Is the geographic south pole real?

The only thing naive is your dismissal of science because of your opinion.

The only thing naive is your dismissal of science because of your opinion.

I am not dismissing science per se, I am dismissing some enforced opinions on things which are hardly available to be tested by ordinary people. In fact, scientists don't have ready access to the so-called South pole either. Who goes there is based on a selection process. If you simply believe something is real just because the scientific community has agreed it doesn't mean people should trust you or them. There are many reasons for an idea to be popularized as truth when in fact it is a lie. Most scientists have accepted that the South pole exists based on belief not based on research or first-hand experience. Do you not agree? Have you been to the pole? Isn't it naive to believe 100% stuff you have never seen or experienced and neither have your friends or relatives? In fact, the experiences in question are left for a very small group of carefully chosen people. How isn't it naive then to believe everything they say? The same way a group of people can claim they have been to Mars and even show a video on TV. Would you believe it?

Your naivety has no limits. Stephen Hawking? Are you for real? The other guys you mentioned are mere puppet actors for the establishment. It must be nice to live in a TV show. You're asking people to believe stuff just because it comes from authority figures whose authority was given to them by others in authority.

I think that instead of asking who is in on the conspiracy^TM it would be easier to say who isn't in on it because from the looks of it the majority of the (round) Earth's population is made up of conspirators.  Alleged conspirators include all NASA employees, mathematicians, scientists, government officials, private space program employees, space tourists, people who operate big telescopes, the 500+ people who have been in space, and countless others.  This list is just too long for it to be possible without any whistle blowers.

Quote from: Saros on January 14, 2015, 08:25:16 AM

Your naivety has no limits. Stephen Hawking? Are you for real? The other guys you mentioned are mere puppet actors for the establishment. It must be nice to live in a TV show. You're asking people to believe stuff just because it comes from authority figures whose authority was given to them by others in authority.

I think that instead of asking who is in on the conspiracy^TM it would be easier to say who isn't in on it because from the looks of it the majority of the (round) Earth's population is made up of conspirators.  Alleged conspirators include all NASA employees, mathematicians, scientists, government officials, private space program employees, space tourists, people who operate big telescopes, the 500+ people who have been in space, and countless others.  This list is just too long for it to be possible without any whistle blowers.

phh.. yeah right. You're in on it aren't you? AREN'T YOU?!

Quote from: mikeman7918 on January 14, 2015, 09:35:55 AM

Quote from: Saros on January 14, 2015, 08:25:16 AM

Your naivety has no limits. Stephen Hawking? Are you for real? The other guys you mentioned are mere puppet actors for the establishment. It must be nice to live in a TV show. You're asking people to believe stuff just because it comes from authority figures whose authority was given to them by others in authority.

I think that instead of asking who is in on the conspiracy^TM it would be easier to say who isn't in on it because from the looks of it the majority of the (round) Earth's population is made up of conspirators.  Alleged conspirators include all NASA employees, mathematicians, scientists, government officials, private space program employees, space tourists, people who operate big telescopes, the 500+ people who have been in space, and countless others.  This list is just too long for it to be possible without any whistle blowers.

phh.. yeah right. You're in on it aren't you? AREN'T YOU?!

Believe it or not, Sceptimatic actually hypothesized that I am a government conspirator paid to fight for the round Earth side on this forum, so I actually am in fact an alleged conspirator.

Quote from: sokarul on January 14, 2015, 09:10:43 AM

The only thing naive is your dismissal of science because of your opinion.

I am not dismissing science per se, I am dismissing some enforced opinions on things which are hardly available to be tested by ordinary people. In fact, scientists don't have ready access to the so-called South pole either. Who goes there is based on a selection process. If you simply believe something is real just because the scientific community has agreed it doesn't mean people should trust you or them. There are many reasons for an idea to be popularized as truth when in fact it is a lie. Most scientists have accepted that the South pole exists based on belief not based on research or first-hand experience. Do you not agree? Have you been to the pole? Isn't it naive to believe 100% stuff you have never seen or experienced and neither have your friends or relatives? In fact, the experiences in question are left for a very small group of carefully chosen people. How isn't it naive then to believe everything they say? The same way a group of people can claim they have been to Mars and even show a video on TV. Would you believe it?

Bullshit.  It's amazing where you can go if you have enough money.

We've entered Antarctica via every gateway town and travelled there by plane, ship and yacht. We've been skiing to the South Pole since 1998, guiding our own trips and proving logistics support for others. We also offer flights to the bottom of the earth and to the majestic rookeries of Antarctica's Emperor penguins.

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

It's a metaphor based on a top is North orientated globe, which would have the South Pole at the bottom. Stop grasping.....

I am not dismissing science per se, I am dismissing some enforced opinions on things which are hardly available to be tested by ordinary people. In fact, scientists don't have ready access to the so-called South pole either. Who goes there is based on a selection process. If you simply believe something is real just because the scientific community has agreed it doesn't mean people should trust you or them. There are many reasons for an idea to be popularized as truth when in fact it is a lie. Most scientists have accepted that the South pole exists based on belief not based on research or first-hand experience. Do you not agree? Have you been to the pole? Isn't it naive to believe 100% stuff you have never seen or experienced and neither have your friends or relatives? In fact, the experiences in question are left for a very small group of carefully chosen people. How isn't it naive then to believe everything they say? The same way a group of people can claim they have been to Mars and even show a video on TV. Would you believe it?

If you understand the concepts behind science then you can actually understand science. You don't have to firsthand see everything if you know how stuff works. Take the south pole. I never have been there. But I understand magnets. I understand gravitation. I understand the current theory on how the earth formed. I understand where the matter the earth is formed out of came from. If you add it all up, you get a round earth with a south pole.

No, I would not believe them if people claimed to have gone to Mars. I know they couldn't even fake it.

Also, why not take a flight over the South Pole?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/11/travel/antarctica-day-tour/index.html

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

Yes, correct. He will take you under the disk for a fee - why don't you go, grab some photos, then share them with the rest of the class?

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 14, 2015, 01:32:45 PM

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

It's a metaphor based on a top is North orientated globe, which would have the South Pole at the bottom. Stop grasping.....

"It's a metaphor". 

I see. Round Earth Theory is a metaphor... but for what exactly? Flat Earth theory?

Quote from: Mainframes on January 14, 2015, 01:37:27 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 14, 2015, 01:32:45 PM

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

It's a metaphor based on a top is North orientated globe, which would have the South Pole at the bottom. Stop grasping.....

"It's a metaphor". 

I see. Round Earth Theory is a metaphor... but for what exactly? Flat Earth theory?

I lay on the ground and point the bottom of my feet into the sky.  Have you seen an Austrailian world map?  They have the nerve to put their country on top and turn north America upside down.  Oh wait, a maps is 2D, how can America ever be upside right?
http://lolyard.com/4048/australian-world-map

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 14, 2015, 02:14:16 PM

Quote from: Mainframes on January 14, 2015, 01:37:27 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 14, 2015, 01:32:45 PM

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

It's a metaphor based on a top is North orientated globe, which would have the South Pole at the bottom. Stop grasping.....

"It's a metaphor". 

I see. Round Earth Theory is a metaphor... but for what exactly? Flat Earth theory?

I lay on the ground and point the bottom of my feet into the sky.  Have you seen an Australasian world map?  They have the nerve to put their country on top and turn north America upside down.  Oh wait, a maps is 2D, how can America ever be upside right?
http://lolyard.com/4048/australian-world-map

Holy crap, rock hard proof that the world is upside down!

Quote from: Mainframes on January 14, 2015, 01:37:27 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 14, 2015, 01:32:45 PM

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

It's a metaphor based on a top is North orientated globe, which would have the South Pole at the bottom. Stop grasping.....

"It's a metaphor". 

I see. Round Earth Theory is a metaphor... but for what exactly? Flat Earth theory?

Ummm....  In what part of RET is the "bottom of the earth" mentioned?

Quote from: Saros on January 14, 2015, 09:17:49 AM

I am not dismissing science per se, I am dismissing some enforced opinions on things which are hardly available to be tested by ordinary people. In fact, scientists don't have ready access to the so-called South pole either. Who goes there is based on a selection process. If you simply believe something is real just because the scientific community has agreed it doesn't mean people should trust you or them. There are many reasons for an idea to be popularized as truth when in fact it is a lie. Most scientists have accepted that the South pole exists based on belief not based on research or first-hand experience. Do you not agree? Have you been to the pole? Isn't it naive to believe 100% stuff you have never seen or experienced and neither have your friends or relatives? In fact, the experiences in question are left for a very small group of carefully chosen people. How isn't it naive then to believe everything they say? The same way a group of people can claim they have been to Mars and even show a video on TV. Would you believe it?

If you understand the concepts behind science then you can actually understand science. You don't have to firsthand see everything if you know how stuff works. Take the south pole. I never have been there. But I understand magnets. I understand gravitation. I understand the current theory on how the earth formed. I understand where the matter the earth is formed out of came from. If you add it all up, you get a round earth with a south pole.

No, I would not believe them if people claimed to have gone to Mars. I know they couldn't even fake it.

Also, why not take a flight over the South Pole?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/11/travel/antarctica-day-tour/index.html

Look, understanding how something supposedly "works" doesn't mean it works that way even though it would make sense to simply believe the explanation because it sounds logical to you. That is the purpose after all. That is especially true if someone tries to manipulate you. Are you suggesting that if something is scientifically explained it cannot be wrong? How many times scientifically explained phenomena turned out to be bullshit? I think you should be more skeptical before shouting something is a fact. It is necessary to have hard evidence before believing in something! Your way of thinking is dogmatic. Just because the authority says it is true, it can't be wrong, they even explain it. That is called sheep logic.

Quote from: Mainframes on January 14, 2015, 01:37:27 PM

Quote from: Vauxhall on January 14, 2015, 01:32:45 PM

Care to explain what "bottom of the Earth" means? Sounds as if he's talking about a flat disc, yes?

It's a metaphor based on a top is North orientated globe, which would have the South Pole at the bottom. Stop grasping.....

"It's a metaphor". 

I see. Round Earth Theory is a metaphor... but for what exactly? Flat Earth theory?

No round earth theory is not a metaphor. The sayings on the top of the world or on the bottom of the world are. Just take a look at a globe sometime. Your brain will naturally want to assign the North Pole as 'the top' and the South Pole as 'the bottom'.

This does not mean they literally are but its makes for a nice 'nickname' for these places.

How many times scientifically explained phenomena turned out to be bullshit?

Fair enough question, and one only has to look at phlogiston, alchemy, caloric theory,  phrenology, luminiferous aether, homeopathy, Vulcan (planet), astrology, a geocentric universe, the static universe, steady state theory, cold fusion, miasmatic theory of disease, Aristotelian physics,  etc for a few examples.  At some time or another, scientists believed all these things existed or were genuine phenomena.

But that was then, and this is now.

So... can you name me a few basic scientific theories that've been developed since, say, the first Apollo moon landing that've subsequently been proven totally erroneous beyond all doubt?  And bear in mind I'm asking for theories, and not just hypotheses.  Or can you name a few contemporary scientific theories that you believe are totally wrong, fabricated, or just wild guesses?
 

Quote from: Saros on January 14, 2015, 11:26:55 PM

How many times scientifically explained phenomena turned out to be bullshit?

Fair enough question, and one only has to look at phlogiston, alchemy, caloric theory,  phrenology, luminiferous aether, homeopathy, Vulcan (planet), astrology, a geocentric universe, the static universe, steady state theory, cold fusion, miasmatic theory of disease, Aristotelian physics,  etc for a few examples.  At some time or another, scientists believed all these things existed or were genuine phenomena.

But that was then, and this is now.

So... can you name me a few basic scientific theories that've been developed since, say, the first Apollo moon landing that've subsequently been proven totally erroneous beyond all doubt?  And bear in mind I'm asking for theories, and not just hypotheses.  Or can you name a few contemporary scientific theories that you believe are totally wrong, fabricated, or just wild guesses?

Just wait a couple decades and if the world order is changed by then you will see how a lot of what you think is true today will be considered rubbish. Nowadays, the propaganda machine works on a global(or should I say ball) scale and it is more effective and better organized. There is hardly any opposing scientific fractions, so unless a major change in the status quo occurs you would read the same nonsense in the textbooks for a very long time...What you consider theories is nothing more than strong beliefs within a certain paradigm of thinking.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 15, 2015, 06:57:12 AM

Quote from: Saros on January 14, 2015, 11:26:55 PM

How many times scientifically explained phenomena turned out to be bullshit?

Fair enough question, and one only has to look at phlogiston, alchemy, caloric theory,  phrenology, luminiferous aether, homeopathy, Vulcan (planet), astrology, a geocentric universe, the static universe, steady state theory, cold fusion, miasmatic theory of disease, Aristotelian physics,  etc for a few examples.  At some time or another, scientists believed all these things existed or were genuine phenomena.

But that was then, and this is now.

So... can you name me a few basic scientific theories that've been developed since, say, the first Apollo moon landing that've subsequently been proven totally erroneous beyond all doubt?  And bear in mind I'm asking for theories, and not just hypotheses.  Or can you name a few contemporary scientific theories that you believe are totally wrong, fabricated, or just wild guesses?

Just wait a couple decades and if the world order is changed by then you will see how a lot of what you think is true today will be considered rubbish. Nowadays, the propaganda machine works on a global(or should I say ball) scale and it is more effective and better organized. There is hardly any opposing scientific fractions, so unless a major change in the status quo occurs you would read the same nonsense in the textbooks for a very long time...What you consider theories is nothing more than strong beliefs within a certain paradigm of thinking.

Rubbish.

All science today is backed up by this little thing called evidence and repeatability. Many things that you seem to dismiss without a thought can be tested by yourself at home with a small investment in equipment and sundries.

Instead of shut your eyes, putting you hands on your ears and screaming "la la la conspiracy!", go out and verify things for yourself.

Look, understanding how something supposedly "works" doesn't mean it works that way even though it would make sense to simply believe the explanation because it sounds logical to you. That is the purpose after all. That is especially true if someone tries to manipulate you. Are you suggesting that if something is scientifically explained it cannot be wrong? How many times scientifically explained phenomena turned out to be bullshit? I think you should be more skeptical before shouting something is a fact.

You are not talking about science anymore. You are talking about unfounded opinions. Scientific theory can shown to be wrong and papers have been published that are wrong. It's progression, not conspiracies. Theories are tested. The things you are claiming like manipulation have nothing to do with science. They would be done for peoples own gain.

It is necessary to have hard evidence before believing in something! Your way of thinking is dogmatic. Just because the authority says it is true, it can't be wrong, they even explain it. That is called sheep logic.

Having hard evidence before believing something is opposite of what you are saying. You are saying evidence doesn't matter and you must see to believe. You even dismiss evidence all the time. And who ever said I didn't have any?

Just wait a couple decades and if the world order is changed by then you will see how a lot of what you think is true today will be considered rubbish. Nowadays, the propaganda machine works on a global (or should I say ball) scale and it is more effective and better organized. There is hardly any opposing scientific fractions, so unless a major change in the status quo occurs you would read the same nonsense in the textbooks for a very long time...What you consider theories is nothing more than strong beliefs within a certain paradigm of thinking.

So to cut through all this empty rhetoric of yours, you're apparently admitting, by default, that you're unable to answer my few simple questions...

Can you name me a few basic scientific theories that've been developed since, say, the first Apollo moon landing that've subsequently been proven totally erroneous beyond all doubt?  And bear in mind I'm asking for theories, and not just hypotheses.  Or can you name a few contemporary scientific theories that you believe are totally wrong, fabricated, or just wild guesses?

Can I assume that this is simply because you have no viable evidence whatsoever in support of your contrary claims—that science has been, currently is, and will be wrong in the future?

It's also ironic that 99.99% of the world's population today obviously think that what you consider to be "true today" to be "rubbish".