Antarctica questions

  • 171 Replies
  • 37014 Views
?

sockless74

  • 1
  • Just here exploring, not convinced Earth is flat
Antarctica questions
« on: September 19, 2014, 08:33:13 AM »
I am not convinced that the Earth is a ball, but I am also not convinced that it is flat either. I am still in between trying to make sense of all of this. There are things that don't make sense to me with both models. The Antarctica issue is one of my questions. I have read some other threads about it, but none have given me answers that convince me.

The flat Earth model says that there is an ice wall that is 150' high that no one can pass, some even say it is guarded by the military. If it is guarded, what proof is there of it being guarded? That is an enormous area to protect, even if there were guard posts only every 10 miles, there would be 7,800 guard posts. There would be some evidence of this. Why is it that there are no ice wall guards talking about there experiences there? Or soldiers from the military talking about spending time in Antarctica? Or military families members telling people that their son is stationed in Antarctica?

How do you explain that you can take an expedition to the South pole? http://www.polar-quest.com/trip/fly-to-the-south-pole/ That is just one company that offers trips to Antarctica, there are others. If this area was guarded by the military wouldn't they prevent people from coming there?

Also, if the ice wall surrounds the Earth, it would have a circumference of about 78,000 miles since 78,000 miles is the circumference of the flat Earth. But Antarctica has only about 11,000 miles in coastlines. That is an enormous difference that anyone who sails around Antarctica would notice. Many people have been to Antarctica over the past several hundred years, many people have sailed around it and anyone can go there now. So if the Earth is flat how is it that no one notices that the coastline of Antarctica is so much longer than they expected?

Some people explain this by claiming that the ice wall and Antarctica are two different things, okay, fine, then where is Antarctica on a flat Earth map? Why is it that there is a South pole on Antarctic that you can go see, taking a compass with you to verify that it really is the Southernmost point on Earth? Why is it that you can sail around Antarctica from the Australian side and be on the South American side? Shouldn't you be able to sail from Antarctica in a certain direction and arrive at the ice wall?

Now all that being said, I of course haven't been to Antarctica or sailed around it and I don't know anyone who has. So all the stories and photos online could be fake, conspiracy, etc etc... But this is one of the main areas that I am stuck on in accepting the flat Earth model and so far no one has explained it well enough that I am convinced.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2014, 09:11:50 AM »
Like you say, you've never been and anyone else that has has either flown or sailed.... the issue for them is, they are reliant on simply following a set pattern. They really  may not know where they are going.
It's also possible that most of the rim is inaccessible due to too much expanse of water or too cold a temperature for ships, subs, planes to get anywhere near most of it.

The other theory is that there is a rim but not as we see it. It's maybe too far for the sun to penetrate (assuming a central Earth sun) and where people are going is merely around the North pole or some land mass purported to be Antarctica.

The absolute truth is we will never know unless we can gain the means of looking but where do you look if something is out of bounds?
We can only go on what we are told; and because most of us are cocooned, we have to rely on third party info.

If you think about it. We get told about seeing the sun for 6 months on the north pole and 6 in the south pole. What if the sun is on one side of the north pole for 6 months and on the other for 6 months, as in from the point of view of an observer from whichever part of that pole they are on, giving the illusion of actually being on top or bottom of a supposed sphere, yet doing nothing other than sailing around the other side of an ice rim in the centre of Earth's circle.


Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2014, 11:35:04 AM »
Like you say, you've never been and anyone else that has has either flown or sailed.... the issue for them is, they are reliant on simply following a set pattern. They really  may not know where they are going.
It's also possible that most of the rim is inaccessible due to too much expanse of water or too cold a temperature for ships, subs, planes to get anywhere near most of it.

I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 

Quote
The other theory is that there is a rim but not as we see it. It's maybe too far for the sun to penetrate (assuming a central Earth sun) and where people are going is merely around the North pole or some land mass purported to be Antarctica.

Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth? In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!

Quote
The absolute truth is we will never know unless we can gain the means of looking but where do you look if something is out of bounds?
We can only go on what we are told; and because most of us are cocooned, we have to rely on third party info.

You might be cocooned, but by no means is everyone. If you are, unless you're a complete invalid or involuntarily confined for some reason, its your own fault, so stop navel-gazing and whining about how everything we're told is a lie (everything, that is, except "everything we're told is a lie"), and do something! Travel to Antarctica if you can afford it; it's expensive (but not hideously expensive), but can be done, and little there is "out of bounds" other than for logistical difficulties (which are significant).  Better yet, if you have a useful skill, get a job with a contractor or government agency that maintains and operates the facilities there and stay for a year or longer; they need tradesmen, professionals, and labor of all kinds as well as scientists and engineers.  If that's not practical (it's certainly not easy), go out and watch the stars.  Especially watch the stars for a few hours as they appear to circle the pole - that's easy and cheap.  If you can, travel to the opposite hemisphere and watch a different set of stars circle the other pole - in the opposite direction. 

Or just sit around and complain how "they're trying to trick all of us." Boo-hoo. It's much easier.

Quote
If you think about it. We get told about seeing the sun for 6 months on the north pole and 6 in the south pole. What if the sun is on one side of the north pole for 6 months and on the other for 6 months, as in from the point of view of an observer from whichever part of that pole they are on, giving the illusion of actually being on top or bottom of a supposed sphere, yet doing nothing other than sailing around the other side of an ice rim in the centre of Earth's circle.

If you think about it, all we have here is the "we're told" whining again.  Your "what if" makes little sense, but should be easy enough to observe, if true. So go check it out for yourself. 

[Edit] Fixed nested quotes. Removed gratuitous snarky comment.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2014, 12:42:44 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2014, 01:13:30 PM »
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.

Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Nope. You see, if you haven't been all around the inner circle, once part can differ from another. You could be on one side, then sail around to the other and bear in mind it would be a fantastic circular distance to the other side of it, you could almost believe you had went over a globe to the south pole if you were naive.
In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!
It's only easy if you know what you're looking at when you're travelling from one side to another and because you are merely a dot on the circle, I doubt you would know anything at all.

You might be cocooned, but by no means is everyone. If you are, unless you're a complete invalid or involuntarily confined for some reason, its your own fault, so stop navel-gazing and whining about how everything we're told is a lie (everything, that is, except "everything we're told is a lie"), and do something!
In your home you're cocooned. In the street, you're cocooned in the street. Ina car driving you are cocooned and see only what's around your limited vision. In a plane is the same. On a boat is the same. Basically unless you go into your space and look over a globe, seeing north and south poles, you're cocooned. Now since space does not exist and is therefore impossible to be in, you are cocooned. No disability required.
Travel to Antarctica if you can afford it; it's expensive (but not hideously expensive), but can be done, and little there is "out of bounds" other than for logistical difficulties (which are significant).  Better yet, if you have a useful skill, get a job with a contractor or government agency that maintains and operates the facilities there and stay for a year or longer; they need tradesmen, professionals, and labor of all kinds as well as scientists and engineers.
Same thing applies to my earlier post.

 
If that's not practical (it's certainly not easy), go out and watch the stars.  Especially watch the stars for a few hours as they appear to circle the pole - that's easy and cheap.
From one side, that would be fine. Go around it and your perception has changed to the so called stars you see from that point.A full change of perspective.

  If you can, travel to the opposite hemisphere and watch a different set of stars circle the other pole - in the opposite direction. 
You can do that around the centre. You're getting mixed up with thinking that you could see the same thing from one side of the north pole to the other which your eyes would not allow, even with optics.

Or just sit around and complain how "they're trying to trick all of us." Boo-hoo. It's much easier.
I'm not complaining. There's nothing I can do about it. As long as I know I'm not being duped then I'm fine.

If you think about it, all we have here is the "we're told" whining again.  Your "what if" makes little sense, but should be easy enough to observe, if true. So go check it out for yourself. 
Like I said earlier.
[Edit] Fixed nested quotes. Removed gratuitous snarky comment.
Entirely up to you what comments you put in. They're all the same to me.  ;D










 



Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2014, 03:40:05 PM »
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.

Really? That's remarkable and sad. You must have no curiosity at all; what a wasted opportunity!

Quote
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Nope. You see, if you haven't been all around the inner circle, [one] part can differ from another. You could be on one side, then sail around to the other and bear in mind it would be a fantastic circular distance to the other side of it, you could almost believe you had went over a globe to the south pole if you were naive.

If you have been all around the inner circle (what is that, by the way?) would parts still not differ?  I mean, what is it about you (or me, or anyone) traveling that would cause all parts of of earth to become the same? Note the change from 'once' to 'one' in the quoted passage - is that what you meant to type?  It didn't scan as it was written; it still doesn't make sense.

Quote
In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!
It's only easy if you know what you're looking at when you're travelling from one side to another and because you are merely a dot on the circle, I doubt you would know anything at all.


Do you really mean you can't think of a single observation you could make - for yourself - that would immediately reveal the lie if someone told you you were in Antarctica when they had in fact taken you to the Arctic? I can see why you are so suspicious.

Even if you can't think of anything, let's let this question stand for a while and see if any of your compatriots can.  If none of them can, either, won't it make the whole "Wake up people! Think for yourselves!" schtick a little thin?

Quote
You might be cocooned, but by no means is everyone. If you are, unless you're a complete invalid or involuntarily confined for some reason, its your own fault, so stop navel-gazing and whining about how everything we're told is a lie (everything, that is, except "everything we're told is a lie"), and do something!
In your home you're cocooned. In the street, you're cocooned in the street. Ina car driving you are cocooned and see only what's around your limited vision. In a plane is the same. On a boat is the same. Basically unless you go into your space and look over a globe, seeing north and south poles, you're cocooned. Now since space does not exist and is therefore impossible to be in, you are cocooned. No disability required.

You can be cocooned anywhere if you want to be. Coming from someone who was in Antarctica for six months but still missed the trip, this isn't a surprise.

Quote
Travel to Antarctica if you can afford it; it's expensive (but not hideously expensive), but can be done, and little there is "out of bounds" other than for logistical difficulties (which are significant).  Better yet, if you have a useful skill, get a job with a contractor or government agency that maintains and operates the facilities there and stay for a year or longer; they need tradesmen, professionals, and labor of all kinds as well as scientists and engineers.
Same thing applies to my earlier post.


I am sorry you had to endure that. Even worse, if someone else had gone they might have gotten something out of it.

Quote
If that's not practical (it's certainly not easy), go out and watch the stars.  Especially watch the stars for a few hours as they appear to circle the pole - that's easy and cheap.
From one side, that would be fine. Go around it and your perception has changed to the so called stars you see from that point.A full change of perspective.

Not sure I follow. From one side of what? Go around what?

If you mean the North Pole, then, no, you're wrong.  Someone in London (51.5 N, 0 W) has the same stars in his evening sky as someone else on Adak Island (51.6 N, 177 W) has in his 12 hours earlier or later.  Both will see the same stars directly below Polaris in the early evening rotate slowly through the night in a counterclockwise direction until they're directly above Polaris after 12 hours, and those that start directly above Polaris rotate counterclockwise to directly below. If it's dark in both locations at the same time, the stars that appear highest from London appear lowest from Adak, and vice versa, since those locations are almost exactly on opposite sides of the pole. And, for the terminally obtuse: those locations were selected to be fairly far north and almost exactly 180 degrees apart in longitude. This circumpolar ("around the pole") rotation is visible from anywhere north of the equator, but the number of stars visible below the pole varies from few when viewed from near the equator to all the northern stars when viewed from the North Pole.

Quote
If you can, travel to the opposite hemisphere and watch a different set of stars circle the other pole - in the opposite direction. 
You can do that around the centre. You're getting mixed up with thinking that you could see the same thing from one side of the north pole to the other which your eyes would not allow, even with optics.

By opposite hemisphere, I meant Northern and Southern; I thought the "other pole" made that clear enough, but perhaps not. Restating more explicitly, if you watch northern stars appear to circle a point in the sky due north of you,  then travel to the Southern Hemisphere, you can see a different set of stars circle a different point in the sky, in the opposite direction, due south of you.   

Quote

Or just sit around and complain how "they're trying to trick all of us." Boo-hoo. It's much easier.
I'm not complaining. There's nothing I can do about it. As long as I know I'm not being duped then I'm fine.

If you think about it, all we have here is the "we're told" whining again.  Your "what if" makes little sense, but should be easy enough to observe, if true. So go check it out for yourself. 
Like I said earlier.

If I understand what you said earlier, it was "I can't be bothered. 'They' are trying to dupe me and I don't know how to tell, so by refusing to believe anything, 'they' can't dupe me."

Quote
[Edit] Fixed nested quotes. Removed gratuitous snarky comment.
Entirely up to you what comments you put in. They're all the same to me.  ;D

They have a tendency to derail conversations; I try to avoid them.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

The Ellimist

  • 538
  • "Let us play a game, Crayak."
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2014, 03:51:51 PM »
I am not convinced that the Earth is a ball,

Why not?
Additionally, we cannot entirely rule out the nefarious effects of demons, spirits, gnomes, and wizards on our society's ability to comprehend our flat earth as it really is. 

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37612
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2014, 05:28:05 PM »
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2014, 09:34:10 PM »
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.

Never even thought of that one... but I suppose it would be possible for "them" to have caged animals for display when needed, though, so I don't think that would be quite convincing enough. I was thinking more along physical, not biological, lines. Things that would be extremely hard to fake.

And the ones I'd really like to hear from are the hard-core flat-earth enthusiasts; the ones demanding everyone who disagrees with them to "think for yourselves!" They accept, apparently without question, that the earth is flat, but, since it's unconventional, say believing it proves they're free thinkers.  I'm just wondering if any of them could figure out a way to recognize which polar region they're in, because the claim was made by sceptimatic that scientists who thought they were in the Antarctic couldn't really tell if they really were or not. He already admitted that he couldn't. Any others?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2014, 03:09:52 AM »
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome
Should I examine the all shits?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2014, 03:23:23 AM »
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.

?

guv

  • 1132
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2014, 03:32:10 AM »
Septic, if the guard penguins saw your little sissy, city boy arse you would have penguin puppies by now.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2014, 03:46:06 AM »
Septic, if the guard penguins saw your little sissy, city boy arse you would have penguin puppies by now.
I wore a penguin suit so it was easy to walk past them. I was even given a machine gun by one. They're easily duped.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2014, 07:27:51 AM »
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.
Interesting.  What kind of samples were you collecting and for whom?  What research did you do?  And you don't seem to have said where you were based....
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome
Should I examine the all shits?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2014, 07:56:02 AM »
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.


Assuming (for the moment) that you have actually travelled to Antarctica, I find it strange that you've not once mentioned this in any of the many other threads discussing this very topic.  Why is that?

Anyway, giving you the benefit of the doubt, can you answer a couple of simple questions?

•  By what means did you travel and from which point of departure did you transit?

•  Which existing support base did you stay at (US, AUS, UK, NZ) for the necessary food and accommodation, and how much did you pay for it?

•  What type of "samples" were you collecting, and what collection method did you employ?

•  Which organisation(s) were you collecting the samples for, and what sort of research were they carrying out?

•  What academic/scientific/engineering qualifications do you possess in order to be able to correctly identify, gather, and transport the samples?


*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 37612
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2014, 12:11:35 PM »
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.

Never even thought of that one... but I suppose it would be possible for "them" to have caged animals for display when needed, though, so I don't think that would be quite convincing enough. I was thinking more along physical, not biological, lines. Things that would be extremely hard to fake.
Okay, how's this?  If you see any dry land at the coast, then your at the Antarctic.  If it's all one giant ice pack, then your at the Arctic.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2014, 03:50:47 PM »
Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth?
Yes.  If you see polar bears, then you're in the Arctic.  If you see penguins, then you're in the Antarctic.

Never even thought of that one... but I suppose it would be possible for "them" to have caged animals for display when needed, though, so I don't think that would be quite convincing enough. I was thinking more along physical, not biological, lines. Things that would be extremely hard to fake.
Okay, how's this?  If you see any dry land at the coast, then your at the Antarctic.  If it's all one giant ice pack, then your at the Arctic.
Another reasonable clue. This one only works if you're in a place with dry land, though.

Still no word from sceptimatic about what kind of samples he was collecting.  Since he said "the ground was covered in snow and ice" I presume it wasn't rock or soil samples.

You seem to be the only one to come up with anything at all.  sceptimatic says he's thrown in the towel. jroa? legion? charles bloomington? Any flat-earth proponents with an idea how to tell which ice-covered polar region you've been taken to?

Come to think of it, mr. bloomington vanished soon after asserting he could clearly demonstrate the earth had no curvature using "A clear long length of hose filled with water with its ends held up" and then being asked for more details.  If you're still there, I'd still like to know.  Probably best to resume that in the old thread.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2014, 05:41:21 AM »
I've been to Antarctica.  It was easy to tell I was in high southern latitudes. Everything about my 3-month stay there, and the trips from and back to New Zealand on the way, and the trips between the US and NZ, were completely consistent with a visit to the southernmost region of a spherical earth. Little, if anything, was consistent, in any way, with a flat earth. 
I was there as well for 6 months and I couldn't tell where I was, except I was cold and the ground was covered in snow and ice.
Really?  That's interesting.  Where were you based, and what were you doing there?
Sample collecting, scientific research and a bit of skiing.
Interesting.  What kind of samples were you collecting and for whom?  What research did you do?  And you don't seem to have said where you were based....
I can't divulge this information as it's classified.

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2014, 06:57:23 AM »
Of course it is.

If by "classified" you mean "made up", that is.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome
Should I examine the all shits?

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #18 on: September 22, 2014, 07:07:14 AM »
I can't divulge this information as it's classified.


Fair enough.  For which government organisation or corporate entity were you working?  What level of official classification did your research hold?  Why specifically was your sample collecting classified—national security or commercial in confidence?

And can you tell us exactly what academic qualifications you possess in order that you were chosen to gather these samples?  Presumably a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences?



?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #19 on: September 22, 2014, 07:40:52 AM »
I can't divulge this information as it's classified.


Fair enough.  For which government organisation or corporate entity were you working?  What level of official classification did your research hold?  Why specifically was your sample collecting classified—national security or commercial in confidence?

And can you tell us exactly what academic qualifications you possess in order that you were chosen to gather these samples?  Presumably a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences?
All I can tell you is that it's to do with energy and magnetism. I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #20 on: September 22, 2014, 08:13:21 AM »
All I can tell you is that it's to do with energy and magnetism. I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.


That's okay.  Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research?  As I said earlier, I'd presume a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences considering you're talking about geophysics?


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #21 on: September 22, 2014, 08:33:23 AM »
All I can tell you is that it's to do with energy and magnetism. I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.


That's okay.  Can you tell me then what academic qualifications make you suitable for carrying out this research?  As I said earlier, I'd presume a Masters degree in one of the earth sciences considering you're talking about geophysics?
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #22 on: September 22, 2014, 09:33:55 AM »
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.


Again I thank you for apparently admitting that you possess no formal academic qualifications to fit you for this research.  If you did—as do all other scientists—then you'd simply post them.

So in this case?  Nope, I'm not calling you a liar, but simply suggesting that you're misrepresenting the facts.  Please prove me wrong.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #23 on: September 22, 2014, 09:46:13 AM »
I have 13 actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.


Again I thank you for apparently admitting that you possess no formal academic qualifications to fit you for this research.  If you did—as do all other scientists—then you'd simply post them.

So in this case?  Nope, I'm not calling you a liar, but simply suggesting that you're misrepresenting the facts.  Please prove me wrong.
Prove you wrong as to what?

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #24 on: September 22, 2014, 10:27:44 AM »
•  Which organisation(s) were you collecting the samples for, and what sort of research were they carrying out?
He works with the N. Koreans remember?  Obviously they are building a secret base there with some sort of high powered magnetosphere disruptor beam, or at least a phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range, judging by the "energy and magnetism" research. 

Kim Jong-un will be most displeased with your revealing of this information Scepti.  Have fun in the gulag.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2014, 10:31:41 AM »
•  Which organisation(s) were you collecting the samples for, and what sort of research were they carrying out?
He works with the N. Koreans remember?  Obviously they are building a secret base there with some sort of high powered magnetosphere disruptor beam, or at least a phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range, judging by the "energy and magnetism" research. 

Kim Jong-un will be most displeased with your revealing of this information Scepti.  Have fun in the gulag.
I haven't revealed anything, you have. I'll send you some rations in.  ;D

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #26 on: September 22, 2014, 01:14:26 PM »
a phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range(...)
Is he working for Skynet or something?

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2014, 07:38:04 AM »
I can't tell you anything else about any undertakings.
There is good reason for that, and it has nothing to do with it being classified  ::)
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: brotherhood of the dome
Should I examine the all shits?

Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2014, 01:25:05 PM »
I've been away for a while but did check in from time to time. It's been long enough to give the suspicious types a chance to answer the challenge below (quotes rearranged from my post, but true to the original):

The other theory is that there is a rim but not as we see it. It's maybe too far for the sun to penetrate (assuming a central Earth sun) and where people are going is merely around the North pole or some land mass purported to be Antarctica.

The absolute truth is we will never know unless we can gain the means of looking but where do you look if something is out of bounds?
We can only go on what we are told; and because most of us are cocooned, we have to rely on third party info.


Can you think of some simple observations that would distinguish between the Arctic and Antarctic regions of a spherical earth? In the spirit of the "think for yourselves" mantra often voiced here, I'd like to see if any flat-earth proponents can present at least one practical (and easy!) way to tell if someone were trying fool them by taking them to the Arctic and telling them it's the Antarctic. Believe it or not, it really is easy to tell one from the other!

No one other than markjo has ventured a test to confirm which polar region you're in.

The following observations should be simple to do without any equipment, impossible to fake, and give unequivocal confirmation:

1) Apparent motion of the Sun.  If you stand facing the sun and it appears to move from your left to your right you're in the Arctic.  If it appears to move from right to left, you're in the Antarctic. For this reason, the shadow of a near-vertical stick will move clockwise in the Arctic and counterclockwise in the Antarctic.

2) If it's night, which constellations are nearly overhead and which direction do they appear to move?  If it's the far northern constellations like Cassiopeia, Perseus, Ursa Major and Minor, etc., you're in the Arctic. If it's the deep southern constellations like Crux, Octans, Carina, Centaurus, Eridanus, and friends, you're in the Antarctic. Even if you're not familiar with the near-polar constellations of the other hemisphere, the presence or absence of the near-polar constellations from "your" hemisphere indicates which polar region you're in. Further, in the Northern Hemisphere, the constellations appear to circle the pole in a counterclockwise direction; in the Southern Hemisphere, they appear to circle the pole in a clockwise direction.

3) Seasons. The relation of length of daylight to darkness differs between the hemispheres - radically when near the poles at times of year other than the equinoxes. If daylight is longer than night in the April to August time period, you're in the Arctic. If daylight is longer than night in the October to February time period, you're in the Antarctic. Around the equinoxes, it may be harder to tell. Even if it were completely socked in the whole time, it's still possible to tell night from day.

Easy peasy, and I don't see how any of this could be faked.

The point is, despite sceptimatic's claims, you're not going to fool many scientists (if any at all) or, for that matter, many others if they're reasonably observant, by lying to them about which pole they've been taken to. The lie would be immediately apparent and just wouldn't work.

We don't have to just accept what we're told.  Much is simple enough to check for ourselves; some is very simple. You do have to have some curiosity and think a little, though.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 22450
Re: Antarctica questions
« Reply #29 on: September 30, 2014, 01:08:11 AM »
Think about just one so called pole, the north as people imagine it.
Now think of it as a big circle with land mass all around that circle of ice. Whichever place you're at you will see the same left to right or right to left motion - because the sun is in the centre of that circle.