Roald Amundsen and Jon Sanders

I would like to know the FES take on Roald Amundsen and Jon Sanders.

Roald Amundsen led the first south pole expedition. Surely he would have seen an "ice wall" with guards checking it.

Jon Sanders circumnavigated Antarctica twice in 1981-1982. Was he bought out by NASA? Wouldn't it have been easier for the ice wall guards to dispose of him instead of spending more money on the cover up?

How did the guards know there was something to guard?

How did the guards know there was something to guard?

what? they work for nasa.

what? they work for nasa.

in 1911? 

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 11:57:54 AM

what? they work for nasa.

in 1911? 

I doubt that was what he was implying but good point.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 11:57:54 AM

what? they work for nasa.

in 1911? 

Perhaps it should have been part of my original question but nowhere in the flat earth wiki does it say when they started guarding the alleged ice wall. Was a consensus reached quickly or was it established over time?

The small details are poorly covered by the Flat Earth Society.

Quote from: neimoka on November 19, 2014, 12:00:46 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 11:57:54 AM

what? they work for nasa.

in 1911? 

Perhaps it should have been part of my original question but nowhere in the flat earth wiki does it say when they started guarding the alleged ice wall. Was a consensus reached quickly or was it established over time?

The small details are poorly covered by the Flat Earth Society.

well from this conversation so far I'm led to assume that it would have been no sooner than when NASA was made.

Quote from: theearthisrounddealwithit on November 19, 2014, 12:06:49 PM

Quote from: neimoka on November 19, 2014, 12:00:46 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 11:57:54 AM

what? they work for nasa.

in 1911? 

Perhaps it should have been part of my original question but nowhere in the flat earth wiki does it say when they started guarding the alleged ice wall. Was a consensus reached quickly or was it established over time?

The small details are poorly covered by the Flat Earth Society.

well from this conversation so far I'm led to assume that it would have been no sooner than when NASA was made.

Terrific. That covers at least Jon Sanders expeditions of 1981-1982

Was Antarctica one continent or two? So little was known of the coast line of the Pacific Ocean and the Weddell Sea, and of the interior between them, that geographers for years had been speculating on this problem. Some geologists, studying rocks from East and West Antarctica, felt that they were too dissimilar for the two regions to be one. Others reached the opposite conclusion.

The expedition doesn't expect the interior of the continent to be featureless, even though it is described as a frigid, barren waste land. It is expected that many new mountain ranges will be discovered. The explorers want to know the character of these strange, unknown lands. Only about a tenth of the continent has been sighted, and of that, only a small portion photographed.

Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/264212-post368.html

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639931#msg1639931

Was Antarctica one continent or two? So little was known of the coast line of the Pacific Ocean and the Weddell Sea, and of the interior between them, that geographers for years had been speculating on this problem. Some geologists, studying rocks from East and West Antarctica, felt that they were too dissimilar for the two regions to be one. Others reached the opposite conclusion.

The expedition doesn't expect the interior of the continent to be featureless, even though it is described as a frigid, barren waste land. It is expected that many new mountain ranges will be discovered. The explorers want to know the character of these strange, unknown lands. Only about a tenth of the continent has been sighted, and of that, only a small portion photographed.

Read more: http://www.energeticforum.com/264212-post368.html

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62300.msg1639931#msg1639931

This reads like something someone would have said a long time ago, before more recent expeditions and findings.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 19, 2014, 12:27:20 PM

Was Antarctica one continent or two? So little was known of the coast line of the Pacific Ocean and the Weddell Sea, and of the interior between them, that geographers for years had been speculating on this problem. Some geologists, studying rocks from East and West Antarctica, felt that they were too dissimilar for the two regions to be one. Others reached the opposite conclusion.

The expedition doesn't expect the interior of the continent to be featureless, even though it is described as a frigid, barren waste land. It is expected that many new mountain ranges will be discovered. The explorers want to know the character of these strange, unknown lands. Only about a tenth of the continent has been sighted, and of that, only a small portion photographed.

This reads like something someone would have said a long time ago, before more recent expeditions and findings.

LOL... that's because it was written nearly seventy years ago.  And as an accurate scientific commentary, is now obviously worthless.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 12:33:49 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 19, 2014, 12:27:20 PM

Was Antarctica one continent or two? So little was known of the coast line of the Pacific Ocean and the Weddell Sea, and of the interior between them, that geographers for years had been speculating on this problem. Some geologists, studying rocks from East and West Antarctica, felt that they were too dissimilar for the two regions to be one. Others reached the opposite conclusion.

The expedition doesn't expect the interior of the continent to be featureless, even though it is described as a frigid, barren waste land. It is expected that many new mountain ranges will be discovered. The explorers want to know the character of these strange, unknown lands. Only about a tenth of the continent has been sighted, and of that, only a small portion photographed.

This reads like something someone would have said a long time ago, before more recent expeditions and findings.

LOL... that's because it was written nearly seventy years ago.  And as an accurate scientific commentary, is now obviously worthless.

Einstein's papers on Special Relativity, Brownian Motion and the Photoelectric Effect are all over 100 years old. GR is coming up on its 100th birthday as well. The age of the thing has nothing to do with its accuracy or validity. Please stop making fallacious arguments.

Quote from: ausGeoff on November 19, 2014, 04:20:18 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on November 19, 2014, 12:33:49 PM

Quote from: cikljamas on November 19, 2014, 12:27:20 PM

Was Antarctica one continent or two? So little was known of the coast line of the Pacific Ocean and the Weddell Sea, and of the interior between them, that geographers for years had been speculating on this problem. Some geologists, studying rocks from East and West Antarctica, felt that they were too dissimilar for the two regions to be one. Others reached the opposite conclusion.

The expedition doesn't expect the interior of the continent to be featureless, even though it is described as a frigid, barren waste land. It is expected that many new mountain ranges will be discovered. The explorers want to know the character of these strange, unknown lands. Only about a tenth of the continent has been sighted, and of that, only a small portion photographed.

This reads like something someone would have said a long time ago, before more recent expeditions and findings.

LOL... that's because it was written nearly seventy years ago.  And as an accurate scientific commentary, is now obviously worthless.

Einstein's papers on Special Relativity, Brownian Motion and the Photoelectric Effect are all over 100 years old. GR is coming up on its 100th birthday as well. The age of the thing has nothing to do with its accuracy or validity. Please stop making fallacious arguments.

Argumentum ad novitatem seems to be one of ausGeoff's favourite tactics when he finds himself unable to rebut in a debate. 

I don't think he does it because he has no rebuttal.  I think he genuinely believes it is a good rebuttal, which is too bad.

Here is a short list of the fallacies that ausGeoff likes to use:

argumentum ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the issue.  He uses this one quite frequently.

argumentum ad populum:  arguing that the majority of the people believe something, and therefore it must be true.  ex. 7 billion people believe this and only 500 people believe the opposite.

argumentum ad authoritarian:  plead to authority.  ex. Scientists believe this, therefore, it must be true.

argumentum ad numerum:  plead to numbers.  ex. 6 million RE scientists believe this, and only 500 FE'ers believe the opposite, therefore, RE scientists must be right.

argumentum ad novitatem:  arguing that something old can not be true.  ex.  see his post above.

Sorry, I know this is derailing, and I will move it soon.  Just wanted to point out ausGeoff's debating style.

Also, I am not claiming that I have never fallen into the fallacy trap myself.  Just simply pointing out ausGeoff's many fallacies. 

Here is a short list of the fallacies that ausGeoff likes to use:

argumentum ad hominem: attacking the person instead of the issue.  He uses this one quite frequently.

argumentum ad populum:  arguing that the majority of the people believe something, and therefore it must be true.  ex. 7 billion people believe this and only 500 people believe the opposite.

argumentum ad authoritarian:  plead to authority.  ex. Scientists believe this, therefore, it must be true.

argumentum ad numerum:  plead to numbers.  ex. 6 million RE scientists believe this, and only 500 FE'ers believe the opposite, therefore, RE scientists must be right.

argumentum ad novitatem:  arguing that something old can not be true.  ex.  see his post above.

Sorry, I know this is derailing, and I will move it soon.  Just wanted to point out ausGeoff's debating style.

Also, I am not claiming that I have never fallen into the fallacy trap myself.  Just simply pointing out ausGeoff's many fallacies.

We agree. We thought maybe he would stop if even round earthers were pointing this out to him but that is apparently not true.

Again, Jon Sanders circumnavigated this:



Twice in 1981-1982. Explanations? Any FE-er?

Einstein's papers on Special Relativity, Brownian Motion and the Photoelectric Effect are all over 100 years old. GR is coming up on its 100th birthday as well. The age of the thing has nothing to do with its accuracy or validity. Please stop making fallacious arguments.

My dear stalker..... you're obviously unaware that the three theories you mention were all doubted, questioned, peer reviewed and amended since they were first expounded, even during Einstein's lifetime.  Scientific theories—all of them—are constantly subject to review and updating, if even only subtly.

You seem to repeatedly claim that simply because some aspects of science have stood the test of time that every other bit of older science must still be perfectly accurate.  I'm guessing you still believe in the phlogiston theory just because it's 400 years old?

For example, it was nearly 80 years after the physical effect of so-called Brownian Motion was first observed until it was explained in detail, but at the time, Robert Brown had no idea what caused it.

Quote from: Rama Set on November 20, 2014, 04:33:43 AM

Einstein's papers on Special Relativity, Brownian Motion and the Photoelectric Effect are all over 100 years old. GR is coming up on its 100th birthday as well. The age of the thing has nothing to do with its accuracy or validity. Please stop making fallacious arguments.

My dear stalker..... you're obviously unaware that the three theories you mention were all doubted, questioned, peer reviewed and amended since they were first expounded, even during Einstein's lifetime.  Scientific theories—all of them—are constantly subject to review and updating, if even only subtly.

No, the exact opposite. These facts are why I mentioned Einstein in the first place.

You seem to repeatedly claim that simply because some aspects of science have stood the test of time that every other bit of older science must still be perfectly accurate.  I'm guessing you still believe in the phlogiston theory just because it's 400 years old?

You literally do not pay attention to what you read. I have never claimed Rowbotham to be true, in fact I have repeatedly claimed the opposite. Ditto for phlogiston.

For example, it was nearly 80 years after the physical effect of so-called Brownian Motion was first observed until it was explained in detail, but at the time, Robert Brown had no idea what caused it.

Irrelevant.

All I said was that Rowbotham's ideas being 150 years old is not a valid criticism of his ideas. You should stop posting in every thread and really focus your attention on what is written in one or two of them. Once you can accurately assess another poster's claims and viewpoints and respond to them without resort to informal fallacies, then increase your activity. Thanks.

All I said was that Rowbotham's ideas being 150 years old is not a valid criticism of his ideas. You should stop posting in every thread and really focus your attention on what is written in one or two of them.

Are you absolutely sure you're not a flat earther?   

Quote from: Rama Set on November 21, 2014, 08:54:04 AM

All I said was that Rowbotham's ideas being 150 years old is not a valid criticism of his ideas. You should stop posting in every thread and really focus your attention on what is written in one or two of them.

Are you absolutely sure you're not a flat earther?   

Geoffrey, ideas do not have an expiration date. Rama is right and your posts are terrible.

Geoffrey, ideas do not have an expiration date. Rama is right and your posts are terrible.

Of course they do.  Phlogiston and flat earth are my two favourites amongst dozens of others.   

Quote from: rottingroom on November 21, 2014, 11:57:34 AM

Geoffrey, ideas do not have an expiration date. Rama is right and your posts are terrible.

Of course they do.  Phlogiston and flat earth are my two favourites amongst dozens of others.   

They didn't expire because of their age. They expired because they were wrong.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 21, 2014, 11:57:34 AM

Geoffrey, ideas do not have an expiration date. Rama is right and your posts are terrible.

Of course they do.  Phlogiston and flat earth are my two favourites amongst dozens of others.   

The fact they are wrong has nothing to do with when they were first proposed.

The Greeks recognized that the earth was round at least 2,500 years ago - presumably this idea is now out of date as well?  After all, it's a much older theory than Phlogiston.

The Greeks recognized that the earth was round at least 2,500 years ago - presumably this idea is now out of date as well?  After all, it's a much older theory than Phlogiston.

I take your point about the ancient Greeks, but the fact that one "recognises" something is not empirical evidence that proves the actuality of that something.  And we didn't have that ultimate proof until the advent of satellite technology which was able to capture images of the planet in its entirety.

The same  Greeks also surmised the existence of atoms, which they believed to be the smallest particles in the universe.  For about 1,500 years, that was the most we knew about matter. But in 1897, the discovery of the electron overturned that theory totally. Just as molecules were made up of atoms,  atoms were found to be made up of even smaller particles.

So neither of these Greeks' theories were built on empirical evidence; only observation and presumption.

And naturally, its age will have an interconnection with the validity of a theory and/or its proof.  Can you name me half a dozen long-confirmed scientific theories—that've been accepted previously by the science community—but which have been soundly refuted during this century?  Probably not, but go back 100 years and the answer will be totally different.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2014, 02:51:43 AM

The Greeks recognized that the earth was round at least 2,500 years ago - presumably this idea is now out of date as well?  After all, it's a much older theory than Phlogiston.

I take your point about the ancient Greeks, but the fact that one "recognises" something is not empirical evidence that proves the actuality of that something.  And we didn't have that ultimate proof until the advent of satellite technology which was able to capture images of the planet in its entirety.

The same  Greeks also surmised the existence of atoms, which they believed to be the smallest particles in the universe.  For about 1,500 years, that was the most we knew about matter. But in 1897, the discovery of the electron overturned that theory totally. Just as molecules were made up of atoms,  atoms were found to be made up of even smaller particles.

So neither of these Greeks' theories were built on empirical evidence; only observation and presumption.

And naturally, its age will have an interconnection with the validity of a theory and/or its proof.  Can you name me half a dozen long-confirmed scientific theories—that've been accepted previously by the science community—but which have been soundly refuted during this century?  Probably not, but go back 100 years and the answer will be totally different.

Ok. Let's make this even easier for you. Cavemen determined and proved unequivocally that the sun makes the day warmer. Is this not true since it is such an old idea?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on November 22, 2014, 02:51:43 AM

The Greeks recognized that the earth was round at least 2,500 years ago - presumably this idea is now out of date as well?  After all, it's a much older theory than Phlogiston.

I take your point about the ancient Greeks, but the fact that one "recognises" something is not empirical evidence that proves the actuality of that something.

Eratosthenes shadow experiment was empirical evidence for the  circumference of the Earth, and therefore it's shape.  Presumably they already surmised the earth was round from observations of sunsets an "sinking" ships on the horizon etc.  All of which are empirical evidence.

And we didn't have that ultimate proof until the advent of satellite technology which was able to capture images of the planet in its entirety.

"Ultimate proof" is a nonsense - all we can deal with is vary degrees of evidence.  Proof is for mathematicians.   There was already enough evidence of a round earth so that it was treated as a fact.  Aside from that, satellites can't capture "images of the planet in its entirety".

So neither of these Greeks' theories were built on empirical evidence; only observation

Eh?!?  I'm not sure you know what empiricism is.

Empiricism: "the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences". 

Cavemen determined and proved unequivocally that the sun makes the day warmer. Is this not true since it is such an old idea?

Citation please.

Quote from: rottingroom on November 22, 2014, 07:54:34 AM

Cavemen determined and proved unequivocally that the sun makes the day warmer. Is this not true since it is such an old idea?

Citation please.

You might be retarded Geoffrey. I'm trying to just help you see the point. That is all.

Do you not commit arguments from authority? Arguments ad populum? Are you denying this?

Do you not commit arguments from authority? Arguments ad populum? Are you denying this?

Nope.  Nope.  Yeah.