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

Um, you go up to space, take pics, and come back down. Its not terribly hard, and they can easily do it again and again with all the interest they'd get.

How do they prove their pictures are real?

How do they prove their pictures are real?

Also a good point.

I think i can bypass these conspiracy people and prove once and for all if the earth is flat or round.
I just bought a shovel.
I'm hoping to make it to the Olympics on time, otherwise, ill see you on the flip-side...literally

Quote from: Ferdinand Magellen on July 16, 2007, 06:53:35 AM

Um, you go up to space, take pics, and come back down. Its not terribly hard, and they can easily do it again and again with all the interest they'd get.

Again, what would they benefit?

]

Publicity.

And to prove its real, they just take up skeptics. This isn't terrifically advanced stuff...

They didn't do it accidentally. They recorded their experiments and their observations, I don't see what the fuss is.

The fuss is that they're repeatable experiments that give roughly accurate measurements for the size and shape of the Earth and the distance of the Moon and Sun. These measurements also roundly (ba dum ching) disprove any tenable flat earth model.

[quote[/quote]
They kill and sink approaching ships? How do you know this?[/quote]

Why do FE'ers, or would-be devil advocates, love trying to be coy so much? If they don't terminate approaching ships then they have to warn them off. If they warn them off, word gets out that no one can go on antactic expeditions without MIBs swarming them and sending them away.

Unless you're going to suggest that the government has memory erasing devices.

The "shape" of the ocean doesn't have relevance. But clearly it hasn't been inaccurate over all these years. Explain again how these people are in on the conspiracy?

Are you really this dense? The size and shape of the Oceans as we know them only works on a globe. Note how every even somewhat tenable map of the Flat Earth shows the oceans much larger in the Southern hemisphere. This completely fucks up world history beyond recognition.

Well, besides that any information about the universe would be tainted if this theory were true, where did I say the universe wasn't expanding?

The universe cannot be expanding in every direction if it is constantly accelerating in one direction, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Speculating about the UA though...who is to say that the Earth isn't some flat portion of rock that was shot upwards from the Big Bang? Given all the facts, clearly unlikely, but so is this flat Earth theory.

Ockham's fucking razor is to say so. Is there a single valid reason to believe in a flat earth that requires an enormous conspiracy to maintain it's existence?

Never seen that movie, and that isn't my opinion of the military. Convenient of you to think so though.

Oh, shut your gob hole. Don't insult everyone in the military and then try to play the part of the wounded victim when people call you out on it.

This proves that every member of the military is in on the conspiracy? No. A sect of the military, employed by NASA and other members of the conspiracy would suit just fine.

Everyone in a position of oversight would have to be in on the conspiracy, and able to maintain this secret against every under officer and enlisted man. It is true that not every single member of the several million man military would have to be in on the conspiracy, but it is also true that no one claimed this. What you seem to be unable to understand is that even the few dozen thousand over the centuries who would have had to be in on it makes this conspiracy improbably to a degree that it would be difficult to express in numerical form if we were to turn every atom in the Universe to ink and paper.

What distances and times do you think they'd notice for travel? Where are they traveling?

I think that the many thousands of soldiers we had in the Asian-Pacific in WWII would, for instance, notice that all the travel distances between islands were three times as long as estimated.

Why would the money come from anywhere else? $16B to NASA, and include the other various agencies, I'm sure there is enough to go around.

That's because you're lacking in knowledge and imagination. Sixteen billion is nothing for a large government/military operation of the scale you're suggesting. In four years, for comparison, the Iraq war has rung up 400 million. And these are basic operational costs; what you need to maintain that kind of conspiracy, with money as your only motivation, even if that would suffice, is going to be much greater; people aren't going to keep a lid on that kind of secret for a living wage.

this is just pathetic how can you guys actually belive this not every single government or who ever you bleive is in on this croc would not give away some sort of information to someone at some point think of how many people are in government etc

The fuss is that they're repeatable experiments that give roughly accurate measurements for the size and shape of the Earth and the distance of the Moon and Sun. These measurements also roundly (ba dum ching) disprove any tenable flat earth model.

I've never denied that their experiments were repeatable, or that they support conventional wisdom.

Why do FE'ers, or would-be devil advocates, love trying to be coy so much? If they don't terminate approaching ships then they have to warn them off. If they warn them off, word gets out that no one can go on antactic expeditions without MIBs swarming them and sending them away.

Unless you're going to suggest that the government has memory erasing devices.

How many people do you suppose venture out that far? We also don't know how the navigation methods used work out when heading south and where they'd end up.

As for 'memory erasing devices', I wouldn't put it passed them that they could induce amnesia through its various causes. Although none of us could really know.

Are you really this dense? The size and shape of the Oceans as we know them only works on a globe. Note how every even somewhat tenable map of the Flat Earth shows the oceans much larger in the Southern hemisphere. This completely fucks up world history beyond recognition.

Those flat Earth maps are only taking the globe and supplanting it into a plane. It is in no way accurate, that should be a given.

The universe cannot be expanding in every direction if it is constantly accelerating in one direction, for reasons that I hope are obvious.

Since when is the Earth, the universe?

Is there a single valid reason to believe in a flat earth that requires an enormous conspiracy to maintain it's existence?

As Tom would say, "I look out my window and it's flat"...but as for really valid? There isn't anything really.

Oh, shut your gob hole. Don't insult everyone in the military and then try to play the part of the wounded victim when people call you out on it.

Well, not everyone in the military is 18-years old, nor are they all high-school dropouts. Quite the opposite in fact. So I'm confused how I insulted 'everyone in the military'. Another trig and Gulliver attempt?

Everyone in a position of oversight would have to be in on the conspiracy, and able to maintain this secret against every under officer and enlisted man. It is true that not every single member of the several million man military would have to be in on the conspiracy, but it is also true that no one claimed this. What you seem to be unable to understand is that even the few dozen thousand over the centuries who would have had to be in on it makes this conspiracy improbably to a degree that it would be difficult to express in numerical form if we were to turn every atom in the Universe to ink and paper.

12,000 military members since the 1960s? Why so many?

I think that the many thousands of soldiers we had in the Asian-Pacific in WWII would, for instance, notice that all the travel distances between islands were three times as long as estimated.

I suppose the people in the conspiracy would use the global estimated time to reach Antarctica, instead of using a more accurate figure?? Sounds smart.

That's because you're lacking in knowledge and imagination. Sixteen billion is nothing for a large government/military operation of the scale you're suggesting. In four years, for comparison, the Iraq war has rung up 400 million. And these are basic operational costs; what you need to maintain that kind of conspiracy, with money as your only motivation, even if that would suffice, is going to be much greater; people aren't going to keep a lid on that kind of secret for a living wage.

What I'm suggesting isn't large at all in regards to military involvement. Quite the opposite.

You're comparing 4 years @ 100M per year to the average of $8.559 billion ($12.681 billion dollars in real terms) per year that NASA has gotten over its 49 years. Ok.

Publicity.

And publicity gets them what?

And like Common posed earlier, how would they prove their photos are any more believable than NASA's??

...

Quote from: Joe_Grim on July 16, 2007, 07:26:42 PM

Are you really this dense? The size and shape of the Oceans as we know them only works on a globe. Note how every even somewhat tenable map of the Flat Earth shows the oceans much larger in the Southern hemisphere. This completely fucks up world history beyond recognition.

Those flat Earth maps are only taking the globe and supplanting it into a plane. It is in no way accurate, that should be a given.

Nope. Those maps are based on the FE logic of the mapping of longitude and latitude onto the disc. What you see on the map is what is given. (Otherwise, someone with an atlas and a GPS device (or similar device or method) would report the error.) The distances and areas are stretched starting around the Arctic Circle and compressed north of that line. The measuring areas in Australia of larger tracts of land should  quickly demonstrate whether FE or RE is correct. A well-documented voyage around Antarctica, such as the round-the-world yacht races, should also quickly demonstrate which is correct. FE has many ways to demonstrate its accuracy, yet all we heard is the drone of inane theories and hand washing. The RE Team, on the overhand, has 20 documented experiments supporting RE and over 70 challenges to FE, written up in the RE Primer.

Nope. Those maps are based on the FE logic of the mapping of longitude and latitude onto the disc. What you see on the map is what is given. (Otherwise, someone with an atlas and a GPS device (or similar device or method) would report the error.) The distances and areas are stretched starting around the Arctic Circle and compressed north of that line. The measuring areas in Australia of larger tracts of land should  quickly demonstrate whether FE or RE is correct. A well-documented voyage around Antarctica, such as the round-the-world yacht races, should also quickly demonstrate which is correct. FE has many ways to demonstrate its accuracy, yet all we heard is the drone of inane theories and hand washing. The RE Team, on the overhand, has 20 documented experiments supporting RE and over 70 challenges to FE, written up in the RE Primer.

This is done by polarization, and doesn't involve any information regarding measurements.

What maps are based on the mapping of longitude and latitude onto the disc?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 16, 2007, 08:57:07 PM

Nope. Those maps are based on the FE logic of the mapping of longitude and latitude onto the disc. What you see on the map is what is given. (Otherwise, someone with an atlas and a GPS device (or similar device or method) would report the error.) The distances and areas are stretched starting around the Arctic Circle and compressed north of that line. The measuring areas in Australia of larger tracts of land should  quickly demonstrate whether FE or RE is correct. A well-documented voyage around Antarctica, such as the round-the-world yacht races, should also quickly demonstrate which is correct. FE has many ways to demonstrate its accuracy, yet all we heard is the drone of inane theories and hand washing. The RE Team, on the overhand, has 20 documented experiments supporting RE and over 70 challenges to FE, written up in the RE Primer.

This is done by polarization, and doesn't involve any information regarding measurements.

What maps are based on the mapping of longitude and latitude onto the disc?

That one.

That one.

So where is the data on that map? Or even in relation to that specific map?

Quote from: Gulliver on July 16, 2007, 09:28:27 PM

That one.

So where is the data on that map? Or even in relation to that specific map?

On the map.

Again, that map was simply a polarization. It only illustrates the concept of what visualizing a flat Earth would be like. There was no data used in its creation, merely clicking a filter button.

* divito looks again...and realizes there is none like he already knew.

Again, that map was simply a polarization. It only illustrates the concept of what visualizing a flat Earth would be like. There was no data used in its creation, merely clicking a filter button.

Wrong. There's a great deal of data on the original globe that is mapped by the process onto the disc. You're just too blind to see.

Wrong. There's a great deal of data on the original globe that is mapped by the process onto the disc. You're just too blind to see.

You do realize that relying on that flat Earth map wouldn't get you to your locations right? Mainly because it's a distortion of that "globular" data.

I was referring to a real flat Earth map that actually has accurate data, to which there isn't one. My fault.

Quote from: Gulliver on July 16, 2007, 09:58:01 PM

Wrong. There's a great deal of data on the original globe that is mapped by the process onto the disc. You're just too blind to see.

You do realize that relying on that flat Earth map wouldn't get you to your locations right? Mainly because it's a distortion of that "globular" data.

I was referring to a real flat Earth map that actually has accurate data, to which there isn't one. My fault.

If you ever expected to use a map based on FE to get to the right location, you erred. FE must, by its projection create for itself inconsistencies that cannot be resolved. TomB tries to argue, for example, that modern aircraft, equipped with internal guidance and airspeed monitors, are propelled by "magical" jet streams in the Southern Hemisphere, in all directions, in order to arrive as quickly as they do. Australian real estate brokers, South African surveyors, Arctic explorers, and a host of others would quickly discover that the FE model of the world, with its "UN Logo" map as its guide, fails to match reality. There are a number of challenges in the RE Primer, for which I've not had time to prepare experiments, that deal with these problems in FE.

I'm still tempted to try plotting one.

And yea, Tom's jet stream claim is pretty out there.

I'm still tempted to try plotting one.

And yea, Tom's jet stream claim is pretty out there.

I'm really serious that polarization map is the way to go. You need to keep the latitude equally spaced and concentric on the North Pole and longitude lines equally divergent and straight from the North Pole to the edge. Otherwise, FE gets positioning errors. So really just take a good polar projection map, (They're already out there.) and you have your map in hand.

I've never denied that their experiments were repeatable, or that they support conventional wisdom.

Their experiments directly disprove FE theory. Either you are arguing that their experiments are wrong, or you're arguing that FE is unequivocally false. Which is it? (Side note that their experiments are in fact wrong, but with some minor adjustments we arrive at the correct estimates).

How many people do you suppose venture out that far?

Thousands every year. Maybe you should have some rudimentary knowledge of the things you're going to speculate on.

We also don't know how the navigation methods used work out when heading south and where they'd end up.

Don't be idiotic, of course we do. If you mean to say that we don't know how Southward navigation would work if FE's theories were true, that's probably because there isn't a logical solution. Hence, the claims can be dismissed as false.

As for 'memory erasing devices', I wouldn't put it passed them that they could induce amnesia through its various causes. Although none of us could really know.

You need to stop pretending that all ideas are equally valid. It's neither intelligent nor open minded. A good, critical thinker will try to discount bad ideas so as to get at the good ones. Value judgments= teh win, as they say. Flat earth is easy to discount. Your attempts at defending it avail no one and advance nothing like human knowledge.

Those flat Earth maps are only taking the globe and supplanting it into a plane. It is in no way accurate, that should be a given.

That's because it's impossible for it to be accurate while maintaining the measurements known for the world's oceans and shipping routes, because they rely on a curved plane. Get this through your head; a flat earth is impossible without vastly distorting some area of the globe. That's why map-makers have such a difficult time.

Since when is the Earth, the universe?

If the Earth were constantly accelerating in one direction in an otherwise normal Universe that were expanding outwards, and we had been doing so for at least human history, we would not see a red shift in the stars and bodies "above" us, i.e., those that we are accelerating towards; we would be approaching them at a speed many times that of light. This idea is untenable. FE requires discarding all our working knowledge of the Universe, as the two are incompatible.

As Tom would say, "I look out my window and it's flat"...but as for really valid? There isn't anything really.

Then shave off the unnecessary assumptions, man. This isn't rock science.

Well, not everyone in the military is 18-years old, nor are they all high-school dropouts. Quite the opposite in fact. So I'm confused how I insulted 'everyone in the military'. Another trig and Gulliver attempt?

Because your post directly implied that this was the norm for military personnel. Moreover, since the issue was not everyone figuring out the problems at hand, but rather anyone doing so, you were implying that everyone in the military was a slack jawed college dropout.

If you did not mean to imply this, perhaps you should study English further and advance your own education so that you may express yourself more clearly in the future and avoid that kind of socially awkward mistake.

12,000 military members since the 1960s? Why so many?

Because the ice wall would have to be very massive, several times the size of the equator, and  maintaining and keeping track of all those stations is going to require a lot of effort. Also, 1960's is pulled out of your ass; try since the late 18th century, when, need I remind you, maintaining the conspiracy with current technology would have been insanely more difficult.

I suppose the people in the conspiracy would use the global estimated time to reach Antarctica, instead of using a more accurate figure?? Sounds smart.

Reverse it. The times would be much longer than predicted, not much shorter; you're talking about crossing bodies of water that are more than twice as large as predicted.

What I'm suggesting isn't large at all in regards to military involvement. Quite the opposite.

What are you suggesting, then? And does it have any grounding in anything like reality?

You're comparing 4 years @ 100M per year to the average of $8.559 billion ($12.681 billion dollars in real terms) per year that NASA has gotten over its 49 years. Ok.

Yes, I am. And Iraq is much, much smaller than the theoretical Ice Wall, and much more hospitable to life. Nor is it required that people there engage in large-scale deception. Where are you going with this?

Their experiments directly disprove FE theory. Either you are arguing that their experiments are wrong, or you're arguing that FE is unequivocally false. Which is it? (Side note that their experiments are in fact wrong, but with some minor adjustments we arrive at the correct estimates).

They do not disprove anything. Documentation of their observations do not equate to actuality.

Thousands every year. Maybe you should have some rudimentary knowledge of the things you're going to speculate on.

"Approximately 29 nations, all signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, send personnel to perform seasonal (summer) and year-round research on the continent and in its surrounding oceans; the population of persons doing and supporting scientific research on the continent and its nearby islands south of 60 degrees south latitude (the region covered by the Antarctic Treaty) varies from approximately 4,000 in summer to 1,000 in winter; in addition, approximately 1,000 personnel including ship's crew and scientists doing onboard research are present in the waters of the treaty region."

They are confined to specific regions in accordance with nation's territorial claims. I would venture that most of the routes involve straight lines (or geodesics if the Earth is indeed a sphere) and their instruments bring them to areas more commonly known as Antarctica.

The treaty was also signed one year after the formation of NASA.

Don't be idiotic, of course we do. If you mean to say that we don't know how Southward navigation would work if FE's theories were true, that's probably because there isn't a logical solution. Hence, the claims can be dismissed as false.

We know what is claimed.

You need to stop pretending that all ideas are equally valid. It's neither intelligent nor open minded. A good, critical thinker will try to discount bad ideas so as to get at the good ones. Value judgments= teh win, as they say. Flat earth is easy to discount. Your attempts at defending it avail no one and advance nothing like human knowledge.

"Bad ideas" is a matter of subjectivity, not objectivity or facts. The same is apparent with values. They are relative and subjective.

The FET is very easy to discount, I agree.

That's because it's impossible for it to be accurate while maintaining the measurements known for the world's oceans and shipping routes, because they rely on a curved plane. Get this through your head; a flat earth is impossible without vastly distorting some area of the globe. That's why map-makers have such a difficult time.

I agree, some portion would need to be distorted.

If the Earth were constantly accelerating in one direction in an otherwise normal Universe that were expanding outwards, and we had been doing so for at least human history, we would not see a red shift in the stars and bodies "above" us, i.e., those that we are accelerating towards; we would be approaching them at a speed many times that of light. This idea is untenable. FE requires discarding all our working knowledge of the Universe, as the two are incompatible.

Um, "a redshift can occur when a light source moves away from an observer" - Why would you assume that the other celestial objects are moving slower than we are and not faster?

Because your post directly implied that this was the norm for military personnel. Moreover, since the issue was not everyone figuring out the problems at hand, but rather anyone doing so, you were implying that everyone in the military was a slack jawed college dropout.

No. My implication was that they wouldn't be stupid enough to send intelligent soldiers to the Ice Wall.

If you did not mean to imply this, perhaps you should study English further and advance your own education so that you may express yourself more clearly in the future and avoid that kind of socially awkward mistake.

Reading comprehension goes a long way. And it's not socially awkward. I rather enjoy when people read between the lines and infer something totally off-base than what was stated. Several people do it everyday on these forums. TheEngineer also makes good use of this tactic. People get caught up in an idea and their assumptions overshadow that of what was actually said. If more people concentrated on reading, there wouldn't be confusion.

Because the ice wall would have to be very massive, several times the size of the equator, and  maintaining and keeping track of all those stations is going to require a lot of effort. Also, 1960's is pulled out of your ass; try since the late 18th century, when, need I remind you, maintaining the conspiracy with current technology would have been insanely more difficult.

As I said, I cannot speculate on the technology used that would greatly diminish the number of required personnel.

And the 1960s is not pulled out of my ass. NASA was formed in 1958. The discovery of their Earth's spherical nature or lack thereof would be probably be in the few years preceding or succeeding that formation.

Reverse it. The times would be much longer than predicted, not much shorter; you're talking about crossing bodies of water that are more than twice as large as predicted.

Reverse what? I said - "I suppose the people in the conspiracy would use the global estimated time to reach Antarctica, instead of using a more accurate figure?? Sounds smart."

What are you suggesting, then? And does it have any grounding in anything like reality?

I suggest that they have several technological triggers in place, although what they are and how effective they would be is something I cannot speculate on.

Yes, I am. And Iraq is much, much smaller than the theoretical Ice Wall, and much more hospitable to life. Nor is it required that people there engage in large-scale deception. Where are you going with this?

It seems hospitable enough for the scientists that inhabit it year-round.

I just found it interesting that you'd compare $100M to $12B and suggest that it wouldn't be enough motivation.

I love these 'phantom experiments'.

They are confined to specific regions in accordance with nation's territorial claims. I would venture that most of the routes involve straight lines (or geodesics if the Earth is indeed a sphere) and their instruments bring them to areas more commonly known as Antarctica.

Tell us how you know that they are confined to specific regions.

Are you arguing that explorers are forced onto just certain routes? When was the last time you explored a new city by just going in a straight line?

Tell us how you know that they are confined to specific regions.

I don't really know I'll admit. But based on the territorial claims, I would imagine that much exploration outside of their own research stations and territories is limited. Other nations can also share their data.

If I were to speculate, I'd say that this is simply a section of the Ice Wall. A theory about the common navigational habits would still have to be formulated though.

Are you arguing that explorers are forced onto just certain routes?

I was referring to their initial journey to the portion of Antarctica they're traveling to. I imagine that they'd travel directly to their destination.

When was the last time you explored a new city by just going in a straight line?

Cities have obstructions. As far as I know, the ocean does not. At least not until you reach the Antarctic and discover icebergs. Again, I was referring to their initial travel route to it. Not of their exploration of the continent

Just pointing out- - NASA was founded in 1958, but the russians also sent up sputnik I the year prior. So did the Russians start the conspiracy or did NASA? As we know, the political clime of the cold war would have prevented any cooperation between the US and Russia, and either side would LEAP at the chance to prove the other wrong.

Unless the cold war was all a farce and part of the conspiracy

But the cold war began before either side would have "known" the earth was flat... logic error approaching!

They do not disprove anything. Documentation of their observations do not equate to actuality.

Of course they prove something. Either the observations are false, or the conjecture that the Earth is flat is false. You can, and others have, repeated these experiments and found them, within a certain acceptable margin of error, to be correct. They certainly roundly destroy FET claims.

"Approximately 29 nations, all signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, send personnel to perform seasonal (summer) and year-round research on the continent and in its surrounding oceans; the population of persons doing and supporting scientific research on the continent and its nearby islands south of 60 degrees south latitude (the region covered by the Antarctic Treaty) varies from approximately 4,000 in summer to 1,000 in winter; in addition, approximately 1,000 personnel including ship's crew and scientists doing onboard research are present in the waters of the treaty region."

They are confined to specific regions in accordance with nation's territorial claims. I would venture that most of the routes involve straight lines (or geodesics if the Earth is indeed a sphere) and their instruments bring them to areas more commonly known as Antarctica.

The treaty was also signed one year after the formation of NASA.

And we still have yet to address the thousands of private individuals who travel each year to the Antarctic, and those who did so long before the formation of NASA, including those who reached the South Pole.

We know what is claimed.

And if we trusted no third party testimony and no direct observation of our senses, we wouldn't know shit about shit, and we'd sit around twiddling our thumbs and waiting patiently for death. Your attempts to defeat any advancement of human knowledge because there is an absurdly small chance that people could be lying en masse for no good reason or everything we see could be a hallucination is, to say the least, bizarre. Familiarize yourself with Ockham's razor.

"Bad ideas" is a matter of subjectivity, not objectivity or facts. The same is apparent with values. They are relative and subjective.

Wrong. Lots of bad ideas can be tested and proven wrong.

The FET is very easy to discount, I agree.

Are you even trying to be consistent? How do you reconcile this with your last statement?

I agree, some portion would need to be distorted.

If I ask which parts would have such easily measurable distortions, are you going to make more mystical appeals to unknowable forces?

Um, "a redshift can occur when a light source moves away from an observer" - Why would you assume that the other celestial objects are moving slower than we are and not faster?

If they are accelerating at the same rate as us, there would be no red shift.

If they are accelerating at a slower rate than us, we would have caught them long ago.

If they are accelerating at a faster rate than us, they would be so far away that light from those stars would have no chance of reaching us within the lifespan of the Earth.

There's a lot of problems caused by constant acceleration.

No. My implication was that they wouldn't be stupid enough to send intelligent soldiers to the Ice Wall.

And yet they need to in order to insure that the very expensive technology is managed properly and the job done correctly. What a wonderfully delicious catch-22.

You made no such implication, you merely stated that the soldiers there would naturally be idiots. The simplest conclusion is that you think this is the default. But this goes back to that Ockham's Razor thing you're unfamiliar with.

As I said, I cannot speculate on the technology used that would greatly diminish the number of required personnel.

When you appeal to things you claim you cannot know, it's called "mysticism", and it doesn't really form any kind of an argument. It may be that there are mystical forces at work we can't understand, but without an ability to understand them or impact them, their existence is irrelevant, functionally, and can be discounted.

And the 1960s is not pulled out of my ass. NASA was formed in 1958. The discovery of their Earth's spherical nature or lack thereof would be probably be in the few years preceding or succeeding that formation.

Wrong. We have numerous proofs of the shape of the Earth that long precede this. They have been laboriously explained to you.

Reverse what? I said - "I suppose the people in the conspiracy would use the global estimated time to reach Antarctica, instead of using a more accurate figure?? Sounds smart."

Which they would be unable to do when the distances between locations are more than twice as wide. They can't magically make battleships travel at twice their normal cruising speed and not have anyone notice.

I suggest that they have several technological triggers in place, although what they are and how effective they would be is something I cannot speculate on.

This is functionally no different than your attributing it to magic, so I can dismiss your argument as a bad one.

It seems hospitable enough for the scientists that inhabit it year-round.

You might want to check again.

I just found it interesting that you'd compare $100M to $12B and suggest that it wouldn't be enough motivation.

Speaking of reading comprehension being key, check that number again. Not 400 million, chief, 400 billion. That's how much real military operations on the scale you're suggesting cost.

Its often occurred to me how scary the world the Conspiracy Theorists live in must be.
"They" are out to deceive you, you cant trust what you see ,what your told , who you vote for ,who defends you ,who teaches you, who tells you the News the list just goes on.
You cant trust them because either they are in on it or are too stupid not to see that they are deceived.
On top of that they are a minority crying their warning into the wind of an unhearing and uncaring world.

What a scary world they live in.

Of course they prove something. Either the observations are false, or the conjecture that the Earth is flat is false. You can, and others have, repeated these experiments and found them, within a certain acceptable margin of error, to be correct. They certainly roundly destroy FET claims.

I said they didn't disprove something. The observations obviously aren't imagined or anything, and the first implication of their results is that the Earth could be considered curved, or a sphere. However, it doesn't prove that alone. What you observe isn't always what is.

And we still have yet to address the thousands of private individuals who travel each year to the Antarctic, and those who did so long before the formation of NASA, including those who reached the South Pole.

True. There were over 20,000 people that visited Antarctica or the nearby waters two years ago. Although, it really depends on what you're trying to suggest for these people that go there. There are no cities, nowhere where you can simply stay a night or buy provisions. It would take a lot of money and forethought for some type of extended stay.

This would lead me to believe that the majority of those visits were limited to simply a bypass along the edge of the continent and limited to the water, or general flybys over the coast and part of the mainland. I haven't found anything regarding people actually reaching the South Pole that are simply tourists.

And if we trusted no third party testimony and no direct observation of our senses, we wouldn't know shit about shit, and we'd sit around twiddling our thumbs and waiting patiently for death. Your attempts to defeat any advancement of human knowledge because there is an absurdly small chance that people could be lying en masse for no good reason or everything we see could be a hallucination is, to say the least, bizarre. Familiarize yourself with Ockham's razor.

I never said everything we see is an hallucination. I just said that documentation of observation isn't solely proof. Several analogies support this. And I know all about Occam's Razor. All things being equal, and making the fewest amount of assumptions, the simplest solution is usually the best one.

Wrong. Lots of bad ideas can be tested and proven wrong.

Lots of ideas can be tested and proven wrong. The classification of them being 'bad' is the subjective part.

Are you even trying to be consistent? How do you reconcile this with your last statement?

Based on evidence available, it's easy to discount the FET. What is there to reconcile?

If I ask which parts would have such easily measurable distortions, are you going to make more mystical appeals to unknowable forces?

I'd have to make an attempt at plotting it and identifying areas that could come into question. No forces necessary.

If they are accelerating at the same rate as us, there would be no red shift. If they are accelerating at a slower rate than us, we would have caught them long ago. If they are accelerating at a faster rate than us, they would be so far away that light from those stars would have no chance of reaching us within the lifespan of the Earth.

True.
True.
Not true. Based on observation, their velocity wouldn't be much greater than ours if that were the case, and they are still moving away from us.

And yet they need to in order to insure that the very expensive technology is managed properly and the job done correctly. What a wonderfully delicious catch-22.

Like I said, it depends on the technology used. Versing someone in the usage of a system isn't that difficult. I teach people almost everyday, aspects of using their computer in varying degrees of difficulty. They don't need to be any smarter than following my instructions and building on that with experience.

As for fixing a problem that could arise. An engineer or technician can be there. They can either be from the conspiracy, or not. Even if they did discover that the stars don't quite make sense, do you really think that "oh my god, the Earth is flat" is the immediate conclusion they would draw? I find that very unlikely.

You made no such implication, you merely stated that the soldiers there would naturally be idiots. The simplest conclusion is that you think this is the default. But this goes back to that Ockham's Razor thing you're unfamiliar with.

I'm not unfamiliar with it. You can't hold it up as absolute truth though either.

And I didn't really state that. My assumption that they would send less than intelligent people would only be in line with intelligently staffing the Ice Wall and would cause a lot less problems than using extremely adept people. The military are very good at damage control and covering their bases. The phrase, 'military precision' comes to mind.

When you appeal to things you claim you cannot know, it's called "mysticism", and it doesn't really form any kind of an argument. It may be that there are mystical forces at work we can't understand, but without an ability to understand them or impact them, their existence is irrelevant, functionally, and can be discounted.

You're misusing the definition. My statement that I cannot speculate on the technology used is simply because I'm not well-versed in military technology or technology that would be useful in such an application. If I did have to speculate, some aspect of sonar or radar would be used. Obviously more advanced applications of such technologies would provide greater assurance and applicability.

Wrong. We have numerous proofs of the shape of the Earth that long precede this. They have been laboriously explained to you.

We have numerous observations that suggest the shape of the Earth that long precede this.

Which they would be unable to do when the distances between locations are more than twice as wide. They can't magically make battleships travel at twice their normal cruising speed and not have anyone notice.

That's not what I'm suggesting. Again, I said (sarcastically if you didn't catch that) - "I suppose the people in the conspiracy would use the global estimated time to reach Antarctica, instead of using a more accurate figure?? Sounds smart."

What I'm saying is, if the travel time for whatever method used was 6 hours using RE cartography, why would they tell their soldiers that? Would it not make more sense to tell them the accurate figure??

This is functionally no different than your attributing it to magic, so I can dismiss your argument as a bad one.

I didn't know forms of radar are magic. Thanks for that insight.

You might want to check again.

Check what again? Several sources cite its occupation by scientists, are you saying they don't really live there?

Speaking of reading comprehension being key, check that number again. Not 400 million, chief, 400 billion. That's how much real military operations on the scale you're suggesting cost.

Let's read your quote again:

In four years, for comparison, the Iraq war has rung up 400 million.

Upon investigation, you're indeed correct in your more recent post.

Let's look up more facts. For the invasion of Iraq, there were 297,494 troops used. Currently, there are 168,866 regular troops + ~182,000 private military contractors. These massively dwarf any military involvement that would be necessary for the guarding of the Ice Wall in my estimation and subsequent control center aspects from "HQ".