Research stations on Antarctica

  • 20 Replies
  • 6209 Views
?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Research stations on Antarctica
« on: January 22, 2013, 02:27:13 PM »
For a refresher in case people haven't read the FAQ/don't want to refer back to it while reading this post and/or thread in case the thread gets large.


While it is said in the FAQ that this map is not definitive, there is one feature I would mainly like to point to - this feature is also noted on the FAQ.

Quote
The earth is surrounded on all sides by an ice wall that holds the oceans back. This ice wall is what explorers have named Antarctica.

Assumedly according to this model, the "south pole" is all points on the outside edge of the flat earth.

In this case, I have to ask. What about the Amundsen-Scott South Pole station? It is at the geographical coordinates 9000′S 000′E, the south pole. In other words, it would simultaneously be at every point around the entire perimeter of that map. I'd love to know how it is possible for a station to achieve that on a flat earth and not a round one.

Thoughts? Explanations? Ideas?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 29809
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2013, 04:34:52 PM »
Do you have pictures proving this?
Do you have evidence , apart from Google Earth images or satellite images proving this?
I'm not a convinced flat Earth theorist, yet you cannot simply go on what you are saying by simply what you are told can you,if you are honest.

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2013, 05:05:49 PM »
Do you have pictures proving this?
Do you have evidence , apart from Google Earth images or satellite images proving this?
I'm not a convinced flat Earth theorist, yet you cannot simply go on what you are saying by simply what you are told can you,if you are honest.
Note: The picture I posted is not a google earth image or satellite image, just in case you were thinking it was. It is the picture you can find in the FAQ.

To respond to your questions...

1. There is a line in the FAQ that says this: "we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence." That, combined with the constant denial of photographic evidence proving a round earth in the least (yet apparently proving some conspiracy theories about space travel - I won't quote that unless it's needed. Besides, it's not the point of this thread). Furthermore, there's not much I can prove without a satellite image or link to a charted map. If you'd like me to link images, I can do so - but I doubt any credence will be given to them if I do so, based on what I have seen members previously do.

2. I am not simply going based on what I was told. I found out about this while researching a point I was posting in a different thread. Here are some links you can check if you'd like to see that I'm not simply believing what I'm told without researching it.

EDIT: URLs were not being cooperative.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Outdoor Tour of South Pole Station
Link
Link

Speaking of research, please also do a bit of research yourself before saying "be honest with yourself and don't just believe what you're told". It's rather rude to assume that someone hasn't done research and is being a sheep (even though I would bet that most people don't) - if they're wrong, then it should be fairly easy to expose that falsehood. There is a line between default skepticism and laziness. I don't mean this in a completely rude way - I do feel that it should be said for the sake of the people you have done this to.

Edit edit: Interesting. Apparently there can't be 4 url links in a message. At least, that's what it seems like.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 05:13:18 PM by Sytruan »

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2013, 07:35:55 PM »
Thousands apon thousands of people visit Antarctica and its many! Research bases every year. Must cost a lot of money to keep them all quiet.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2013, 09:15:28 PM »
The Antarctic research bases are on the ice wall (Antarctica) or a few miles inland.

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2013, 09:55:03 PM »
Then how is it possible that multiple counties have made stations on Antarctica in completely different locations, according to the "disk" map of earth, and still be within close reach of eachother? For example, one base was made by departing from Chile, another from Australia and so forth. These bases should be thousands of miles apart, yet they are within hours/days of eachother by driving.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 10:27:07 PM by darknavyseal »

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2013, 03:55:44 AM »
And not all bases are witin a few miles of the coast either.

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2013, 04:26:20 AM »
The Antarctic research bases are on the ice wall (Antarctica) or a few miles inland.

9000′S 000′E is not simply a few miles inland on Antarctica. The distance between it and... let's say McMurdo (Scott base - look these up if you don't know about them, they're one of the closest coastal bases to the south pole) is *approximately* 833 miles or 1340Km. I don't know whether the definition of 'a few' has changed,  but generally it means "a small number", something around 3-6. 833 is not what I would call a few by any means.

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2013, 05:29:31 AM »
This is fe! Where bending numbers and disregarding observational truths are the norm. Hats why it isn't considered a theory and why no mainstream science takes it seriously. You suggest an experiment and they go running to the hills as if a zombi invasion has begun!

We have mentioned that the continent is almost always perminatly inhabited and you can even visit it on holiday! I they don't listen. Thork even reckons that its not dark for months at a time and light at months at a time. How can you argue with Someone who denies known truths like that as if they are a fairy tail.

I have already stated that I do not put any stock in the 'midnight sun' theory. I have dozens of threads where I have given specific examples of why it is flawed. Please feel free to browse them and ask me any questions.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 05:37:51 AM by Pythagoras »

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2013, 05:40:17 AM »
This is fe! Where bending numbers and disregarding observational truths are the norm. Hats why it isn't considered a theory and why no mainstream science takes it seriously. You suggest an experiment and they go running to the hills as if a zombi invasion has begun!

We have mentioned that the continent is almost always perminatly inhabited and you can even visit it on holiday! I they don't listen. Thork even reckons that its not dark for months at a time and light at months at a time. How can you argue with Someone who denies known truths like that as if they are a fairy tail.

Simple. By not using disrespectful argument. Even if you think another's beliefs are ridiculous, that is not a reason to disrespect them. Similarly, they do not have an excuse to actively disrespect belief in a round earth. One should not actively disrespect a person of higher or lower intelligence than you, because you do not have their perspective.

I will use logic, reason, and knowledge which can be checked easily - Google is a very useful tool if you can use it right.

Furthermore, I have no devotion to any particular theory. I am merely devoted to the truth, whichever it might be. If you're going to use a flawed argument, I *will* call you out on it regardless of which side it supports (assuming I notice the flaw - if I don't notice a flaw I can't exactly call it, can I?).

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2013, 07:04:33 AM »
If you believe in Willmores thoery of a separate continent, then it makes sense to have research stations scattered over Anatarctica.

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2013, 07:20:00 AM »
If you believe in Willmores thoery of a separate continent, then it makes sense to have research stations scattered over Anatarctica.
Antarctica is a separate continent. ;) It is on the southern end of the earth, and the south pole is in the middle of it (not the exact middle, obviously - but the general 'middle').

I have not heard the exact theory of Willmore's, but assuming it means Antarctica is a continent like the others on the FE map - NOT all around the edge of the flat earth circle... that also doesn't make sense, and it's easy to see why. It is possible to reach Antarctica if you go due south from the north pole in ANY direction. If Antarctica is a single non-encircling landmass, it would be impossible to reach in this way unless the earth is a 3d spheroid.

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2013, 06:53:05 PM »
and this just leaves you with a new and equaly big problem. what holds all the water in?

?

darknavyseal

  • 439
  • Round Earth, for sure, maybe.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2013, 12:00:06 AM »
I just realized the site was a joke. A really good one, at that. The clear ignoring of of difficult questions, inconsistencies, and general unscientific methods of proof, as well as ignoring basic scientific methods, is just amazing. You guys had me for a a few days. :D

Nobody answered my distance post yet, it is asked nowhere else on the site, and when it is repeated here with FACTS about where certain antarctic bases are, BOOM. The moderators change to a different thread.

And really? Ignoring ANY photographic evidence? Your eyes themselves are taking pictures everyday, and skewing the image just for the lols. Look at this gif.



That is your brain editing EVERYTHING you are looking at. I guess you can't trust anything. Everything we have accomplished and discovered was for naught. Spectroscopy doesn't really work. Light can be bent easily. The sun is a spotlight, apparently. Even though it is made of helium which is PROVEN by spectroscopy. And by helium, I mean hydrogen ( you believe in atoms, right?) is fusing with another hydrogen to make helium, which causes a massive explosion that has been replicated many times. Yet none of these mystical forces of aether has been experimented on. Who knows how the sun stays in the sky a mere couple of thousand miles away. Which, by the way, is impossible since it is made by hydrogen fusion, because the mass required to make a constant nuclear oven/fusion reactor is through the roof. It causes so much heat it would swallow earth if it was a few miles away.

Who knows why there are tides on OPPOSITE ends of Earth? Maybe some galactic dinosaur under the earth is pushing up on the oceans (But NOT the ground) both where the moon is, AND on the opposite ends of the "disk" earth. Who knows why these tides perfectly coincide with the location of the moon? Who knows why the moon has phases, even though it must be lower than the sun because of lunar eclipses, but is somehow lit up by the sun a mere couple of thousand miles away. From the wrong side sometimes, too.

Who knows why the round earth model accurately and consistently explains phenomena we see today? Like sunsets, sunrises, weeks of constant sun in the poles at certain times of the year, tides, any kind of travel you would like to think about, distances, the fact that circumnavigating Antarctica is a sport, the fact that Australia sees different stars, the fact that some stars do not move, or some that move a lot, that most stars are made of hydrogen fusion (PROVEN by spectroscopy) which requires a huge amount of concentrated hydrogen and heat, or why for some reason the Andromeda galaxy is getting closer to us? How are meteor showers predictable? How come there is a new comet coming to our solar system at the end of 2013?

What in the world is this aether stuff, what is it made of, and what is causing it to constantly accelerate?  Why isn't the rest of the universe observed to be smaller, since constant acceleration would take us close to light speed, but because of relativity, time would go slower for us, which makes everything else we are passing in space appear to go by faster than normal?

Any sort of data cannot be trusted, because we are "pushed" by a magic wind that cannot be detected, has not been experimented on, and will probably never be discovered.

The flat earth model brings more questions than answers. There is a need to significantly change many theories and laws that have held true so far. The round earth model answers almost EVERY question I have seen being thrown around in here.

So, cheers.
It was fun. See y'all.


Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2013, 01:34:31 AM »
...Antarctica is a continent like the others on the FE map - NOT all around the edge of the flat earth circle...
Impossible, but for other reason: a layout like this would require absolutely different pattern of Sun movement (as seen from the flat Earth) than we all witness now.
So what? - the Ultimate Argument in any debate.

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2013, 11:36:37 AM »
So then, since this has had no answers from anyone for multiple days, may we assume that the FE-ers are ignoring this thread and the problems it brings up?

If not, then a response, or at least a notification that a response is being thought of, would be much appreciated - communication is important, people.

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2013, 11:40:40 AM »
:)
Indeed.
So what? - the Ultimate Argument in any debate.

*

Dog

  • 1162
  • Literally a dog
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2013, 11:58:29 PM »
Nah, they know they don't have a rebuttal...

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #18 on: January 25, 2013, 02:30:57 AM »
happens more and more oftern, ::) maby they are doing some in depth scientfic reaserch to try and find out..........

?

Sytruan

  • 93
  • Logic and Reason - most important parts of debate.
Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #19 on: January 25, 2013, 04:30:01 AM »
Now now. Let's give them a few more days to at least say something. I also do notice that Thork removed a large chunk of other posts because they were 'back-patting'. Can we not post so frequently in this thread so that it is not locked? I'd prefer if the thread received some sort of answer at some point.

Re: Research stations on Antarctica
« Reply #20 on: January 25, 2013, 04:51:40 AM »
Thoughts? Explanations? Ideas?
It's time again for me to postulate yet another "catBots' equation", in this case it relates a local watch apparent speed with its' latitudinal coordinate against the North Pole.
The further from NP - the slower the local time rate.
:)

This way I am able to explain all and any questions REther may have about circumnavigation/airplanes/etc in the near-SouthPole region.
So what? - the Ultimate Argument in any debate.