FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?

Concerning the overwhelming evidence of Antarctica's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of an ice wall, I think FE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is Antarctica separate from the ice wall?

Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?

Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?

Thanks for the strawman, but no thanks. Please don't go offtopic.

Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?

Two times infinite is still infinity. Ironically half of infinite is also infinity! So having an infinite universe that is infinitely expanding is possible.

Nice to see that inconsistency is still part of FET. Is the ice wall also Antarctica or some sort of hybrid between the two? Is the Australian Antarctic division also part of the conspiracy?

Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?

Not even a good analogy as people have been to Antarctica and the South Pole and live there and study it. Has anyone ever been to the edge of the universe? Is it easy to observe? Perhaps we should send you there Taters. 

The absence of certainty about the size of the universe is largely due to many unknown factors and lack of data that can give definite answers in this area. Whereas the absence of certainty about FET Antarctica is that neither model fits observed evidence, so they're afraid to commit to one or the other.

Anyone else find this whole forum a bit frustrating?
I've asked several questions here which have been completely ignored and have seen many other people ask questions which are also ignored...

Don't FE'ers want to answer our questions?
If there are so many FE'ers and if their belief is so solid and their evidence so great - shouldn't they be jumping all over any questions?...

[[ And no, this is not off topic - I notice that this very thread hasn't had the answers the OP was expecting ]]

Concerning the overwhelming evidence of Antarctica's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of an ice wall, I think FE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is Antarctica separate from the ice wall?

Antarctica is separate from the land surrounding the Pacific Ocean; beyond the territory covered by ice, we have land with forests, hills, thermal lakes, animals, as they were discovered by admiral R. Byrd during Operation HighJump.

To see why the land surrounding the Pacific Ocean cannot be reached, please read Hollow Earth by R. Bernard (you can find a copy on www.scribd.com); the North Pole was never discovered by Peary/Cook because they ran into the layer of aether which veils from view that part of the Arctic.

Here is Nibiru/Black Sun, photographs taken in Antarctica by the world renowned photographer, Fred Bruenjes:

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html







The Moon does not cause the solar eclipse; the heavenly body known as the Black Sun (which absorbs all visible light and emits akasha) has the same diameter as that of the visible Sun, and does cause the solar eclipse, as we can see in these extraordinary photographs.

The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:

Hey Levee, welcome to the open forum threads. Please keep your low content posting in the "members access" rooms only.

canadaaardvark, are you in any way shape or form able to even dream of debating with me, on any subject?

Here are your messages: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=20714;sa=showPosts

You have a submediocre understanding of science, religion...you need to study much more...I am trying to keep this low level, so as not to destroy your self-confidence...

Levee, no one in their right mind could ever dream of debating with you, on any subject.  Now, as for people out of their minds...

I don't believe those posts are really by Levee. They're too short. Someone must have hacked his account.

The Moon does not cause the solar eclipse; the heavenly body known as the Black Sun (which absorbs all visible light and emits akasha) has the same diameter as that of the visible Sun, and does cause the solar eclipse

Sounds a lot like the moon, being smaller but closer, blocking the sun to be honest. Anyone else?

While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.

While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.

Wrong. We know it isn't. Various topics have proved this. Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.

Quote from: I Am You on February 22, 2010, 03:23:22 PM

While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.

Wrong. We know it isn't. Various topics have proved this. Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.

And as everyone know, Wilmore is the final judge of FET.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:26:54 PM

Quote from: I Am You on February 22, 2010, 03:23:22 PM

While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.

Wrong. We know it isn't. Various topics have proved this. Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.

And as everyone know, Wilmore is the final judge of FET.

Exactly.

Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.

Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.

No modern scientists use the word "anti-moon" Science is based on fact. Anti-moon is based on myth.

NB: There are Flat Earthers who believe in a seperate, small icy continent which is mistaken for the Ice Wall.

The "Rowbotham School" on the Ice Wall identifies it as a structure IN Antarctica, this is the canonical Flat Earth geography, which is based on the cartography of the 19th Century Zetetics, and it is this belief which I and most other FEers subscribe to.

Quote from: James on February 22, 2010, 03:34:35 PM

Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.

No modern scientists use the word "anti-moon" Science is based on fact. Anti-moon is based on myth.

I am a modern scientist who uses the word Antimoon. My belief in the Antimoon is derived from empirical observation.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:37:05 PM

Quote from: James on February 22, 2010, 03:34:35 PM

Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.

No modern scientists use the word "anti-moon" Science is based on fact. Anti-moon is based on myth.

I am a modern scientist who uses the word Antimoon. My belief in the Antimoon is derived from empirical observation.

My disbelief in the Anti-moon is based on science.

Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.

Actually, levee and I are in the minority - as James says, most FE'ers believe that Antarctica is the rim-continent.

Quote from: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:26:54 PM

Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.

Actually, levee and I are in the minority - as James says, most FE'ers believe that Antarctica is the rim-continent.

Yea well that's stupid. And that's also that. It would take months to traverse Antarctica rather that the weeks it really takes. Do people strap jets to their skis when they start the traverse? No. So if anything, Antarctica must be separate.

In fact, if anything the earth must be round but anyway...

Well look, to some degree you're preaching to the converted, which is why I don't generally defend that theory. However, I don't think it's as obvious as you make out that Antarctica cannot be the rim continent.

People have crossed multiple paths from coast to coast of Antarctica, you can sail AROUND Antarctica, not INSIDE it.
I'm pretty sure people would have worked out that they were sailing around in a massive lake.

I don't see how people think that because it's a coldass place to be, that it somehow hides a giant mystery.

It's no different to any other continent.

People have crossed multiple paths from coast to coast of Antarctica, you can sail AROUND Antarctica, not INSIDE it.
I'm pretty sure people would have worked out that they were sailing around in a massive lake.

I don't see how people think that because it's a coldass place to be, that it somehow hides a giant mystery.

It's no different to any other continent.

Well Flyingmonkey, I believe the reason that some people think that Antarctica holds a mystery is because it is thoroughly unexplored. The sheer size of the continent, combined with the ice covering most of Antarctica's caverns and caves make Antarctica a likely spot for some hidden discovery, and the terrible weather makes Antarctica difficult to explore safely.

Well Flyingmonkey, I believe the reason that some people think that Antarctica holds a mystery is because it is thoroughly unexplored. The sheer size of the continent, combined with the ice covering most of Antarctica's caverns and caves make Antarctica a likely spot for some hidden discovery, and the terrible weather makes Antarctica difficult to explore safely.

Other than the fact it has been circumnavigated and proven to be a continent, meaning it's no bigger than what it is.


AKA, we have traveled the external coastline - it doesn't surround the ocean, the ocean surrounds it.

So the black sun moves across the sky, yet only becomes visible when it passes in front of the non-black sun?

I am a modern scientist who uses the word Antimoon. My belief in the Antimoon is derived from empirical observation.

What, empirical observations that show it is unobservable and undetectable? Yes, you truly are a scientist...