The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: sergio999 on September 15, 2019, 05:22:26 PM
-
Hello guys, my mother tongue is not english but I will try to explain myself. Firstable I just want to make clear that my thread is with all due respect and I hope to have the opportunity to debate in a very respectful way with you and share ideas.
I am an airline pilot and a few years ago a passenger, while disembarking, asked for permission to enter the cockpit. He told me that he belived that the Earth was flat and asked me why airplanes don’t go to outer space while flying if the Earth is curved. I didnt understand his question at first and I tought he was joking (altought he looked very kind and serious) but I explained how airplanes maintain altitude and how a barometer works. This guy made me curious about the Flath Earth movement and since then I have watched a lot of videos on Youtube and read some forums online.
I have never seen the curvature of the Earth but I don't have to see it to know that that Earth is not flat, you just have to understand a little bit about physics, geography, meteorology, technology and general culture to realize that I flat Earth is impossible.
What I have learned is that many of this Flat Earth videos are manipulated and show incomplete or false information. Many Flat Earth arguments are easily discarded with information available on internet.
There are thousands of proofs that the Earth is round but I know that you FE guys always say that all this evidence is fake. I know that you try to explain the world with your logic, so I invite you to respond to this questions in your own words (no link to videos).
1. I still don’t get what the purpuse of hidding that the Earth is flat is. Are you aware of the amount of people that should be involved in this conspiracy? Do you belive that after hundreds of years and thousands of people involve this “secret” could remain secret?
2. How do you explain that when the sun or the moon rise or set they sometimes look bigger than when they are higher in the sky? This is very easily explained in a round Earth.
3. I would like to know the Flat Earthers opinion about the Antartica sightseeing flights. If you dont know about these flights I leave you a trip report of one of this flights (plenty of pictures). Anyone can buy tickets for this flight, why don't you guys go on one of this flights and tell everyone that you can go beyond the “ice wall”?
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1428697
Thank you for your answers.
-
2 - This is an optical illusion.
When you see it up high in the sky there is no reference for you to determine their size so they "appear" to be a wide variety of sizes.
But when near the ground, you then have a reference so it "appears" bigger.
When you actually measure it, there is no significant difference in size.
-
2. How do you explain that when the sun or the moon rise or set they sometimes look bigger than when they are higher in the sky? This is very easily explained in a round Earth.
I am always fascinated by this claim. Can you explain the reason?
-
I am always fascinated by this claim. Can you explain the reason?
Not entirely, especially with all the psychology/biology of it, and I could be massively off with this, but here is my understanding.
It is linked to lots of other optical illusions. The human mind is very bad at obtaining visual information without a reference.
When we see an object completely isolated we just don't know how to handle it properly to determine how big it is or how far away it is.
To make it even more problematic is what happens when we are given an invalid reference, where our mind then tries to use that reference to determine information about the object and gets it completely wrong.
A common example of this as an optical illusion/trick is this:
http://www.opticalillusionsportal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Tallest-%E2%80%93-New-Optical-Illusions.gif
The 3 people are the same size, yet the lines make us think the one on the right is much larger due to what we observe in the world.
And this isn't just limited to cartoons.
It has been remade in real life in art exhibits like this:
https://media.mnn.com/assets/images/2017/01/Two-People-Stand-Ames-Room.jpg.653x0_q80_crop-smart.jpg
And was used extensively in the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.
The same kind of thing happens with the moon. When we see it up high in the sky, we can't place it. The closest we have to it in everyday life are small objects a short distance above us, like birds and trees. So this would make us perceive it as close, and thus small.
But then when it gets to the horizon, it is taken as an object on the horizon. This then allows us to perceive it as very far away and thus have it perceived as much larger.
In effect, when it comes to the moon we are like Dougal McGuire.
-
Jack, the question was directed at someone else.
-
Jakarta - Jeddah goes westwards and a bit south.
Not 'North West'.
-
Jakarta - Jeddah goes westwards and a bit south.
Not 'North West'.
Incorrect. In reality it goes Northwest unless you would like to inform Saudi Arabian Airlines that they fly the wrong way daily:
(https://i.imgur.com/rwQukyh.png?1)
-
2. How do you explain that when the sun or the moon rise or set they sometimes look bigger than when they are higher in the sky? This is very easily explained in a round Earth.
I am always fascinated by this claim. Can you explain the reason?
Hello, as other members already explained, it is an optical illusion and this illusion is impossible in the FE model.
In any FE model, you should see the sun and the moon approaching in the horizon, that means that you would always see them very small when they rise or set and you would see them bigger when they are just above you.
In a FE, we couldn't see the sun or the moon rising from the horizon as we see them.
Here you hace a beautiful time lapse of a su rise.
-
Jakarta - Jeddah goes westwards and a bit south.
Not 'North West'.
Incorrect. In reality it goes Northwest unless you would like to inform Saudi Arabian Airlines that they fly the wrong way daily:
(https://i.imgur.com/rwQukyh.png?1)
Seoul - San Francisco - New York
Oslo - West Europe - Atlantic ocean - The United States
That's the common route for such flights. It's been a long time -even since the beginning of flights in modern history- that people are aware that north pole is not accessible.
-
I would appreciate if you guys try to answer questions 1 and 3. Thank you.
-
Jakarta - Jeddah goes westwards and a bit south.
Not 'North West'.
Incorrect. In reality it goes Northwest unless you would like to inform Saudi Arabian Airlines that they fly the wrong way daily:
(https://i.imgur.com/rwQukyh.png?1)
Seoul - San Francisco - New York
Oslo - West Europe - Atlantic ocean - The United States
That's the common route for such flights. It's been a long time -even since the beginning of flights in modern history- that people are aware that north pole is not accessible.
I don’t know what you mean when you say that the nlrth pole is no accessible, but there are plenty of transpolar flights. This is what I mean when I say that the FE information is inaccurate or false and easily discarded with information available on the internet.
Just to give you a couple of examples look for the Etihad Airways 171 from Abu Dhabi to LAX or Air Canada 15 from Toronto to Hong Kong.
https://es.flightaware.com/live/flight/ETD171
https://es.flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA15
Sometimes this polar routes are not authorized by ATC when there is an intense solar activity ( unexplicable phenomena in a FE).
-
Intense solar activity? Is it a made up excuse? Flights never be influenced by solar activity. Fog or ash might cancel a flight, but solar activity? No way.
There is difference between "crossing the north pole" and "flying along the surrounding of north rim" which is an inefficient and ridiculous attempt.
-
Intense solar activity? Is it a made up excuse? Flights never be influenced by solar activity. Fog or ash might cancel a flight, but solar activity? No way.
There is difference between "crossing the north pole" and "flying along the surrounding of north rim" which is an inefficient and ridiculous attempt.
Please show the north rim on a map.
-
Intense solar activity? Is it a made up excuse? Flights never be influenced by solar activity. Fog or ash might cancel a flight, but solar activity? No way.
There is difference between "crossing the north pole" and "flying along the surrounding of north rim" which is an inefficient and ridiculous attempt.
So why would Air Canada flight AC15 fly over either the North Pole or at least so far north it seems to "drop off the map"? Funny that!
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/z7w23zq8osv5gi9/Air%20Canada%2015%20ACA15%20TORONTO%2C%20CANADA%20to%20HONG%20KONG%2C%20dept%20THURSDAY%2019-09-2019%2009.44%20EDT%20to%2020-09-2019%2012.31%20HKT%201.jpg?dl=1)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/c092hv8itc6rdg5/Air%20Canada%2015%20ACA15%20TORONTO%2C%20CANADA%20to%20HONG%20KONG%2C%20dept%20THURSDAY%2019-09-2019%2009.44%20EDT%20to%2020-09-2019%2012.31%20HKT%202.jpg?dl=1)
Air Canada 15 ACA15 TORONTO, CANADA to HONG KONG, dept THURSDAY 19-09-2019 09.44 EDT to 20-09-2019 12.31 HKT
Care to plot that on your map and explain how they flew that route in 14 hours 47 minutes.
-
Intense solar activity? Is it a made up excuse? Flights never be influenced by solar activity. Fog or ash might cancel a flight, but solar activity? No way.
There is difference between "crossing the north pole" and "flying along the surrounding of north rim" which is an inefficient and ridiculous attempt.
And no commercial flight crosses directly over the south pole, but that doesn't bother you.
-
Intense solar activity? Is it a made up excuse? Flights never be influenced by solar activity. Fog or ash might cancel a flight, but solar activity? No way.
Yet they regularly are, large solar flares, particularly coronal mass ejections, can effect electronics and radio equipment on flights. When this happens flights can be diverted or cancelled altogether.
-
Intense solar activity? Is it a made up excuse? Flights never be influenced by solar activity. Fog or ash might cancel a flight, but solar activity? No way.
There is difference between "crossing the north pole" and "flying along the surrounding of north rim" which is an inefficient and ridiculous attempt.
The problem with you is that instead of asking yourself and investigate if what I am saying is possible you just try to discard what I say with your limited knowledge.
This routes (and many others) go over the north pole or very close to it because whether like it or not the Earth is a sphere and the closest distance between this city pairs is by the north pole.
This is a Delta Airlines presentation with very interesting information about polar routes and how space weather affects this routes.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/images/u33/HEITZMAN%20SWW%202010.pdf
-
Hello guys, my mother tongue is not english but I will try to explain myself. Firstable I just want to make clear that my thread is with all due respect and I hope to have the opportunity to debate in a very respectful way with you and share ideas.
I am an airline pilot and a few years ago a passenger, while disembarking, asked for permission to enter the cockpit. He told me that he belived that the Earth was flat and asked me why airplanes don’t go to outer space while flying if the Earth is curved. I didnt understand his question at first and I tought he was joking (altought he looked very kind and serious) but I explained how airplanes maintain altitude and how a barometer works. This guy made me curious about the Flath Earth movement and since then I have watched a lot of videos on Youtube and read some forums online.
I have never seen the curvature of the Earth
Thank you for saying this. You wouldn't believe how many spurious claims we get about this.
but I don't have to see it to know that that Earth is not flat, you just have to understand a little bit about physics, geography, meteorology, technology and general culture to realize that I flat Earth is impossible.
What I have learned is that many of this Flat Earth videos are manipulated and show incomplete or false information. Many Flat Earth arguments are easily discarded with information available on internet.
Yes, this is true. I wouldn't listen to the videos. Many are completely bunk and put us, and our views, in bad light. The new wave of flat earths have ignored the work we have done for the last ~200 years and its getting them in argumentative hot water.
There are thousands of proofs that the Earth is round but I know that you FE guys always say that all this evidence is fake. I know that you try to explain the world with your logic, so I invite you to respond to this questions in your own words (no link to videos).
1. I still don’t get what the purpuse of hidding that the Earth is flat is. Are you aware of the amount of people that should be involved in this conspiracy? Do you belive that after hundreds of years and thousands of people involve this “secret” could remain secret?
There are five common explanations for this, but in the end without toppling the Planar Conspiracy there is no real way to know. Different people believe different explanations, or even ones not mentioned here.
To Control Information: In a similar way to 1984, control of information is control of everything. The flat earth is even mentioned in the book itself.
They are wrong: simply said, we are wrong about the shape of the earth, and there is no conspiracy. This describes why the earth might look round from far away: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
To Maintain Legitimacy: During the Cold War we faked the moon landing. Shortly after they realized the reason they could not reach the moon was due to the flatness of the Earth. They were stuck in a lie, and had to continue it or lose legitimacy of our governments. Even today we would still hold onto this lie due to role Science plays in our ruling government.
To hide the truth of the Bible.
To Gain Power and Money: By siphoning off the space budgets and denying the world the resources of the Antarctic they gain a considerable amount of power and wealth.
I happen to believe there is no conspiracy.
2. How do you explain that when the sun or the moon rise or set they sometimes look bigger than when they are higher in the sky? This is very easily explained in a round Earth.
On a round earth, they actually appear smaller when higher in the sky due to an illusion caused by closer objects on the horizon. This is most often noted with the moon
3. I would like to know the Flat Earthers opinion about the Antartica sightseeing flights. If you dont know about these flights I leave you a trip report of one of this flights (plenty of pictures). Anyone can buy tickets for this flight, why don't you guys go on one of this flights and tell everyone that you can go beyond the “ice wall”?
https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1428697
Thank you for your answers.
I attempted once to travel to the antarctic. I was denied access, purportedly for legitimate reasons. Beyond this, those flights are simply cutting through a peninsula.
-
And no commercial flight crosses directly over the south pole, but that doesn't bother you.
You are correct and this is why. In a globe, the closest distance between two points (cities) is call Great Circle distance and if you try to link any city pair on a globe you will realize that none of this GC distance lines will cross over the south pole or even over Antartica.
You can play and probe this by yourself on this website.
http://www.gcmap.com/
-
And no commercial flight crosses directly over the south pole, but that doesn't bother you.
You are correct and this is why. In a globe, the closest distance between two points (cities) is call Great Circle distance and if you try to link any city pair on a globe you will realize that none of this GC distance lines will cross over the south pole or even over Antartica.
You can play and probe this by yourself on this website.
http://www.gcmap.com/
These aren't flights to maximum cost. They are tourist flights specifically made to show folks the Antarctic. They should go over its most notable part, but none do.
-
And no commercial flight crosses directly over the south pole, but that doesn't bother you.
You are correct and this is why. In a globe, the closest distance between two points (cities) is call Great Circle distance and if you try to link any city pair on a globe you will realize that none of this GC distance lines will cross over the south pole or even over Antartica.
You can play and probe this by yourself on this website.
http://www.gcmap.com/
I'm not flat earther. I was just exposing how the same arguments some flat earthers use to deny the north pole can be used for denying the south pole and viceversa.
South pole denial is more common though.
-
Except the argument makes no sense. Why would a tourist flight be concerned with their gas usage to the point of not actually visiting the one notable place on the continent. Pure malarkey.
-
There are five common explanations for this
But none manage to withstand any serious scrutiny.
To Control Information: In a similar way to 1984, control of information is control of everything. The flat earth is even mentioned in the book itself.
This would require a massive conspiracy traversing many different countries and empires over a very long period of time.
They are wrong: simply said, we are wrong about the shape of the earth, and there is no conspiracy. This describes why the earth might look round from far away: https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/blog/einsteins-relativity-proves-earth-flat
That post doesn't describe why a flat Earth might look round.
It is appealing to non-Euclidean geometry, and then trying to use a rule from Euclidean geometry in this non-Euclidean geometry where it doesn't apply.
It is quite over the top to think so many people could be wrong about the shape of Earth with all the evidence indicating Earth is round and none indicating Earth is flat.
To Maintain Legitimacy: During the Cold War we faked the moon landing. Shortly after they realized the reason they could not reach the moon was due to the flatness of the Earth. They were stuck in a lie, and had to continue it or lose legitimacy of our governments. Even today we would still hold onto this lie due to role Science plays in our ruling government.
Which is far too late.
People knew Earth was round long before the cold war. With the different governments fighting among each other, and even fighting themselves with different parties, it wouldn't be kept secret to protect the legitimacy, instead the lie would be exposed to show just how bad that party/government was. As for the role of science in government, do you mean like how the US government seems to like rejecting climate change and doesn't want to act on it? Science is not playing a large role in government. Also, if Earth was flat, then science would be showing that.
To hide the truth of the Bible.
This is the best reason I have seen. The problem is time. Earth was known to be round before the Bible was invented/compiled and the Bible has so many mistakes it isn't funny.
To Gain Power and Money: By siphoning off the space budgets and denying the world the resources of the Antarctic they gain a considerable amount of power and wealth.
But by doing it like they are, they would be wasting so much money it isn't funny. The less money they try to waste on faking space, the more people that need to be involved and the less money there is to siphon off for each person. The fewer people that know, the more money that needs to be wasted with people building things just to be destroyed. And then in addition, all the money spent on faking the data from space. You then have the issue of outsourcing. If it was all fake, why start paying commercial companies?
It is a very poor way of trying to siphon money.
It is much easier to siphon it from the military or top secret projects. With those, you don't need to provide anything to the public. No need to fabricate images of space, or provide magical GPS, just take the money and say people aren't allowed to know where it went.
So none of those excuses withstands scrutiny and the best one appeals to religious nonsense. A far better choice to keep the religion intact is to be like lord of the rings. Have Earth starting as flat, but then God changed it to stop the humans going to the undying lands. Alternatively, also have God intentionally make Earth appear round to test people's faith.
Except the argument makes no sense. Why would a tourist flight be concerned with their gas usage to the point of not actually visiting the one notable place on the continent. Pure malarkey.
Yes, pure malarkey. Why should they go over what you deem to be the most notable part?
A flight taking them quite far inland on a very hostile environment, just to see a piece of land which is in no way spectacular.
-
Except the argument makes no sense. Why would a tourist flight be concerned with their gas usage to the point of not actually visiting the one notable place on the continent. Pure malarkey.
There is more to the issue than being "concerned with their gas usage" and the main one is passenger safety in case of an inflight emergency.
To date, Qantas use four-engined planes so engine failure is no big issue.
Of more concern is an event, such as de-pressurisation, requiring an emergency descent, inland Antarctica is quite high.
On top of that, there are no diversionary airports in Antarctica and weather conditions are often extreme and changeable.
But, if you are willing to pay for it, you can fly to the South Pole on suitable aircraft.
-
Except the argument makes no sense. Why would a tourist flight be concerned with their gas usage to the point of not actually visiting the one notable place on the continent. Pure malarkey.
I am not talking about the sightseeing flight, I am talking about regular scheduled commercial flights. None of them go over Antartica because the GC distance line does not touch Antartica.
Which is in your opinion the most interesting part of Antartica? the south pole? The south pole is just a geographical location in the middle of the largest desert of the world, nothing interesting to look at there. This sightseeing flights fly over a long distance along the coast of Antartica and they are +14hrs long.
In this link ( https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1428697 ) you can see a lot of pictures of Antartica, showing that there is no one preventing anybody from going beyond the ice wall.
-
Except the argument makes no sense. Why would a tourist flight be concerned with their gas usage to the point of not actually visiting the one notable place on the continent. Pure malarkey.
I am not talking about the sightseeing flight, I am talking about regular scheduled commercial flights. None of them go over Antartica because the GC distance line does not touch Antartica.
Fair enough. And its a no-fly zone due to international treaty.
Which is in your opinion the most interesting part of Antartica? the south pole? The south pole is just a geographical location in the middle of the largest desert of the world, nothing interesting to look at there. This sightseeing flights fly over a long distance along the coast of Antartica and they are +14hrs long.
I think its fair to assume tourists want to see the most referenced area of a largely barren continent. There is nothing to really see along the coast either, at least from what I saw.
In this link ( https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1428697 ) you can see a lot of pictures of Antartica, showing that there is no one preventing anybody from going beyond the ice wall.
The climate prevents people from doing so.
-
Except the argument makes no sense. Why would a tourist flight be concerned with their gas usage to the point of not actually visiting the one notable place on the continent. Pure malarkey.
I am not talking about the sightseeing flight, I am talking about regular scheduled commercial flights. None of them go over Antartica because the GC distance line does not touch Antartica.
Fair enough. And its a no-fly zone due to international treaty.
There are no-fly zones over sensitive environmental areas due to an international treaty and no-fly zones for normal passenger aircraft for safety reasons.
But there is no general no-fly zone over Antarctica for suitable aircraft.
And there are private and tourist flights right to the South Pole - but it does pay to get permission and arrange fuel supplies.
Here are Dick Smith's flight paths in Antarctica during his trans-polar circumnavigation of the Globe (He did a lot of "visiting"):
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/y6zjnbrildya6be/Dick%20Smith%20%27Our%20Fantastic%27%20page%2020.jpg?dl=1)
From "Our Fantastic Planet by Dick Smith, page 20 (http://dicksmithadventure.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Our-Fantastic-Planet.pdf)
With reference to that flight, this might be interesting: Flat earth claims on Dick’s vertical pole-to-pole flight 2018. (http://dicksmithadventure.com.au/special-postings-for-flat-earth-believers/)
There are many more examples of trans-polar circumnavigations, for example: First Circumnavigation via both Poles by Aircraft, Guiness Book of Records (http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/first-circumnavigation-via-both-poles-by-aircraft/)
Captain Elgen M. Long achieved the first circum-polar flight in a twin-engined Piper PA-31 Navajo from 5 November to 3 December 1971. He covered 62,597 km (38,896 miles) in 215 flying hours.
More details in The 2004 'Crystal Eagle' Award Winner, Elgen M. Long. (https://www.aeroclubnocal.org/docs/2004.pdf)
Which is in your opinion the most interesting part of Antartica? the south pole? The south pole is just a geographical location in the middle of the largest desert of the world, nothing interesting to look at there. This sightseeing flights fly over a long distance along the coast of Antartica and they are +14hrs long.
I think its fair to assume tourists want to see the most referenced area of a largely barren continent. There is nothing to really see along the coast either, at least from what I saw.
In this link ( https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1428697 ) you can see a lot of pictures of Antartica, showing that there is no one preventing anybody from going beyond the ice wall.
The climate prevents people from doing so.
The extreme weather conditions might make it difficult and at times hazardous but do not "prevent people from doing so" any more than the extreme weather conditions on Mount Everest prevent people from climbing it.
Far more people visit the South Pole than visit the North Pole though undoubtedly more fly over the North Pole, it being on a number of passenger routes.
-
These aren't flights to maximum cost. They are tourist flights specifically made to show folks the Antarctic. They should go over its most notable part, but none do.
What about these?
https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/
https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-20192020
https://icetrek.com/join-a-trip/south-pole-and-antarctica
https://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica/ships/specialty-adventure/emperor-and-south-pole-union-glacier/south-pole-flights
https://www.discover-the-world.com/destinations/south-pole-holidays/
-
On a round earth, they actually appear smaller when higher in the sky due to an illusion caused by closer objects on the horizon. This is most often noted with the moon
Correct. Although actually they are the same angular size when overhead or at sunrise/sunset or moonrise/moonset. And why is that?
In the FE models I've seen the sun is close and going overhead in a circle. So they must be significantly closer to you when overhead than when they rise/set.
They should appear significantly smaller as they rise and set but they are actually the same size and appear bigger.
Why don't they change angular size with distance like every other object does, including the other planets
https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/which-planet-appears-the-largest-from-earth-d95f2f72a8f8
I attempted once to travel to the antarctic. I was denied access, purportedly for legitimate reasons. Beyond this, those flights are simply cutting through a peninsula.
You didn't attempt very hard. You can literally go to the South Pole. It'll cost ya, but there's nothing stopping you apart from the expense.
https://www.discover-the-world.com/destinations/south-pole-holidays/
-
I travelled to the southern most point and booked passage on a boat. I'm sure if I went again I'd be allowed to go (maybe), but that doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense given the first time I shelled out a lot of money for a trip and it ended up that they cancelled it with what I'd say was a silly reason.
-
I travelled to the southern most point and booked passage on a boat. I'm sure if I went again I'd be allowed to go (maybe), but that doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense given the first time I shelled out a lot of money for a trip and it ended up that they cancelled it with what I'd say was a silly reason.
What, they cancelled and didn’t give you a refund? Even if they tried to weasel out of it, your travel insurance should have covered it.
Who did you book with?
-
I travelled to the southern most point and booked passage on a boat. I'm sure if I went again I'd be allowed to go (maybe), but that doesn't make a lot of fiscal sense given the first time I shelled out a lot of money for a trip and it ended up that they cancelled it with what I'd say was a silly reason.
United once cancelled my flight to Dallas for what I would say was a silly reason. But it didn't occur to me that Texas may be part of an international environmental treaty used as a guise to hide the true nature of the shape of the earth. I probably should have been more suspicious of their intent.
-
The reason for cancellation was due to weather. It was not my flight, but the boat trip itself. I had only booked a day in the location and was headed out before I could reschedule. The waters seemed calm, and iirc, it was a sunny day.
Maybe one day I'll make it back, but it's not on the top of my list.
-
I wouldn't think passenger safety is a silly reason to cancel...
-
The weather was fine.
-
The weather was fine.
Would the weather have been fine at your destination when you reached it?
How about the return trip?
I have been stranded at airports for hours due to weather before. I only saw clear blue skies at my airport.
-
As I've said before (maybe in this thread?), it's possible the delay was legitimate. When I left port later that day the weather seemed fine when we passed by the destination though, which would have been a few hours after I would have returned.
This really doesn't require this much examination and discussion :)
-
If I were a flat earther flying to antarctica and the flight was cancelled I would also be suspicious.
-
Hey John, how long was the boat ride to your final destination?
I ask because, even where I live, weather can look great, and change to horrible in a matter of minutes.
I am an avid Inshore kayak fisherman, I keep a very close eye on weather through my phone apps, and I've still been ambushed more than once. I can only imagine how fast Antarctic weather can " go south"!
-
Hey John, how long was the boat ride to your final destination?
I ask because, even where I live, weather can look great, and change to horrible in a matter of minutes.
I am an avid Inshore kayak fisherman, I keep a very close eye on weather through my phone apps, and I've still been ambushed more than once. I can only imagine how fast Antarctic weather can " go south"!
Well, it's 500 miles to cross the infamous Drake Passage