If South Pole doesn't exist and Antartica can't be reached

That section of ice wall would inconvenience anyone, but might not stop them completely. I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world where the wall might be very easy to cross. If a penguin can get back on shore after a swim how hard could it be?

Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Easy:  global warming does not apply to Antarctica. 

Because snow gradually settles over time under its own weight, the foundations of the building were designed to accommodate substantial differential settling over any one wing in any one line or any one column. If differential settling continues, the supported structure will need to be jacked up and re-leveled. The facility was designed with the primary support columns outboard of the exterior walls so that the entire building can be jacked up a full story. During this process, a new section of column will be added over the existing columns then the jacks pull the building up to the higher elevation.

Quote from: XaeXae on September 05, 2015, 03:47:02 PM

Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Easy:  global warming does not apply to Antarctica. 

Quote

Because snow gradually settles over time under its own weight, the foundations of the building were designed to accommodate substantial differential settling over any one wing in any one line or any one column. If differential settling continues, the supported structure will need to be jacked up and re-leveled. The facility was designed with the primary support columns outboard of the exterior walls so that the entire building can be jacked up a full story. During this process, a new section of column will be added over the existing columns then the jacks pull the building up to the higher elevation.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to prove? XaeXae didn't say anything about global warming.

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 02:33:30 PM

lol, I never said that nobody has set foot on Antarctica.  In fact, I say the opposite of that all the time.  Please, do a search and post a link of me saying that nobody has set foot on Antarctica.

It's always refreshing when I can dig up contradictions from not only the same thread, but the same page within a thread.
It's quite obvious that this quote:

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:01:57 AM

If you were traveling south and came up against what is posted in that picture, would you be stopped?

...is clearly meant to imply that the "ice wall" shown in the picture would stop anyone trying to explore past it.

Now, you will attempt to point out that technically you didn't make a claim that it would stop anyone - just asked a question. And technically you'd be correct. However, if this was a court of law, it'd be ruled that you had led people to believe that was your intent - just as someone who sold a can of fizzy drink called "Colke" in a red and white can with a curly font could be successfully sued by Coca Cola, even though technically their design was different.
Any defence you mount which relies on your phrasing of the question would utterly fail the "moron in a hurry" test. It'd be ruled deliberate misleading.
That's good enough for me.

You seem to have trouble separating the act of sailing from setting foot on something.  I know you get confused a lot, so I won't hold it against you. 

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on September 08, 2015, 04:07:37 PM

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 02:33:30 PM

lol, I never said that nobody has set foot on Antarctica.  In fact, I say the opposite of that all the time.  Please, do a search and post a link of me saying that nobody has set foot on Antarctica.

It's always refreshing when I can dig up contradictions from not only the same thread, but the same page within a thread.
It's quite obvious that this quote:

Quote from: jroa on September 06, 2015, 06:01:57 AM

If you were traveling south and came up against what is posted in that picture, would you be stopped?

...is clearly meant to imply that the "ice wall" shown in the picture would stop anyone trying to explore past it.

Now, you will attempt to point out that technically you didn't make a claim that it would stop anyone - just asked a question. And technically you'd be correct. However, if this was a court of law, it'd be ruled that you had led people to believe that was your intent - just as someone who sold a can of fizzy drink called "Colke" in a red and white can with a curly font could be successfully sued by Coca Cola, even though technically their design was different.
Any defence you mount which relies on your phrasing of the question would utterly fail the "moron in a hurry" test. It'd be ruled deliberate misleading.
That's good enough for me.

You seem to have trouble separating the act of sailing from setting foot on something.  I know you get confused a lot, so I won't hold it against you.

There must be thousands of people worldwide, who are now actively involved in the flat earth movement. One would imagine that at least one of these many thousands has been to Antarctica on one of the many cruise ships that visits each summer. Surely they must have reported their findings by now to confirm that the 24 hour summer sun is a blatant lie?  To expose the myth of the Antarctic 24 hour sun must be right at the top of the flat earth movement's list of round earth lies that need to be exposed?

To confirm that the 24 hour Antarctic sun is in fact a myth, would be a huge blow to the round earth movement, so surely the flat earth society hierarchy will be sending a representative this summer. But it is indeed puzzling why this hasn't already happened?  Unless of course, a member of the flat earth society hierarchy has actually already visited during the Antarctic summer, and witnessed something that they would rather keep to themselves?

That section of ice wall would inconvenience anyone, but might not stop them completely. I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world where the wall might be very easy to cross. If a penguin can get back on shore after a swim how hard could it be?

First of all, the picture you had was misleading. Because that is definitely not the ice wall.

And the second thing, what keeps us from just flying over the ice wall With a plane or helicopter?

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 08, 2015, 06:41:16 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 05, 2015, 03:47:02 PM

Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Easy:  global warming does not apply to Antarctica. 

Quote

Because snow gradually settles over time under its own weight, the foundations of the building were designed to accommodate substantial differential settling over any one wing in any one line or any one column. If differential settling continues, the supported structure will need to be jacked up and re-leveled. The facility was designed with the primary support columns outboard of the exterior walls so that the entire building can be jacked up a full story. During this process, a new section of column will be added over the existing columns then the jacks pull the building up to the higher elevation.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to prove?

I had no intention of proving anything.  The OP asked for an explanation of a wikigurgia link. 
Do not apologize but since you asked, it proves the OP and you are trolls. 

XaeXae didn't say anything about global warming.

YaYa did not say much of anything about anything.  The OP has no focus and is obviously trolling. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 08, 2015, 06:41:16 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 05, 2015, 03:47:02 PM

Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Easy:  global warming does not apply to Antarctica. 

Quote

Because snow gradually settles over time under its own weight, the foundations of the building were designed to accommodate substantial differential settling over any one wing in any one line or any one column. If differential settling continues, the supported structure will need to be jacked up and re-leveled. The facility was designed with the primary support columns outboard of the exterior walls so that the entire building can be jacked up a full story. During this process, a new section of column will be added over the existing columns then the jacks pull the building up to the higher elevation.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to prove?

I had no intention of proving anything.  The OP asked for an explanation of a wikigurgia link. 
Do not apologize but since you asked, it proves the OP and you are trolls. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

XaeXae didn't say anything about global warming.

YaYa did not say much of anything about anything.  The OP has no focus and is obviously trolling.

There must be thousands of people worldwide, who are now actively involved in the flat earth movement. One would imagine that at least one of these many thousands has been to Antarctica on one of the many cruise ships that visits each summer. Surely they must have reported their findings by now to confirm that the 24 hour summer sun is a blatant lie?  To expose the myth of the Antarctic 24 hour sun must be right at the top of the flat earth movement's list of round earth lies that need to be exposed?

To confirm that the 24 hour Antarctic sun is in fact a myth, would be a huge blow to the round earth movement, so surely the flat earth society hierarchy will be sending a representative this summer. But it is indeed puzzling why this hasn't already happened?  Unless of course, a member of the flat earth society hierarchy has actually already visited during the Antarctic summer, and witnessed something that they would rather keep to themselves?

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 08, 2015, 06:41:16 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 05, 2015, 03:47:02 PM

Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Easy:  global warming does not apply to Antarctica. 

Quote

Because snow gradually settles over time under its own weight, the foundations of the building were designed to accommodate substantial differential settling over any one wing in any one line or any one column. If differential settling continues, the supported structure will need to be jacked up and re-leveled. The facility was designed with the primary support columns outboard of the exterior walls so that the entire building can be jacked up a full story. During this process, a new section of column will be added over the existing columns then the jacks pull the building up to the higher elevation.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to prove?

I had no intention of proving anything.  The OP asked for an explanation of a wikigurgia link. 
Do not apologize but since you asked, it proves the OP and you are trolls. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

XaeXae didn't say anything about global warming.

YaYa did not say much of anything about anything.  The OP has no focus and is obviously trolling.

Antarctic sun at 2.47am at the South Pole - another nail in the FE coffin.

Antarctic sun at 2.47am at the South Pole - another nail in the FE coffin.

Great Nail...

Because it would be impossible to set a Timex to the wrong time.

That section of ice wall would inconvenience anyone, but might not stop them completely. I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world where the wall might be very easy to cross. If a penguin can get back on shore after a swim how hard could it be?

You're catching on now Serulian, your comment concerning the 'round world' is certainly spot on - but why did it take you so long to realise that the earth is not flat?

Quote from: chtwrone on September 09, 2015, 03:56:03 PM

Antarctic sun at 2.47am at the South Pole - another nail in the FE coffin.

Great Nail...

Because it would be impossible to set a Timex to the wrong time.

Of course it would be possible to set the watch to the wrong time, but why would this be required, when there is ALWAYS 24 hour sun at the south pole during the Antarctic summer?

There is no need to fake something that has been observed and documented for over a hundred years now.  Flat earth fools such as yourself hate pictures like this, because it completely destroys your pathetic flat earth model.

There are thousands of tourists who go to Antarctica on cruise ships each summer and witness the 24 hour sun for themselves - link provided to just one of the many cruise ship companies, that provide trips each summer.
http://www.polarcruises.com/antarctica

 I have NEVER seen anything in the media from even one of these thousands of  tourists who have called into question the 24 hour Antarctic sun.  Do you know why there has never been one person to call this phenomenon a lie?  For the simple reason that the Antarctic 24 hour sun is EXACTLY the same as the 24 hour Arctic sun, due to the FACT that the earth is a sphere who's rotational axis is inclined at 23.4 degrees to the sun.

24 HOUR ANTARCTIC SUMMER SUN IS AN EXTENSIVELY WELL DOCUMENTED AND OBSERVED PHENOMENON - FACT.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 08, 2015, 06:41:16 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 05, 2015, 03:47:02 PM

Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Easy:  global warming does not apply to Antarctica. 

Quote

Because snow gradually settles over time under its own weight, the foundations of the building were designed to accommodate substantial differential settling over any one wing in any one line or any one column. If differential settling continues, the supported structure will need to be jacked up and re-leveled. The facility was designed with the primary support columns outboard of the exterior walls so that the entire building can be jacked up a full story. During this process, a new section of column will be added over the existing columns then the jacks pull the building up to the higher elevation.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to prove?

I had no intention of proving anything.  The OP asked for an explanation of a wikigurgia link. 
Do not apologize but since you asked, it proves the OP and you are trolls. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

XaeXae didn't say anything about global warming.

YaYa did not say much of anything about anything.  The OP has no focus and is obviously trolling.

I just wanted you to explain me how they could put a base on the South Pole, if there is no South Pole...

Not trolling, just asking 

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 09, 2015, 01:17:20 PM

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

Quote from: Charming Anarchist on September 08, 2015, 06:41:16 PM

Quote from: XaeXae on September 05, 2015, 03:47:02 PM

Explain me this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%E2%80%93Scott_South_Pole_Station

Easy:  global warming does not apply to Antarctica. 

Quote

Because snow gradually settles over time under its own weight, the foundations of the building were designed to accommodate substantial differential settling over any one wing in any one line or any one column. If differential settling continues, the supported structure will need to be jacked up and re-leveled. The facility was designed with the primary support columns outboard of the exterior walls so that the entire building can be jacked up a full story. During this process, a new section of column will be added over the existing columns then the jacks pull the building up to the higher elevation.

I'm sorry, what is this supposed to prove?

I had no intention of proving anything.  The OP asked for an explanation of a wikigurgia link. 
Do not apologize but since you asked, it proves the OP and you are trolls. 

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 09, 2015, 01:17:42 AM

XaeXae didn't say anything about global warming.

YaYa did not say much of anything about anything.  The OP has no focus and is obviously trolling.

I just wanted you to explain me how they could put a base on the South Pole, if there is no South Pole...

Not trolling, just asking 

Well *clearly* it's a fake base *near* the Ice Wall that the secret United Nations Freemason Illuminati NASA scientists probe the outer dome of the Firmament from!

I mean, what else *could* it be? We all know that the Earth is flat, because if it wasn't we'd have a real base at the South Pole, and since we clearly don't, the Earth has to be flat, and therefore that so-called "base" must be fake.

Hell, it's probably mostly CGI anyway.

(Oh, and why is there a *dome* at the base near the base of the dome!? ANSWER ME THAT ONE!!! IT'S A CLUE!!!)