James Cook vs FE

James Cook's trip around the Antarctica is often used as an argument in favour of FE.

Well, it is the opposite.

88500-96500km is the estimate of the length of this trip.

So the inner circle of this range has 14085km, the outer - 15358km.

We all know, inlcuding Rowbotham, that 1 degree of latitude is ~111.11km

So this trivialy means that the trip took place no further than 138.3 degrees from the north pole. Which is 48.3 degrees South.

James Cook has never seen the Antarctica.

They try to let this slide.

Come on, FEers, that is your argument. Where is your counter-argument?

Come on, FEers, that is your argument. Where is your counter-argument?

All I hear are crickets.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here. I am curious though if maybe he did still see ice at the time. Is it possible there was more ice during that time period then there is today and it could have made it out that far? It may be a dumb question because I'm not sure how far out that puts him right now.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here. I am curious though if maybe he did still see ice at the time. Is it possible there was more ice during that time period then there is today and it could have made it out that far? It may be a dumb question because I'm not sure how far out that puts him right now.

If I am not mistaken, James Cooks travels happened to occur during the "Little Ice Age".  I would therefore say that, yes, there likely was much more ice than there is today. 

If I am not mistaken, James Cooks travels happened to occur during the "Little Ice Age".  I would therefore say that, yes, there likely was much more ice than there is today.

So the Ice wall was set at 48^oS? Who are you trying to convince in such a gibberish? Yourself?

Quote from: jroa on January 24, 2016, 02:27:51 PM

If I am not mistaken, James Cooks travels happened to occur during the "Little Ice Age".  I would therefore say that, yes, there likely was much more ice than there is today.

So the Ice wall was set at 48^oS? Who are you trying to convince in such a gibberish? Yourself?

Umm................ No, he's saying that he ran into ice there, not the ice wall, right?

Exactly. If there was that much during that time period since it was a mini ice age, then to him it WOULD seem like the wall of ice went on forever. I don't think he lied about what he saw, just not correct about what he saw.

Quote from: jroa on January 24, 2016, 02:27:51 PM

If I am not mistaken, James Cooks travels happened to occur during the "Little Ice Age".  I would therefore say that, yes, there likely was much more ice than there is today.

So the Ice wall was set at 48^oS? Who are you trying to convince in such a gibberish? Yourself?

I am not making any claim.  I simply stated a fact: that James Cook's travels occurred during some of the coldest years of little ice age.  Who knows what the ice looked like back then?  Surely not you or I.  Great effort to you for coming up with this topic, but better luck next time. 

I am not making any claim.

FE claims Cook's trip supports FE "model" and the non-existing FE map. Your argument/claim tends in supportive way. You don't refute.

Who knows what the ice looked like back then? 

The same as it looks today... Maybe a bit more white due to less pollution etc.

Surely not you or I.  Great effort to you for coming up with this topic, but better luck next time.

And no effort from any FEer. As usual.

Perhaps FEers should stop parotting themselves like those RE idiots and start thinking of themselves instead? Perhaps FEers should stop using Cook's trip as an argument?

Better luck next time, FEers.

Quote from: jroa on January 25, 2016, 02:36:31 PM

I am not making any claim.

FE claims Cook's trip supports FE "model" and the non-existing FE map. Your argument/claim tends in supportive way. You don't refute.

Quote from: jroa on January 25, 2016, 02:36:31 PM

Who knows what the ice looked like back then? 

The same as it looks today... Maybe a bit more white due to less pollution etc.

Quote from: jroa on January 25, 2016, 02:36:31 PM

Surely not you or I.  Great effort to you for coming up with this topic, but better luck next time.

And no effort from any FEer. As usual.

Perhaps FEers should stop parotting themselves like those RE idiots and start thinking of themselves instead? Perhaps FEers should stop using Cook's trip as an argument?

Better luck next time, FEers.

FE doesn't claim anything.  However, if his trip around Antarctica did in fact take him much farther than RE predicts, then perhaps the RE claimed distance might be questionable?  Is this what is getting your panties in a wad?  That your implanted knowledge might not be as true as you wish it was?  It is OK to vent at me.  I know it must be hard when you have an epiphany that everything that you have been taught could, in fact, be a lie.  Don't worry.  We are here to support you in any way that we can.  Peace, brother.