Antarctica?

  • 56 Replies
  • 5401 Views
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2009, 04:57:48 PM »
You didn't even get my example right when you tried to contradict it. Now piss off with your anti-south american racism.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2009, 05:02:43 PM »
You didn't even get my example right when you tried to contradict it. Now piss off with your anti-south american racism.

So you are pro-south american racism? Lot's of RE class in that.



?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2009, 06:14:14 PM »
Can somebody spray this guy with Flit or Troll-Be-Gone or something?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2009, 06:28:54 PM »
Dino, why would time slow down in the south? What on Earth could possibly cause time to slow down?

Any other explanations for the south celestial pole or why countless mappers have very carefully outlined the whole coast of Antarctica but yet have never realized that it circled the whole world?

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2009, 01:05:22 PM »
Dino, why would time slow down in the south? What on Earth could possibly cause time to slow down?
I don't know why. Why are the physical constants of the universe what they are? Do you have a good explanation of why?
Quote
Any other explanations for the south celestial pole or why countless mappers have very carefully outlined the whole coast of Antarctica but yet have never realized that it circled the whole world?

Mappers carefully outlined the coast of the icy rim.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #35 on: December 27, 2009, 01:08:41 PM »
Well seeing as though this time distortion has no evidence, at least a reason why would help. Hell, even a how would be nice. How would such a time distortion exist perfectly so it helps fe? Also this still does not explain travel times.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #36 on: December 27, 2009, 02:52:06 PM »
Well seeing as though this time distortion has no evidence, at least a reason why would help. Hell, even a how would be nice. How would such a time distortion exist perfectly so it helps fe? Also this still does not explain travel times.

Why does the universe exist with so many seemingly perfect coincidences? Cosmologists often ask this question. One answer is a bit of a tautology: Only a universe which can exist can exist. Similiarly, if we didn't live on an earth that allowed life to function, we wouldn't be here to wonder why there are so many perfect coincidences to allow for our existence. 

Why is space-time curved? I don't know. But it explains and predicts a lot of observations. The theory fits with observable reality.   

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2009, 02:55:21 PM »
No it doesn't. Why do flight times work the way they do? The only way its explained is by a spherical earth. Also the time distortion does nothing to help your model. It also has never been observed and poses many paradoxes.


Nice try, next time do something you know. I feel you are trolling big time.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2009, 03:03:26 PM »
Also this still does not explain travel times.

It explains travel times, because time is faster with higher altitudes in the south; the higher you are in the south the closer you get to the speed of time at the north pole. Planes travel at a higher altitude and thus are moving faster relative to ground time. So if you take off in Buenos Aires and land in Sydney you will get arrive quicker--relative to ground time-- than if you were traveling at ground level.

One should be able to use plane travel times compared to an FE map and determine the relative speed of time between various N/S locations. Say compare the apparent average velocity from NY to London vs. the apparent average velocity on a flight from BA to Sydney.  

EDIT: it would be nice to know the altitude of the planes also.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2009, 03:05:25 PM by Dino »

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2009, 03:05:22 PM »
Still has problems as what if you are just flying in the north? There are still too many points.


I will report you for trolling soon as it is quite obvious that's what you are doing.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2009, 03:12:35 PM »
Still has problems as what if you are just flying in the north? There are still too many points.
At the surface of the N pole time moves the fastest. If you go higher in altitude from the n. pole you don't move any faster. Picture the field as an inverted cone centered on the n. pole. So the further south you go, the greater the difference between the speed of time at one altitude vs. another. 

Quote
I will report you for trolling soon as it is quite obvious that's what you are doing.
If you are going to turn into a cry baby because you can't win the debate then I will quit debating you.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2009, 03:15:04 PM »
North Pole is not the most north point on a FE map. Nice try. Its only the most north in a RE. Even that, how do you explain when you call, then call again 3 hours later, it is the same time both times. According to your explanation, that shouldn't be the case but I know it is with first hand experience.


Also the twin and aging problem I brought up. Also what about internet. They are connected as well. Does light slow down? Why? What causes the distortion? Because you say so?

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #42 on: December 28, 2009, 09:26:49 AM »
I've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny.

You pretty much sum up the RE way of thinking right there. You've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny so you assume the climate isn't harsh.  



No, you are being simplistic. I KNOW (not "assume") that the climate isn't harsh ALL the time. YOU assume the climate is harsh ALL the time. You are making a big assumption based on your opinion, I am making an educated statement based on data, film, pictures and first hand accounts of the conditions at the south pole.
You pretty much sum up the flathead way of thinking right there.

Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.

Dino,

I'm going to need you to explain how you know that the climate in "Antarctica IS harsh all the time. You are going to need evidence that is better than first hand accounts, films, and pictures.

Actually, the only evidence you could have that would put you in a better position is a first hand account at this point, since you basically said that using anything else is making a "wild assumption."


Please provide your evidence and explain why it is better/more credible.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #43 on: December 28, 2009, 05:33:15 PM »
Yeah I didn't think my above ^^ post would get a response from Dino. His logic was completely non-existent in this argument.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #44 on: December 28, 2009, 05:42:45 PM »
I've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny.

You pretty much sum up the RE way of thinking right there. You've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny so you assume the climate isn't harsh.  



No, you are being simplistic. I KNOW (not "assume") that the climate isn't harsh ALL the time. YOU assume the climate is harsh ALL the time. You are making a big assumption based on your opinion, I am making an educated statement based on data, film, pictures and first hand accounts of the conditions at the south pole.
You pretty much sum up the flathead way of thinking right there.

Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.

Dino,

I'm going to need you to explain how you know that the climate in "Antarctica IS harsh all the time. You are going to need evidence that is better than first hand accounts, films, and pictures.

Actually, the only evidence you could have that would put you in a better position is a first hand account at this point, since you basically said that using anything else is making a "wild assumption."


Please provide your evidence and explain why it is better/more credible.

When you are that far away from the sun's orbit, the climate is harsh. I have first hand evidence of this.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2009, 06:39:14 PM »
I've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny.

You pretty much sum up the RE way of thinking right there. You've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny so you assume the climate isn't harsh.  



No, you are being simplistic. I KNOW (not "assume") that the climate isn't harsh ALL the time. YOU assume the climate is harsh ALL the time. You are making a big assumption based on your opinion, I am making an educated statement based on data, film, pictures and first hand accounts of the conditions at the south pole.
You pretty much sum up the flathead way of thinking right there.

Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.

Dino,

I'm going to need you to explain how you know that the climate in "Antarctica IS harsh all the time. You are going to need evidence that is better than first hand accounts, films, and pictures.

Actually, the only evidence you could have that would put you in a better position is a first hand account at this point, since you basically said that using anything else is making a "wild assumption."


Please provide your evidence and explain why it is better/more credible.

When you are that far away from the sun's orbit, the climate is harsh. I have first hand evidence of this.
And what is your first hand evidence? Where were you? What was the climate like? Did it stay that way all year long?

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2009, 06:51:20 PM »
I've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny.

You pretty much sum up the RE way of thinking right there. You've seen pictures of it being bright and sunny so you assume the climate isn't harsh.  



No, you are being simplistic. I KNOW (not "assume") that the climate isn't harsh ALL the time. YOU assume the climate is harsh ALL the time. You are making a big assumption based on your opinion, I am making an educated statement based on data, film, pictures and first hand accounts of the conditions at the south pole.
You pretty much sum up the flathead way of thinking right there.

Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.

Dino,

I'm going to need you to explain how you know that the climate in "Antarctica IS harsh all the time. You are going to need evidence that is better than first hand accounts, films, and pictures.

Actually, the only evidence you could have that would put you in a better position is a first hand account at this point, since you basically said that using anything else is making a "wild assumption."


Please provide your evidence and explain why it is better/more credible.

When you are that far away from the sun's orbit, the climate is harsh. I have first hand evidence of this.
And what is your first hand evidence? Where were you? What was the climate like? Did it stay that way all year long?

Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2009, 07:09:25 PM »
Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.

Let it be seen by everyone here that you COMPLETELY side-stepped the issue at hand. I never personally said it was good proof. And TD only said that there is evidence that it isn't harsh ALL the time. You responded with:

Quote from: Dino
Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.
To call someone an absolute fool would lead me, and probably others, to assume that you have better evidence than second-hand accounts, pictures, and video. A first-hand account. Please tell us where you were that you experienced harsh conditions all year-round as a result of "being that far from the Sun's orbit" since you've already conceded that you've never been to "Antarctica" in the "Best Test" thread.

I'm cutting to the point. You are completely ignoring it.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #48 on: December 28, 2009, 07:31:16 PM »
Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.

Let it be seen by everyone here that you COMPLETELY side-stepped the issue at hand. I never personally said it was good proof. And TD only said that there is evidence that it isn't harsh ALL the time. You responded with:

Quote from: Dino
Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.
To call someone an absolute fool would lead me, and probably others, to assume that you have better evidence than second-hand accounts, pictures, and video. A first-hand account. Please tell us where you were that you experienced harsh conditions all year-round as a result of "being that far from the Sun's orbit" since you've already conceded that you've never been to "Antarctica" in the "Best Test" thread.

I'm cutting to the point. You are completely ignoring it.

My point was that sunny and bright pictures are bad evidence. If all I had were pictures also, I would consider it shoddy evidenve. You are right, maybe I dont have good evidence here myself and if i were to claim i did and evidence consisted of sunny or dark pictures you would be right in calling me a fool for acceptng that as good evidence. i dont see what is inconsinstent in my point. i stand by it.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #49 on: December 28, 2009, 07:48:55 PM »
Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.

Let it be seen by everyone here that you COMPLETELY side-stepped the issue at hand. I never personally said it was good proof. And TD only said that there is evidence that it isn't harsh ALL the time. You responded with:

Quote from: Dino
Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.
To call someone an absolute fool would lead me, and probably others, to assume that you have better evidence than second-hand accounts, pictures, and video. A first-hand account. Please tell us where you were that you experienced harsh conditions all year-round as a result of "being that far from the Sun's orbit" since you've already conceded that you've never been to "Antarctica" in the "Best Test" thread.

I'm cutting to the point. You are completely ignoring it.

My point was that sunny and bright pictures are bad evidence. If all I had were pictures also, I would consider it shoddy evidenve. You are right, maybe I dont have good evidence here myself and if i were to claim i did and evidence consisted of sunny or dark pictures you would be right in calling me a fool for acceptng that as good evidence. i dont see what is inconsinstent in my point. i stand by it.
It's just typical of FEer's to call RE evidence poor, when FE has no evidence to even present.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #50 on: December 28, 2009, 07:59:16 PM »
Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.

Let it be seen by everyone here that you COMPLETELY side-stepped the issue at hand. I never personally said it was good proof. And TD only said that there is evidence that it isn't harsh ALL the time. You responded with:

Quote from: Dino
Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.
To call someone an absolute fool would lead me, and probably others, to assume that you have better evidence than second-hand accounts, pictures, and video. A first-hand account. Please tell us where you were that you experienced harsh conditions all year-round as a result of "being that far from the Sun's orbit" since you've already conceded that you've never been to "Antarctica" in the "Best Test" thread.

I'm cutting to the point. You are completely ignoring it.

My point was that sunny and bright pictures are bad evidence. If all I had were pictures also, I would consider it shoddy evidenve. You are right, maybe I dont have good evidence here myself and if i were to claim i did and evidence consisted of sunny or dark pictures you would be right in calling me a fool for acceptng that as good evidence. i dont see what is inconsinstent in my point. i stand by it.
It's just typical of FEer's to call RE evidence poor, when FE has no evidence to even present.

If God created this flat earth, then it is REers burden to explain how and why it may have changed.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #51 on: December 28, 2009, 08:11:58 PM »
Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.

Let it be seen by everyone here that you COMPLETELY side-stepped the issue at hand. I never personally said it was good proof. And TD only said that there is evidence that it isn't harsh ALL the time. You responded with:

Quote from: Dino
Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.
To call someone an absolute fool would lead me, and probably others, to assume that you have better evidence than second-hand accounts, pictures, and video. A first-hand account. Please tell us where you were that you experienced harsh conditions all year-round as a result of "being that far from the Sun's orbit" since you've already conceded that you've never been to "Antarctica" in the "Best Test" thread.

I'm cutting to the point. You are completely ignoring it.

My point was that sunny and bright pictures are bad evidence. If all I had were pictures also, I would consider it shoddy evidenve. You are right, maybe I dont have good evidence here myself and if i were to claim i did and evidence consisted of sunny or dark pictures you would be right in calling me a fool for acceptng that as good evidence. i dont see what is inconsinstent in my point. i stand by it.
It's just typical of FEer's to call RE evidence poor, when FE has no evidence to even present.

If God created this flat earth, then it is REers burden to explain how and why it may have changed.

God didn't create the Earth flat, and the Bible never says otherwise.

EDIT: Please don't start this argument. It's not the right place for this discussion. We're talking about Antarctica here.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #52 on: December 28, 2009, 08:27:48 PM »
Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.

Let it be seen by everyone here that you COMPLETELY side-stepped the issue at hand. I never personally said it was good proof. And TD only said that there is evidence that it isn't harsh ALL the time. You responded with:

Quote from: Dino
Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.
To call someone an absolute fool would lead me, and probably others, to assume that you have better evidence than second-hand accounts, pictures, and video. A first-hand account. Please tell us where you were that you experienced harsh conditions all year-round as a result of "being that far from the Sun's orbit" since you've already conceded that you've never been to "Antarctica" in the "Best Test" thread.

I'm cutting to the point. You are completely ignoring it.

My point was that sunny and bright pictures are bad evidence. If all I had were pictures also, I would consider it shoddy evidenve. You are right, maybe I dont have good evidence here myself and if i were to claim i did and evidence consisted of sunny or dark pictures you would be right in calling me a fool for acceptng that as good evidence. i dont see what is inconsinstent in my point. i stand by it.
It's just typical of FEer's to call RE evidence poor, when FE has no evidence to even present.

If God created this flat earth, then it is REers burden to explain how and why it may have changed.

God didn't create the Earth flat, and the Bible never says otherwise.

EDIT: Please don't start this argument. It's not the right place for this discussion. We're talking about Antarctica here.

If you want to go visit the icy rim wearing bemuda shorts, go ahead. I still think you are proving that REers dont understand the world well.

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #53 on: December 29, 2009, 04:40:09 AM »
Lots cut to the point here. The fact you have pictures of the icy rim showing that sunlight can reach is not good proof of a RE. in fact, i cant imagine why you think it would be. i'll even accept your position for the sake of argument that the icy rim is nice and comfortable to move through during the summer. that is hardly proof you wont also have a nice and comfortable demise as you fall to your death off th edge of the earth.


Let it be seen by everyone here that you COMPLETELY side-stepped the issue at hand. I never personally said it was good proof. And TD only said that there is evidence that it isn't harsh ALL the time. You responded with:

Quote from: Dino
Well, you are an absolute fool for thinking the climate in "Antarctica" isn't harsh all the time. Just because you've seen some films and pictures showing it to be "sunny and bright" shouldn't lead you to believe that Antarctica suddenly turns into Rio de Janeiro when the sun is shining. You are crazy. REers make wild assumptions based on pictures.
To call someone an absolute fool would lead me, and probably others, to assume that you have better evidence than second-hand accounts, pictures, and video. A first-hand account. Please tell us where you were that you experienced harsh conditions all year-round as a result of "being that far from the Sun's orbit" since you've already conceded that you've never been to "Antarctica" in the "Best Test" thread.

I'm cutting to the point. You are completely ignoring it.

My point was that sunny and bright pictures are bad evidence. If all I had were pictures also, I would consider it shoddy evidenve. You are right, maybe I dont have good evidence here myself and if i were to claim i did and evidence consisted of sunny or dark pictures you would be right in calling me a fool for acceptng that as good evidence. i dont see what is inconsinstent in my point. i stand by it.
It's just typical of FEer's to call RE evidence poor, when FE has no evidence to even present.

If God created this flat earth, then it is REers burden to explain how and why it may have changed.

God didn't create the Earth flat, and the Bible never says otherwise.

EDIT: Please don't start this argument. It's not the right place for this discussion. We're talking about Antarctica here.

If you want to go visit the icy rim wearing bemuda shorts, go ahead. I still think you are proving that REers dont understand the world well.

When did I or anyone else ever say that Antarctica's weather got so mild at some point in the year that you could hang out there in Bermuda shorts? Never. You won't be able to find a quote because it doesn't exist.

The argument was/is:

You say that you have irrefutable evidence, which you have yet to provide, that conditions there are so harsh all year round that the "ice wall" is impassable, and even if you somehow did pass beyond it, you'd fall right off the edge without even seeing it.

Evidence, real evidence, was provided showing that there are times in Antarctica where it is clearly not so harsh. That is all that happened. You called someone a complete fool for thinking differently than you, but provided no evidence to back up your insult/claim.

?

Dino

  • 488
  • Adventurer, Explorer
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #54 on: December 29, 2009, 01:32:36 PM »
i didnt say it was so harsh that it was impassable, only that it was harsh. i didnt say it was impassable, only that if you walk off the edge you fall to your death. i admit that i dont know what kills you. dehydration after falling 48 hours?

"it gets harsher and harsher and then you fall off and die"

Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #55 on: January 05, 2010, 01:10:51 AM »
So you FE's believe that Antarctica surrounds the world, right? I'd like some more clarification on this.

For example, are you saying that all Antarctic explorers and cartographers who explored and mapped this land are either completely wrong or in on this "conspiracy"? I know that you say that your map is not completely accurate, but distorting a whole continent to fit your theory seems a bit drastic. So I would just like some more information about FE Antarctica and how that fits with FE Antarctica.


So would I. For instance, have any of these explorers even claimed to have entered antarctica on one side come out the other and crossed the "globe" in that fashion. My idea is that all of us here who are very serious about this should charter a flight across "antarctica" and see what happens. We need to be intrepid flat earth explorers. I do give REers credit on this point. REers have shown more balls throughout history, which is of course why they are running things. FEers tend to be cowards.
Hey they just did that in australia, an entire 747 loaded with people and news reporters. so inless there all in on the "conspiracy", or the goverment staged it, but really why would the goverment hide that the earth is flat anyway theres no point they gain nothing? someone tell me why you all care that the earth is round or flat anyway?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Antarctica?
« Reply #56 on: January 05, 2010, 04:39:26 PM »
Most of this wrangling is academic anyway because until FET has an explanation for why there is a south celestial pole and how the sun describes a complete circle round the horizon during the summer, it shall remain as an inferior theory to RET and should be rejected as a viable model, since it can't explain these things. RET can.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.