here and I also didn't exactly document the sun or anything as that wasn't my goal.
You were on a coastline, I think (is that what "land edge" means here?) Were there mountains, or was the dry or ice-covered land generally flat, or somewhere between? By "mountains", I mean Alpine Peaks - high, jagged ones.
Sort of, yes - in the distance.
Did you arrive by ship, air, or overland? I asked this a couple days ago and got little more in response than a lecture about how I should not ridicule you.
Air, then ship, then helicopter.

The sun traveling a tilted circle in the sky, lowest directly south until it ducks below the horizon doesn't suggest exactly that? OK. For you maybe. For me it absolutely does, which is why I resent the second-person pronoun in your quote.
Nope - it didn't suggest anything like a rotating globe, at all.


This quote wasn't addressed to me and doesn't apply since I was in Antarctica in the early part of the year, but how this relates to anyone "having a brain" is not clear. What was that you were requesting about ridicule?
Correct, it wasn't addressed to you and if you look at who I quoted you will see I was simply returning the favour, one which I would gladly return to you if you decide to be clever.
In future just respond to me with what's on your mind. No need to stick up for others, I'm quite sure they can all manage that themselves.

"Air, then ship, then helicopter."

Thanks. Where did you board the ship (country and city, or, if already in Antarctica, which base)? Where did you board the flight that got you there? How long was the flight? What kind of ship (icebreaker, trawler, container ship, etc.)? How long did it take to travel aboard this ship to where you boarded the helicopter (weeks, days, hours if you don't have anything more accurate)? Were you always (or mostly) in sight of land? How long did you fly by helicopter? What kind of helicopter (piston, turbojet, etc.)?

These things can tell you a lot about how and where you're traveling if you pay attention.

"In future just respond to me with what's on your mind."

In the future, please don't tell me what to post and what not to post. Thanks!
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sokarul on October 09, 2014, 02:47:49 PM
No it doesn't. When I was there in the early part of the year it was daylight at midnight. How about you getting a brain because it's clear you haven't been there.
You would have been at around 75 degrees or more south. No too many places you could have been. Then yes you could have 24 hour sun when you got there and by the time you left you would be in 24 hour darkness. Didn't feel the need to point that out?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 10, 2014, 06:03:06 AM
Guys..... as sceptimatic has again managed to take this thread way off topic, I think it's time to ignore any further comments he posts.  His primary aim is to make all these threads about him and his opinions—bizarre as they are LOL.

Let's try and get back on topic.

So... The OP, sockless74, posted "Now all that [about Antarctica] being said, I of course haven't been to Antarctica or sailed around it and I don't know anyone who has. So all the stories and photos online could be fake, conspiracy, etc etc... But this is one of the main areas that I am stuck on in accepting the flat Earth model and so far no one has explained it well enough that I am convinced.

sceptimatic shortly thereafter said "I was there [Antarctica] as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice".

Maybe the flat earthers should be attempting to address the OP's questions, rather than letting sceptimatic waffle on with his usual absurd, incoherent pseudo-scientific drivel?

Namely, sailing around Antarctica from the Australian side and being on the South American side; taking a compass with you to verify that you're really at the southernmost point on the earth; not noticing that the coastline of Antarctica is so much shorter than predicted by FE theory (11,000 miles versus 78,000 miles); how is it that you can take a tourist  excursion to the South Pole with numerous companies; why are there are no former ice wall "guards" or currently serving guards talking about there experiences;  no soldiers talking about it in their military experience;  no actual proof of any sort for  an ice wall that is 150 feet high.

—And we all know that sceptimatic has never been to Antarctica, so we can safely ignore any future bullshit from that source LOL.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: 29silhouette on October 10, 2014, 11:24:05 AM
You are saying the person that took you to that place was lying.
If I thought that I would say it, but no, I'm not.
If 10,000 people went with me I would accept that they all thought we were going over and under a globe. I mean, why shouldn't they if they are not questioning it?

What I'm saying is, people can harp on as much as they want and they wouldn't have a clue that they were travelling to Antarctica "under a globe"...they would simply assume that, because that's what they were told.
I'm curious here Scepti, if the globe has gravity which holds people against the surface, which results in a person at any one place on that globe being 'right side up', then how does one expect to feel like they're 'under' that globe?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 10, 2014, 01:01:42 PM
You are saying the person that took you to that place was lying.
If I thought that I would say it, but no, I'm not.
If 10,000 people went with me I would accept that they all thought we were going over and under a globe. I mean, why shouldn't they if they are not questioning it?

What I'm saying is, people can harp on as much as they want and they wouldn't have a clue that they were travelling to Antarctica "under a globe"...they would simply assume that, because that's what they were told.
I'm curious here Scepti, if the globe has gravity which holds people against the surface, which results in a person at any one place on that globe being 'right side up', then how does one expect to feel like they're 'under' that globe?
I don't think a globe has gravity, I don't subscribe at all to a globe, or gravity, as you well know but here's something for you.
Why do they say Australia is down under?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 10, 2014, 01:14:43 PM
I'm curious here Scepti, if the globe has gravity which holds people against the surface, which results in a person at any one place on that globe being 'right side up', then how does one expect to feel like they're 'under' that globe?
I don't think a globe has gravity, I don't subscribe at all to a globe, or gravity...
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 10, 2014, 01:17:36 PM
I'm curious here Scepti, if the globe has gravity which holds people against the surface, which results in a person at any one place on that globe being 'right side up', then how does one expect to feel like they're 'under' that globe?
I don't think a globe has gravity, I don't subscribe at all to a globe, or gravity...
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Rama Set on October 10, 2014, 02:05:51 PM
You are just resorting to petty pedantry now?  How sad. In regards to the nickname "Doen Under", it is a metaphor that makes sense if you are looking at a globe, not if you are actually inhabiting the space. But you know that, you are just pretending you are the Pied Piper.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: markjo on October 10, 2014, 07:01:28 PM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 11, 2014, 02:29:58 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 11, 2014, 05:41:12 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 11, 2014, 06:26:32 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 11, 2014, 06:28:41 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 11, 2014, 06:30:51 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 11, 2014, 06:50:53 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: 29silhouette on October 11, 2014, 09:16:34 AM
Scepti, what if there was a big globe that attracted matter towards it's surface, resulting in a person being right-side-up at any give spot anywhere on it's surface, how would a person expect to feel as though they were underneath this globe if they traveled to a region opposite from where they originated?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on October 11, 2014, 09:19:53 AM
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
It's not an assumption, you just stated as much:

Quote
How about you tell me what it means
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 11, 2014, 10:02:33 AM
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?


Very valid question.  At various times on these forums, sceptimatic has claimed to have thirteen academic qualifications; to be a research scientists; to be a world-renowned inventor; to have numerous patents for things that we all use every day; to be a "genius" (IQ=125+); to be currently carrying out an expensive experiment with several other scientists; to have travelled to Antarctica; to travel frequently to North Korea at the behest of their government etc.

Strangely though, his abilities [sic] of researching even simple stuff like the meanings of words seem to desert him at crucial moments.

I wonder why?    ;D

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 11, 2014, 10:16:23 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 11, 2014, 10:21:06 AM
Scepti, what if there was a big globe that attracted matter towards it's surface, resulting in a person being right-side-up at any give spot anywhere on it's surface, how would a person expect to feel as though they were underneath this globe if they traveled to a region opposite from where they originated?
Then I would have to re-evaluate my thinking. My first thought would be " how could I not be crushed into a ball by this gravity when it attracts the oceans and stops them falling off.
I'd also be curius about the so called poles not spinning and wondering how this force works very similar to the equator, etc.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 11, 2014, 10:24:08 AM
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?


Very valid question.  At various times on these forums, sceptimatic has claimed to have thirteen academic qualifications; to be a research scientists; to be a world-renowned inventor; to have numerous patents for things that we all use every day; to be a "genius" (IQ=125+); to be currently carrying out an expensive experiment with several other scientists; to have travelled to Antarctica; to travel frequently to North Korea at the behest of their government etc.

Strangely though, his abilities [sic] of researching even simple stuff like the meanings of words seem to desert him at crucial moments.

I wonder why?    ;D
Quite easily, Geoffrey. It's due to people like you making stuff up to suit your own needs; but let's not dwell on this as this is the Q&A forum. This topic should really be moved to the debate section or general to be honest.
Until it does, I will refrain from posting on it because it's getting lost.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 11, 2014, 10:26:03 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
So tell me, does the question asked change at all between starting with "what if" or just "if"?
If so, how?  Please enlighten us.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 11, 2014, 10:27:24 AM
I'd also be curious about the so called poles not spinning and wondering how this force works very similar to the equator, etc.


Maybe it's not a "force", but rather denpressure?  After all, according to you, denpressure explains more correctly all the previously-held beliefs of physics and mechanics, and which you've claimed to be erroneous.

Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 11, 2014, 10:29:01 AM
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?


Very valid question.  At various times on these forums, sceptimatic has claimed to have thirteen academic qualifications; to be a research scientists; to be a world-renowned inventor; to have numerous patents for things that we all use every day; to be a "genius" (IQ=125+); to be currently carrying out an expensive experiment with several other scientists; to have travelled to Antarctica; to travel frequently to North Korea at the behest of their government etc.

Strangely though, his abilities [sic] of researching even simple stuff like the meanings of words seem to desert him at crucial moments.

I wonder why?    ;D
Quite easily, Geoffrey. It's due to people like you me making stuff up to suit your my own needs; but let's not dwell on this as this is the Q&A forum. This topic should really be moved to the debate section or general to be honest.
Until it does, I will refrain from posting on it because it'sI'm getting lost.

FTFY
You make it too easy Scepti ;D
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 11, 2014, 10:40:33 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
So tell me, does the question asked change at all between starting with "what if" or just "if"?
If so, how?  Please enlighten us.
Work it out.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Alpha2Omega on October 11, 2014, 11:07:04 AM
Scepti, what if there was a big globe that attracted matter towards it's surface, resulting in a person being right-side-up at any give spot anywhere on it's surface, how would a person expect to feel as though they were underneath this globe if they traveled to a region opposite from where they originated?
Then I would have to re-evaluate my thinking. My first thought would be " how could I not be crushed into a ball by this gravity when it attracts the oceans and stops them falling off.
I'd also be curius about the so called poles not spinning and wondering how this force works very similar to the equator, etc.

Well, that's a start. Are you wondering why gravitational attraction of the particles that make up your own body wouldn't force it to a spherical shape, or why the attraction between your body and the Earth wouldn't crush you into a puddle (it wouldn't be a "ball")? The answer to either is, simply, that the strength of the forces aren't enough to do so. The mutual gravitational attraction of your own mass is minuscule compared to the mass required to overcome the shear strength of the bones and other tissue you're made of. Your bones are strong enough that you can stand up and support your body's weight, regardless if this weight is due to gravity or an upward acceleration of the Earth itself (or something else).  I'm not sure what the oceans have to do with this - they're really, really massive, so the force to hold them to the Earth must be super-duper strong? If that's it, well the force acting on large masses (like the ocean) is strong because they're massive. The force acting on a small mass is small - in fact, they're proportional, and the constant of proportionality is acceleration. F = MA and all that.

Why do you think the poles wouldn't be spinning? That's what defines the poles, and if you were at one of the poles at night, you could see the stars appear to slowly circle a point directly overhead; in the day, the Sun would appear to circle at a constant elevation above the horizon. "how this force works very similar to the equator" doesn't make any sense - the Equator isn't a force - it's the locus of points at the surface equidistant to both poles (i.e. a circle) - but if you mean why aren't we flung off since the centrifugal force at the Equator is greatest, then the answer is that it does counteract gravity, but by only a small fraction of a percent.

Neither of these concerns is a problem.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: 29silhouette on October 11, 2014, 11:13:00 AM
Scepti, what if there was a big globe that attracted matter towards it's surface, resulting in a person being right-side-up at any give spot anywhere on it's surface, how would a person expect to feel as though they were underneath this globe if they traveled to a region opposite from where they originated?
Then I would have to re-evaluate my thinking.
So you don't know.  Why would 'feeling like you were underneath' even be a determining factor in the matter?

Quote
My first thought would be " how could I not be crushed into a ball by this gravity when it attracts the oceans and stops them falling off.
The oceans weigh more than you, and thinking they would 'fall off' implies there is an attractive force separate of the globe's attractive force.  What if there isn't?  Where would they 'fall' to other than against the surface of that globe?

Quote
I'd also be curius about the so called poles not spinning and wondering how this force works very similar to the equator, etc.
Do you expect things to fly off at the equator?  Do you consider one revolution per day as a high rate of spin?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 11, 2014, 12:13:59 PM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
So tell me, does the question asked change at all between starting with "what if" or just "if"?
If so, how?  Please enlighten us.
Work it out.
Well, I feel that starting a sentence with "If the earth were..." and "What is the earth were..." have the same meaning.  So tell me, why do you feel it changes the meaning.  Because there is nothing for me to work out in this.  It is you that has to explain it to me.  It is you who has trouble with an implied word in a sentence.

If your mom asked you to make here a turkey sandwich, would she need to tell you to put the turkey between two slices of bread?  I mean telling you to make a sandwich implies there is bread involved.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 12, 2014, 02:30:56 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
So tell me, does the question asked change at all between starting with "what if" or just "if"?
If so, how?  Please enlighten us.
Work it out.
Well, I feel that starting a sentence with "If the earth were..." and "What is the earth were..." have the same meaning.  So tell me, why do you feel it changes the meaning.  Because there is nothing for me to work out in this.  It is you that has to explain it to me.  It is you who has trouble with an implied word in a sentence.

If your mom asked you to make here a turkey sandwich, would she need to tell you to put the turkey between two slices of bread?  I mean telling you to make a sandwich implies there is bread involved.
You are not making any sense, at all.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: Rama Set on October 12, 2014, 07:04:54 AM
No, you are having comprehension issues, either intentional or unintentional.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 12, 2014, 07:21:50 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
So tell me, does the question asked change at all between starting with "what if" or just "if"?
If so, how?  Please enlighten us.
Work it out.
Well, I feel that starting a sentence with "If the earth were..." and "What is the earth were..." have the same meaning.  So tell me, why do you feel it changes the meaning.  Because there is nothing for me to work out in this.  It is you that has to explain it to me.  It is you who has trouble with an implied word in a sentence.

If your mom asked you to make here a turkey sandwich, would she need to tell you to put the turkey between two slices of bread?  I mean telling you to make a sandwich implies there is bread involved.
You are not making any sense, at all.
What if you were the genius that you proclaim to be?  Would you still not understand what implied means?  Would you still get confused by a simple typographical error?
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: sceptimatic on October 12, 2014, 08:02:53 AM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
So tell me, does the question asked change at all between starting with "what if" or just "if"?
If so, how?  Please enlighten us.
Work it out.
Well, I feel that starting a sentence with "If the earth were..." and "What is the earth were..." have the same meaning.  So tell me, why do you feel it changes the meaning.  Because there is nothing for me to work out in this.  It is you that has to explain it to me.  It is you who has trouble with an implied word in a sentence.

If your mom asked you to make here a turkey sandwich, would she need to tell you to put the turkey between two slices of bread?  I mean telling you to make a sandwich implies there is bread involved.
You are not making any sense, at all.
What if you were the genius that you proclaim to be?  Would you still not understand what implied means?  Would you still get confused by a simple typographical error?
You're not making any sense.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: 29silhouette on October 12, 2014, 11:19:01 AM
Yet another shining example of a high-quality, informative thread, made possible by Septicmatic.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: ausGeoff on October 12, 2014, 12:43:45 PM
Yet another shining example of a high-quality, informative thread, made possible by Septicmatic.

It is of interest that every thread sceptimatic gets involved with is immediately transformed into a farrago of bullshit.  He seems to have the happy knack of derailing any half-intelligent debate into the level of a kindergarten brawl.  I also love his habit of posting a 4 or 5 word response to a mass of nested quotes that take up a whole screen;  I don't think he even has the minimal knowledge required to edit the size of his posts.

At least only takes a quick glance at the main forums page to ascertain which threads the guy has invaded; they're all the ones with upwards of 60 responses LOL.

The obvious question is of course why do the moderators let him get away with it on the Q&A forum in particular?  But then again I was forgetting—he's a round earther, and one of the favoured few that can do no wrong.  Silly me.
Title: Re: Antarctica questions
Post by: BJ1234 on October 12, 2014, 06:50:43 PM
Scepti, do you understand the concept of a "What if...?" question?
Yes I do. Can you point me to where the what if question is?

If isn't a what if, just in case you were going to use it.
If you don't know that the "what" in a "What if..." can be implied, then you obviously don't understand the concept of a "What if..." question.  Thanks for clearing that up.
So show me where the what is.
Do you know what the word implied means?
How about you tell me what it means and get to the point.
How is it that a genius such as yourself doesn't know what words mean, or how to find out what they mean if you don't know?
Why is it that people like you assume that people don't know what words mean?
Because you seem to be having trouble with an implied "what" in a hypothetical question.  Then when pointed out to you that it was implied, you asked again where the "what" was.  It is pretty apparent that you don't know what the word "implied" means based on your responses.
You seem to be having trouble understanding that I've already told you that nobody has said what if to me, so what are you harping on about?
So tell me, does the question asked change at all between starting with "what if" or just "if"?
If so, how?  Please enlighten us.
Work it out.
Well, I feel that starting a sentence with "If the earth were..." and "What is the earth were..." have the same meaning.  So tell me, why do you feel it changes the meaning.  Because there is nothing for me to work out in this.  It is you that has to explain it to me.  It is you who has trouble with an implied word in a sentence.

If your mom asked you to make here a turkey sandwich, would she need to tell you to put the turkey between two slices of bread?  I mean telling you to make a sandwich implies there is bread involved.
You are not making any sense, at all.
What if you were the genius that you proclaim to be?  Would you still not understand what implied means?  Would you still get confused by a simple typographical error?
You're not making any sense.
I think you are proving my point quite well Scepti.