Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

It makes sense to send experienced and intelligent soliders. You seem to not understand about what you're talking. Military action requires logistics, and logistics require ships, aircrafts, pilots, navigators, technicians, and mechanics. The pilots would need to fly supply runs and reconnaissance, for example. The weather would be too hostile and the navigation too odd for even average pilots.

Like I said, the only people in on the conspiracy would be the pilots. There is no reason to think they are anything less than experts.

Yes, they require logistics. Did I say otherwise?

"In military logistics, experts manage how and when to move resources to the places they are needed."

Easily managed within a supposed conspiracy. The actual troops stationed on the ground and monitoring their equipment are not involved in the logistics.

Yes, they are. They, for example, make requisitions and handle receiving.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

I'm only assuming that they feel the truth, like feeling how cold it is and for how long it's cold.

That's right, you didn't answer where I said it wasn't frigid in the Antarctic.

You're right. I'm not going to deal with your wild fantasy.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

I say that they were able to leave based on logic. Explaining so many missing servicemen over so many years would be impossible.

Explaining people dying in the line of duty is definitely impossible.

Explaining that hundreds of people died in the line of duty without accounting for the conspiracy would be implausible.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

"Gear for cold weather isn't only subject to the Antarctic." This sentence is just too stupid and too irrelevant to justify a reply beyond this.

It wasn't irrelevant. You claimed "There is a definite lack of contractors reporting profits selling cold-weather gear and equipment to the Government."

For one, I'd like to know why you think they'd be reporting such profits.

Next, as my statement implied, gear for cold weather isn't only subject to the Antarctic. This would mean that said contractors would have no idea what the stuff was being purchased for. You sure do assume a lot.

First of all, your grammar or wording is so off that it's difficult to even determine what you're saying. I believe that you don't understand how to use the phrase "subject to". Next, as a government contractor, I dealt with orders in the billions of dollars, from nails to aircraft engines. You know, based on the specifications, the classifications, the port of departure, the timing of departure, the craft departing, and the priority of the order, a great deal about where and how the supply will be used. Often it's written right into the requisition or the item description. Even the materials for the South Pole forces are different from the North Poles forces, though I can only recall uniform differences right now. You just don't understand enough about logistics to make any reasonable statement on this subject.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

You have no rational basis for your conclusion that such a conspiracy is plausible.

My rational basis is based on lack of evidence that it's implausible.

Your basis is faulty then. Rational methods require evidence of the assertion, not the lack thereof. You assert that the conspiracy is plausible, but fail to provide evidence accordingly.

This is going to get boring real fast.

Yes, they are. They, for example, make requisitions and handle receiving.

That's not the same as logistics, which aren't done on their end.

Anyways, that proves they are in on the conspiracy how?

You're right. I'm not going to deal with your wild fantasy.

My wild fantasy?

"It does not take much to notice that the weather is frigid"

What was the point of this statement then if it wasn't misrepresenting something I typed, or apparently didn't type??

Explaining that hundreds of people died in the line of duty without accounting for the conspiracy would be implausible.

Why? Are you telling me every family that has offspring or a sibling in the military should consider a conspiracy when confronted with their death?

Next, as a government contractor, I dealt with orders in the billions of dollars, from nails to aircraft engines. You know, based on the specifications, the classifications, the port of departure, the timing of departure, the craft departing, and the priority of the order, a great deal about where and how the supply will be used. Often it's written right into the requisition or the item description. Even the materials for the South Pole forces are different from the North Poles forces, though I can only recall uniform differences right now. You just don't understand enough about logistics to make any reasonable statement on this subject.

Now you're assuming that they would have stupidly put the order into the supplier directly from the stations on the Ice Wall? Come on. Stop adding more complexity than there needs to be.

Even the materials for the South Pole forces are different from the North Poles forces,

The North Pole is just a big hunk of ice. There are no "north pole forces" because there is nothing up there (Not even Santa). All those explorers and guys who felt like a bit of thrill and sled dogged to the north pole and such have revealed that. And the South Pole is international territory. There are no "South pole forces" other than a few scientists who hardly count as military personnel because they are just a bunch of nerds who like the cold.




Also, I suppose Scott of the Antarctic and his crew were victims of an international force to wreck their ship, right?

Quote

Even the materials for the South Pole forces are different from the North Poles forces,

The North Pole is just a big hunk of ice. There are no "north pole forces" because there is nothing up there (Not even Santa). All those explorers and guys who felt like a bit of thrill and sled dogged to the north pole and such have revealed that. And the South Pole is international territory. There are no "South pole forces" other than a few scientists who hardly count as military personnel because they are just a bunch of nerds who like the cold.




Also, I suppose Scott of the Antarctic and his crew were victims of an international force to wreck their ship, right?

I'm not that you realize that I'm a REer you greatly discounts the possibility of the FE conspiracy.

As far as backing my assertion that there are forces in the Arctic, please reference: Fairchild.

Arctic I believe, North pole, no.
I'm more concerned with the truth than what faction on this site you belong to. I apologize.

Arctic I believe, North pole, no.
I'm more concerned with the truth than what faction on this site you belong to. I apologize.

Well said. Lifted for the Truth Primer.

lol

This is going to get boring real fast.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:59:01 PM

Yes, they are. They, for example, make requisitions and handle receiving.

That's not the same as logistics, which aren't done on their end.

Anyways, that proves they are in on the conspiracy how?

First, supply-chain logistics most certainly includes requisitioning. It most certainly includes receiving and stocking. It most certainly requires talents far beyond the high-school dropout level that you've suggested.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

You're right. I'm not going to deal with your wild fantasy.

My wild fantasy?

"It does not take much to notice that the weather is frigid"

What was the point of this statement then if it wasn't misrepresenting something I typed, or apparently didn't type??

You seem to believe that everything I type is challenging directly. You need to get out of your fantasy world. In this case, you decided that I was somehow accusing you of thinking the weather isn't frigid. I never said that. I made this statement to point out that your argument that they may not be told the truth about their location was insufficient.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

Explaining that hundreds of people died in the line of duty without accounting for the conspiracy would be implausible.

Why? Are you telling me every family that has offspring or a sibling in the military should consider a conspiracy when confronted with their death?

I'm saying that hundreds of deaths will be, in the aggregate, examined by the media and other watchdogs, including conspiracy theorists. Such numbers are impossible to hide in today's open media access to the battlefront.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

Next, as a government contractor, I dealt with orders in the billions of dollars, from nails to aircraft engines. You know, based on the specifications, the classifications, the port of departure, the timing of departure, the craft departing, and the priority of the order, a great deal about where and how the supply will be used. Often it's written right into the requisition or the item description. Even the materials for the South Pole forces are different from the North Poles forces, though I can only recall uniform differences right now. You just don't understand enough about logistics to make any reasonable statement on this subject.

Now you're assuming that they would have stupidly put the order into the supplier directly from the stations on the Ice Wall? Come on. Stop adding more complexity than there needs to be.

I am assuming that the existing military-industrial infrastructure would be used, that the orders would flow through known and existing communication systems and exchanges, and that reasonable examinations of these data would naturally happen. If you want to add a "shadow" supply system to the conspiracy, you're welcome to apply another layer of tin foil to your hat and have at it.

As for me, I'm just going to laugh at how you fail to demonstrate that a conspiracy is plausible, time after time.

What I found most hilarious about the conspiracy is that it is assumed that its been going on since ancient times with Eratosthenes. Thats an almost 3000 year conspiracy, and yet no one has noticed anything? Odd...

What I found most hilarious about the conspiracy is that it is assumed that its been going on since ancient times with Eratosthenes. Thats an almost 3000 year conspiracy, and yet no one has noticed anything? Odd...

Who assumes this?

I had read in a post a while back (i'm sorry i don't really care to search for it) that Eratosthenes and the ancient philosophers who used various methods to prove the earth round were the founders of the conspiracy.

Apparently that is not the common view. I've not been around for much more than today, so I can't judge what most people accept and what only a few people accept quite yet. If my statement is untrue for the greater majority, consider it retracted.

First, supply-chain logistics most certainly includes requisitioning. It most certainly includes receiving and stocking. It most certainly requires talents far beyond the high-school dropout level that you've suggested.

A requisition is nothing more than a demand. It wouldn't be hard to instruct your men to put in a requisition order upon a certain stock level. Inventory is nothing more than counting. Receiving supplies and storing them is also rather simple. I fail to see the above high-school level required so far for those men.

I made this statement to point out that your argument that they may not be told the truth about their location was insufficient.

They would be told they are guarding something in the Antarctic. It's not completely false. They could come up with a myriad of reasons for their stationing.

I'm saying that hundreds of deaths will be, in the aggregate, examined by the media and other watchdogs, including conspiracy theorists. Such numbers are impossible to hide in today's open media access to the battlefront.

Where are you getting your figures from? Over how long of a period are these hundreds of people dying?

I am assuming that the existing military-industrial infrastructure would be used, that the orders would flow through known and existing communication systems and exchanges, and that reasonable examinations of these data would naturally happen. If you want to add a "shadow" supply system to the conspiracy, you're welcome to apply another layer of tin foil to your hat and have at it.

I don't own a tin foil hat. Perhaps I should make one.

As for me, I'm just going to laugh at how you fail to demonstrate that a conspiracy is plausible, time after time.

I never said it was plausible. I said, for the third time now, it's certainly unlikely, but it's certainly not implausible. If you need me to point out the difference, I can.

I had read in a post a while back (i'm sorry i don't really care to search for it) that Eratosthenes and the ancient philosophers who used various methods to prove the earth round were the founders of the conspiracy.

Apparently that is not the common view. I've not been around for much more than today, so I can't judge what most people accept and what only a few people accept quite yet. If my statement is untrue for the greater majority, consider it retracted.

I believe that was stated in the original post of this thread. And it was mainly sarcastic and a jab at the FE'ers. It's certainly not required that they founded or were apart of the supposed, modern conspiracy.

By the way, watashi wa L desu.

I had read in a post a while back (i'm sorry i don't really care to search for it) that Eratosthenes and the ancient philosophers who used various methods to prove the earth round were the founders of the conspiracy.

Apparently that is not the common view. I've not been around for much more than today, so I can't judge what most people accept and what only a few people accept quite yet. If my statement is untrue for the greater majority, consider it retracted.

Actually, you haven't really made a mistake. You've just ran into the FE smokescreen. Rather than provide any details about the conspiracy or rather their theory about it, they choose to confound and obfuscate. When presented with "Why did so-and-so say he'd measured this-or-that?", they'll ask, "How do you know that so-and-so wasn't in the conspiracy?" When presented with "Since so-and-so said the Earth is round so long ago, your conspiracy theory looks stupid", they'll ask, "Why do you think that so-and-so was in the conspiracy?". They don't (and indeed can't) answer such questions without risking that you'll see "the man behind the curtains". I think that we're lucky just to have the FAQ.

I think Gulliver does...

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 04:48:40 PM

First, supply-chain logistics most certainly includes requisitioning. It most certainly includes receiving and stocking. It most certainly requires talents far beyond the high-school dropout level that you've suggested.

A requisition is nothing more than a demand. It wouldn't be hard to instruct your men to put in a requisition order upon a certain stock level. Inventory is nothing more than counting. Receiving supplies and storing them is also rather simple. I fail to see the above high-school level required so far for those men.

I believe that your failure to appreciate the talents of those performing these tasks demonstrates just how useless you are in these debates. The selection of the right part requires a great deal of experience and reasoning. Predicting required inventory levels is a amazing difficult problem that I bet you couldn't do to save your soul. I know I fail at it all too often, and my Ph. D. dissertation was in OR. Receiving is not easy either. Matching req to PO to part to shipment to bin to priority is a daunting task. Heck, just predicting what size bin to use for a new stock item requires significant talents and often some complex math. Oh, and remember you are arguing that these people are high-school dropouts, not graduates. These people would have reasoning abilities and talents and you should respect them as you expect your talents to be respected.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

I made this statement to point out that your argument that they may not be told the truth about their location was insufficient.

They would be told they are guarding something in the Antarctic. It's not completely false. They could come up with a myriad of reasons for their stationing.

Oh, a new argument. I guess you gave up on the last one. Fine. I'll agree that everyone stationed to guard the Ice Wall know that they're in Antarctica. Now tell us the reason we don't hear about their stationing, from their parents, over drinks at the bar, or at the VFW?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

I'm saying that hundreds of deaths will be, in the aggregate, examined by the media and other watchdogs, including conspiracy theorists. Such numbers are impossible to hide in today's open media access to the battlefront.

Where are you getting your figures from? Over how long of a period are these hundreds of people dying?

Listen, pal, it's your "not implausible" theory that people can guard the Ice Wall and then never return and not be missed. You tell me how long each person serves, how many miles each covers for how many hours each day, along the longest conceivable border in the most inhospitable environment on Earth with months of total darkness with the longest supply lines even encountered by any military ever in the history of man, and I'll be glad to work out a number for you. Until then, I stand by my claim that hundreds of people every year would have to go missing in military service. I suggest that hundreds each year is probably two orders of magnitude low, but surely enough to catch the suspicions of watchdogs.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

I am assuming that the existing military-industrial infrastructure would be used, that the orders would flow through known and existing communication systems and exchanges, and that reasonable examinations of these data would naturally happen. If you want to add a "shadow" supply system to the conspiracy, you're welcome to apply another layer of tin foil to your hat and have at it.

I don't own a tin foil hat. Perhaps I should make one.

You have earned the figurative tinfoil hat by your defense of the conspiracy theory, with all the rank and privileges thereof.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

As for me, I'm just going to laugh at how you fail to demonstrate that a conspiracy is plausible, time after time.

I never said it was plausible. I said, for the third time now, it's certainly unlikely, but it's certainly not implausible. If you need me to point out the difference, I can.

Sure, please do.  I'd be happy to scoff at such an attempt. Be sure to explain the reason the law of the excluded middle doesn't apply to you.

I believe that your failure to appreciate the talents of those performing these tasks demonstrates just how useless you are in these debates. The selection of the right part requires a great deal of experience and reasoning. Predicting required inventory levels is a amazing difficult problem that I bet you couldn't do to save your soul. I know I fail at it all too often, and my Ph. D. dissertation was in OR. Receiving is not easy either. Matching req to PO to part to shipment to bin to priority is a daunting task. Heck, just predicting what size bin to use for a new stock item requires significant talents and often some complex math. Oh, and remember you are arguing that these people are high-school dropouts, not graduates. These people would have reasoning abilities and talents and you should respect them as you expect your talents to be respected.

I actually handled inventory for Leon's Furniture when I was 17, and still in high school. I also plotted the deliveries daily and assigned the drivers their items according to certain criteria. Essentially it had to be done efficiently upon a logical route, account for gas and the monetary value per truck had to be about even, given that they were paid a percentage of the orders. I monitored stock levels, customer orders and made the necessary requisitions for ISTs (in-store transfers) based on the quantity and schedule of other manufacturer deliveries. I even handled the RMAs and manufacturer repairs in accordance with demand. The larger orders from the manufacturers were done at the home office and based on statistical analysis, something I probably would have been incapable of doing at the time.

Oh, a new argument. I guess you gave up on the last one. Fine. I'll agree that everyone stationed to guard the Ice Wall know that they're in Antarctica. Now tell us the reason we don't hear about their stationing, from their parents, over drinks at the bar, or at the VFW?

I didn't change my argument. If you read my original posts, it's the same.

As for the reason we don't hear about it. Black ops? Something more believable could be that they are told something else, they tell their family and the mission or assignment "changes" and they are unable to contact them in the future. I've already touched on this in other threads. Rerouting mail, fake letters etc...

The details regarding discharge or possibilities for what happens outside of that would be subject to more speculation, but it could certainly be accounted for.

Listen, pal, it's your "not implausible" theory that people can guard the Ice Wall and then never return and not be missed. You tell me how long each person serves, how many miles each covers for how many hours each day, along the longest conceivable border in the most inhospitable environment on Earth with months of total darkness with the longest supply lines even encountered by any military ever in the history of man, and I'll be glad to work out a number for you. Until then, I stand by my claim that hundreds of people every year would have to go missing in military service. I suggest that hundreds each year is probably two orders of magnitude low, but surely enough to catch the suspicions of watchdogs.

I'd have to take a look at those threads where they worked out a reasonable number. I'm also lacking in the knowledge of military technology that could significantly reduce the number of men needed.

I never said they wouldn't be missed. Information surrounding their time there could definitely be misrepresented or fabricated. Details for their return, should they be returned, could even be due to a mental breakdown, or other such issues along the lines of GWS.

You have earned the figurative tinfoil hat by your defense of the conspiracy theory, with all the rank and privileges thereof.

Yay! I must say it is a fun challenge.

Sure, please do.  I'd be happy to scoff at such an attempt. Be sure to explain the reason the law of the excluded middle doesn't apply to you.

Actually, I wouldn't be able to do that accurately. It'd be subject to opinion in all cases and not fact. We'd both lose that battle

Divito,
The logistics of maintaining a standing force 1000's of miles from your home land is staggering.
The minimum numbers quoted for guarding the ice is fantasy and coming from people with out military back ground. I think I posted in an earlier thread that the 600 quoted , taking in the FE thoughts of the length of the coast line related to 75 men for the West coast of the USA seems a bit skinny?
That aside  600 is a standing Battalion ,how many Battalions are they using in rotation? Who is training them and where are these men training? Under similar conditions

And the biggest Q from what country are they coming from ?

Divito,
The logistics of maintaining a standing force 1000's of miles from your home land is staggering.
The minimum numbers quoted for guarding the ice is fantasy and coming from people with out military back ground. I think I posted in an earlier thread that the 600 quoted , taking in the FE thoughts of the length of the coast line related to 75 men for the West coast of the USA seems a bit skinny?
That aside  600 is a standing Battalion ,how many Battalions are they using in rotation? Who is training them and where are these men training? Under similar conditions

And the biggest Q from what country are they coming from ?

Those are actually some good questions.

The number of men is still reliant upon technology. I can't accurately speculate to which technology is used, but I have an inkling that it would greatly diminish the estimated numbers. The only issue would be to come up with a reasonable speculation as to how many people you actually think approach the Ice Wall and at what point warrants action.

A portion of ice, (part of the the Antarctic treaty) could be setup for research, and that is consistently traveled upon using certain navigational data. This treaty includes a good portion of countries, and the countries are either nonchalant about the activities or are part of the conspiracy. I'd have to assume that should it exist, it is primarily with the agencies that originated the space race, being NASA and the RKA and some sect their military. It would provide for less involvement, but the science behind navigation the Ice Wall presents a large problem with this idea.

As for the training, refer to Gulliver's suggestion regarding Fairchild.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 05:39:37 PM

I believe that your failure to appreciate the talents of those performing these tasks demonstrates just how useless you are in these debates. The selection of the right part requires a great deal of experience and reasoning. Predicting required inventory levels is a amazing difficult problem that I bet you couldn't do to save your soul. I know I fail at it all too often, and my Ph. D. dissertation was in OR. Receiving is not easy either. Matching req to PO to part to shipment to bin to priority is a daunting task. Heck, just predicting what size bin to use for a new stock item requires significant talents and often some complex math. Oh, and remember you are arguing that these people are high-school dropouts, not graduates. These people would have reasoning abilities and talents and you should respect them as you expect your talents to be respected.

I actually handled inventory for Leon's Furniture when I was 17, and still in high school. I also plotted the deliveries daily and assigned the drivers their items according to certain criteria. Essentially it had to be done efficiently upon a logical route, account for gas and the monetary value per truck had to be about even, given that they were paid a percentage of the orders. I monitored stock levels, customer orders and made the necessary requisitions for ISTs (in-store transfers) based on the quantity and schedule of other manufacturer deliveries. I even handled the RMAs and manufacturer repairs in accordance with demand. The larger orders from the manufacturers were done at the home office and based on statistical analysis, something I probably would have been incapable of doing at the time.

Are you trying to compare order for a furniture store in a comfortable city with ordering for a military operation as far as possible from civilization? I certainly hope not. I really don't know of another reason for this glimpse into your past.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

Oh, a new argument. I guess you gave up on the last one. Fine. I'll agree that everyone stationed to guard the Ice Wall know that they're in Antarctica. Now tell us the reason we don't hear about their stationing, from their parents, over drinks at the bar, or at the VFW?

I didn't change my argument. If you read my original posts, it's the same.

As for the reason we don't hear about it. Black ops? Something more believable could be that they are told something else, they tell their family and the mission or assignment "changes" and they are unable to contact them in the future. I've already touched on this in other threads. Rerouting mail, fake letters etc...

The details regarding discharge or possibilities for what happens outside of that would be subject to more speculation, but it could certainly be accounted for.

If you consider all that plausible, you really must believe that unicorns are plausible.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

Listen, pal, it's your "not implausible" theory that people can guard the Ice Wall and then never return and not be missed. You tell me how long each person serves, how many miles each covers for how many hours each day, along the longest conceivable border in the most inhospitable environment on Earth with months of total darkness with the longest supply lines even encountered by any military ever in the history of man, and I'll be glad to work out a number for you. Until then, I stand by my claim that hundreds of people every year would have to go missing in military service. I suggest that hundreds each year is probably two orders of magnitude low, but surely enough to catch the suspicions of watchdogs.

I'd have to take a look at those threads where they worked out a reasonable number. I'm also lacking in the knowledge of military technology that could significantly reduce the number of men needed.

I never said they wouldn't be missed. Information surrounding their time there could definitely be misrepresented or fabricated. Details for their return, should they be returned, could even be due to a mental breakdown, or other such issues along the lines of GWS.

Of course, it would take a large number of people to accomplish this fabrication as well, so be sure to increase the numbers accordingly. Interesting though that you assail my figures and don't have any yourself. I can only conclude that your assertion that the conspiracy theory is not implausible is not well thought out.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

You have earned the figurative tinfoil hat by your defense of the conspiracy theory, with all the rank and privileges thereof.

Yay! I must say it is a fun challenge.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 03:12:32 PM

Sure, please do.  I'd be happy to scoff at such an attempt. Be sure to explain the reason the law of the excluded middle doesn't apply to you.

Actually, I wouldn't be able to do that accurately. It'd be subject to opinion in all cases and not fact. We'd both lose that battle

You are the master of weak concessions. Okay, so we're clear after many pages. You are asserting that this conspiracy theory is plausible and haven't substantiated your assertion. You can't even calculate how many people would be needed, yet you assert it's plausible. Goodness where's divito when you need him to hold someone to back up their assertion?

"The number of men is still reliant upon technology. I can't accurately speculate to which technology is used, but I have an inkling that it would greatly diminish the estimated numbers. The only issue would be to come up with a reasonable speculation as to how many people you actually think approach the Ice Wall and at what point warrants action."

Partially correct , the number of personnel is dependent upon your intended response, anticipated maximum size of enemy, what multipliers you or the enemy has for safe engagement . That and response time after detection.

"A portion of ice, (part of the the Antarctic treaty) could be setup for research, and that is consistently traveled upon using certain navigational data. This treaty includes a good portion of countries, and the countries are either nonchalant about the activities or are part of the conspiracy. I'd have to assume that should it exist, it is primarily with the agencies that originated the space race, being NASA and the RKA and some sect their military. It would provide for less involvement, but the science behind navigation the Ice Wall presents a large problem with this idea."
"
This bit does not make much sense, sorry. Its one thing to have a military body stationed adjacent to civvies in peace , it can be seen as a deterrent but that deterrent is only viable if visible the so called Ice guards are low visibility. If it is a standing unit on active service the unit its self is dangerous to have adjacent to civvies.

As for the training, refer to Gulliver's suggestion regarding Fairchild.'

It takes substantially more than 17 days training for a tour of duty.

Are you trying to compare order for a furniture store in a comfortable city with ordering for a military operation as far as possible from civilization? I certainly hope not. I really don't know of another reason for this glimpse into your past.

The concept is the same. It's a management of supplies. As I worked with inventory numbers and contacts, the same is applied to their rations and supplies.

If you consider all that plausible, you really must believe that unicorns are plausible.

Partly a straw man, but other than that, are you denying that there isn't a misconception amongst how the idea of a unicorn appeared?

Of course, it would take a large number of people to accomplish this fabrication as well, so be sure to increase the numbers accordingly. Interesting though that you assail my figures and don't have any yourself. I can only conclude that your assertion that the conspiracy theory is not implausible is not well thought out.

I was just curious where you were basing your numbers from. While I have no numbers that are any more reasonable than yours, I just found it hard to believe regarding the hundreds of deaths that you suggested.

You are the master of weak concessions. Okay, so we're clear after many pages. You are asserting that this conspiracy theory is plausible and haven't substantiated your assertion. You can't even calculate how many people would be needed, yet you assert it's plausible. Goodness where's divito when you need him to hold someone to back up their assertion?

There are too many assumptions to realistically assert anything. I'm sure no crazy explanations I came up with would satisfy people. Although I may revisit this later in an attempt to actually work out some numbers. Should be fun.

Partially correct , the number of personnel is dependent upon your intended response, anticipated maximum size of enemy, what multipliers you or the enemy has for safe engagement . That and response time after detection.

Yup.

This bit does not make much sense, sorry. Its one thing to have a military body stationed adjacent to civvies in peace , it can be seen as a deterrent but that deterrent is only viable if visible the so called Ice guards are low visibility. If it is a standing unit on active service the unit its self is dangerous to have adjacent to civvies.

Ya, sorry. I had a bunch of thoughts in my head and tried mashing them together instead of typing them all out. Essentially, there is the Antarctic treaty. Stated in the first article of it is:

"military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited, but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;"

Guarding said Ice Wall could be in line with the 'peaceful purpose'. Having such military presence wouldn't be completely out of place near such scientific establishments on the 'continent' and would be in line with the treaty that is common knowledge for the most part. I don't see it as a huge issue.

The bigger issue comes with the navigational data into getting each researcher to the same spot. That, I'm not willing to speculate. Where is Tom when you need some crazy theory?

It takes substantially more than 17 days training for a tour of duty.

I was just responding to your question of who is training them and under what conditions. This one is at least a documented one.

"Guarding said Ice Wall could be in line with the 'peaceful purpose'. Having such military presence wouldn't be completely out of place near such scientific establishments on the 'continent' and would be in line with the treaty that is common knowledge for the most part. I don't see it as a huge issue."

But guarding by whom against whom?
And also I reiterate you need a high visibility of your forces for it to be a deterrent.

But guarding by whom against whom?

Depends on whose perspective you're referring to. The guards'? The scientists'? The countries'?

And also I reiterate you need a high visibility of your forces for it to be a deterrent.

Deterrent for what?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 07:31:12 PM

Are you trying to compare order for a furniture store in a comfortable city with ordering for a military operation as far as possible from civilization? I certainly hope not. I really don't know of another reason for this glimpse into your past.

The concept is the same. It's a management of supplies. As I worked with inventory numbers and contacts, the same is applied to their rations and supplies.

You have no idea, just no idea, how hard a military action is to pull off. People die, and not just in combat. In the environment that we're discussing, a simple failure to order the right replacement part for the backup aircraft's backup navigation array could easily strand dozens of servicemen and doom them to an icy death. But you think it's the same concept as ordering furniture. You haven't a clue.

I've had to sit across the table from a General when a line of code cost a single life in his command and account for each and every time our team dealt with that line of code. (I have made a mistake once that did indeed cost someone her life, but this time our team performed beyond the highest standards in the industry. We were just overruled by someone with the bigger picture in mind. We really got to know the concept of "one life, so many may live" all too well that long, long day.) The right type of bandage did not get on the Mercy before she deployed, I believe, though I wasn't privileged to the details. You have no right to compare your furniture store experience with the hard and important work that must be done by trained and reasoning servicemen in any military action's supply line. They are owed our respect. They earn it with their very lives.

You have no idea, just no idea, how hard a military action is to pull off. People die, and not just in combat. In the environment that we're discussing, a simple failure to order the right replacement part for the backup aircraft's backup navigation array could easily strand dozens of servicemen and doom them to an icy death. But you think it's the same concept as ordering furniture. You haven't a clue.

I've had to sit across the table from a General when a line of code cost a single life in his command and account for each and every time our team dealt with that line of code. (I have made a mistake once that did indeed cost someone her life, but this time our team performed beyond the highest standards in the industry. We were just overruled by someone with the bigger picture in mind. We really got to know the concept of "one life, so many may live" all too well that long, long day.) The right type of bandage did not get on the Mercy before she deployed, I believe, though I wasn't privileged to the details. You have no right to compare your furniture store experience with the hard and important work that must be done by trained and reasoning servicemen in any military action's supply line. They are owed our respect. They earn it with their very lives.

You have misconstrued my statement. The concept is the same...not the importance of how accurately their job needs to be done. I also never claimed military action was easy.

I also found it laughable that you'd try to devalue my argument by playing the sympathy and respect card. Weak

Quote from: Gulliver on July 12, 2007, 08:35:27 PM

You have no idea, just no idea, how hard a military action is to pull off. People die, and not just in combat. In the environment that we're discussing, a simple failure to order the right replacement part for the backup aircraft's backup navigation array could easily strand dozens of servicemen and doom them to an icy death. But you think it's the same concept as ordering furniture. You haven't a clue.

I've had to sit across the table from a General when a line of code cost a single life in his command and account for each and every time our team dealt with that line of code. (I have made a mistake once that did indeed cost someone her life, but this time our team performed beyond the highest standards in the industry. We were just overruled by someone with the bigger picture in mind. We really got to know the concept of "one life, so many may live" all too well that long, long day.) The right type of bandage did not get on the Mercy before she deployed, I believe, though I wasn't privileged to the details. You have no right to compare your furniture store experience with the hard and important work that must be done by trained and reasoning servicemen in any military action's supply line. They are owed our respect. They earn it with their very lives.

You have misconstrued my statement. The concept is the same...not the importance of how accurately their job needs to be done. I also never claimed military action was easy.

I also found it laughable that you'd try to devalue my argument by playing the sympathy and respect card. Weak

You have stated that the Ice Wall could be guarded by high-school dropouts. You've attacked the fine servicemen that carry out military actions. You dare to compare the concept of your petty furniture store experience with the concept of supplying a military action. You need to reconsider just how hard other people work. You still have no idea.

You've asserted that the conspiracy is plausible. You have failed to substantiate that assertion. You have the onus here, and impugning the servicemen who carry out military actions as being "high-school dropouts" and unable to reason where in the world they are has not helped your case in the least.

Quote from: Riles on July 12, 2007, 08:23:26 PM

But guarding by whom against whom?

Depends on whose perspective you're referring to. The guards'? The scientists'? The countries'?

Quote from: Riles on July 12, 2007, 08:23:26 PM

And also I reiterate you need a high visibility of your forces for it to be a deterrent.

Deterrent for what?

OK I'll put it another way, where do the guards come from and what motive do they have to be there?

You have stated that the Ice Wall could be guarded by high-school dropouts.

Somewhat true. They need to watch their technological devices and make necessary actions when/if anyone should pass a certain area. They are also to continually do an inventory count, and call a phone number once their inventory of certain supplies reaches a certain, predetermined number. Then, pilots of the conspiracy from this military sect would bring their supplies. They would then take the supplies off the craft, and put them in their designated spots in the facility.

You've asserted that the conspiracy is plausible. You have failed to substantiate that assertion. You have the onus here, and impugning the servicemen who carry out military actions as being "high-school dropouts" and unable to reason where in the world they are has not helped your case in the least.

I already said why that wasn't going to work. There are too many assumptions.

Also, my high school dropout suggestion was to show the problem with your claim that everyone in the military would know about the rotation of the stars and their subsequent locations, revealing to them that the Earth was a sphere and that they would know where they are.

OK I'll put it another way, where do the guards come from and what motive do they have to be there?

Where they come from? They are most likely members of military groups, probably primarily of US and Russian citizenship. Other nations with advanced space programs could also contribute technology and troops.

As for their motive, they are simply following orders. They are to guard X area for...scientific purposes or what have you. Or, in line with the treaty, they are to ensure peace and illegal activity does not commence on or near the continent. Included in that is the observation towards the inner-earth and dealing with subsequent craft beyond a certain point.