There is, as of this time, no adequate FE explanation for the south celestial pole. In the "big gears in the sky" thread, AmateurAstronomer proves several times that the gears theory is totally unworkable.
Really? What observations does Amateur Astronomer give us to disprove the gears theory?
For the gear theory as you described it at the time I made my posts, it would only cover these portions.
With the new map you've been espousing they'd cover roughly these portions. This is just rough coverage though. If I see this map around longer I'll update for better coverage. All coverage on this map will always have overlap though, and that doesn't work well with gear theory.
This map is pretty shitty too, has no ice wall, thereby invalidating the antarctic ice wall theory, and the whole ms paint other islands thing is kind of iffy. What islands are those supposed to be? What's the boundless continent filling the left border? Do you think no-one will dispute the elongated distances that this map adds to the Americas? Are you aware that this map could never be used to chart the FE sun path, or the seasonal progression of said sun path as it is currently presented?
Regardless of which map you choose to present as accurate, you would still have dead areas where there are no gears overhead. Regardless of which map you choose, you still have to define how these starless sky's can go unnoticed for the entirety of human civilization up to our current age, and how they can still be unreported in the current digital age...
Your new map presents whole new problems, namely taking the red stripe out of lower North America and putting it in the Atlantic. I've been to Mexico and Panama, and I can assure you they have stars there. A whole sky's worth... Even with proper scaling this new map shifts the redline off the continental body.
1. The gears theory requires multiple focal points in the southern sky. This is not the case. Viewed from anywhere on the southern hemisphere, there are always the same constellations moving around the same focal point.
Did Amateur Astronomer make any observations to prove or demonstrate this?
I don't have too... The design you put forth yourself has 3 southern gears. You say that they are all different stars that just look to be in the same configurations to all those 3rd world Southern Foreigners... You seem to forget that Andromeda and the greater milky way are down there too. These I have observed, so it's up to you to invalidate all observations of these bodies on differentiating Southern continents. It's easy to mess up a star or two, but a 3 arc galaxy, or the greater milky way? Explain to me how these can be confused with "similar bodies".
2. The gears theory would cause constant distortions in the southern sky. This is also not the case, as the stars clearly do not move with respect to each other, at least not significantly. If the gears theory were accurate, there would be no fixed constellations in the southern sky.
Did Amateur Astronomer make any observations to prove or demonstrate this?
I made an observation that would contradict an observation that you already espouse as true. That observation was that if the stars on gears exhibited bendy light, then there would be measurable differences in the distances between visible stars on the gear junctions.
I asked you to show me anything that would show the variance I should expect with your theory, and got no response... I was hoping for a response, but I was expecting to get nothing. I'm not really expecting anything now, but you should consider yourself provoked.
If you don't want to present any proof that would confirm your viewpoint, then present some kind of proof that would invalidate my assertion. Or just say I'm right and you have no proof.