Rare Events

I've seen a lot of round earthers talk about how clear proofs that the world is flat, such as the bedford level experiment, or cases where the light of a light house was visible when it should be blocked by the Earth's curvature, or situations where more of the world over a lake could be seen than should be possible on a round Earth, are unreliable given they have only been performed a handful of times.

If this is so, why do you claim, Antarctica is not a ring?
Who has crossed it? Amundsen is said to, though he only went to a certain magnetically interesting point. Scott was said to, but all of his expedition died. Shackleton failed. Mackintosh's whole expedition died. Primarily, all anyone does is map the coast, which is possible on a ring.
Anyone who tries to actually cross Antarctica dies, with no survivors. Scott, Mackintosh... Only Wilkins and Fuchs can really be said to have crossed Antarctica, and are contradicted by the likes of Ronne who claim they observed no sea on the far side.
You have at best two out of numerous attempts to cross Antarctica. Why is that rare event given more credence than the multitude of experiments that prove the Earth is flat?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions
Plenty of successful explorations with some failures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Worsley_(explorer)
He trekked across Antarctica more than once with others then died during a solo attempt.

Then there are events like this, while not meant to explore but as a challenge and competition:

http://www.icemarathon.com/
http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/

I have met a couple that sailed to Antarctica.  They went because they met another couple that went and told them how beautiful it was.  I am even thinking of going and the only requirements is not to mess stuff up, know if I run into a problem no one is required to help me, not to conduct a military operation that is not in support of a scientific mission and not interfere with ongoing research.  As long as I follow those rules I can do anything I want like try to determine the shape of the Earth.

My guess it would be glaringly obvious if Antarctica was a ring. Circumnavigating by boat or foot would take much longer than expected if Antarctica ringed the Earth and not as depicted on maps.

Going to Antarctica is not the same as crossing it. Most of those expeditions did not even attempt that feat (and the vast majority of those that did failed). You can visit a ring and it wouldn't look any different to a continent: just ice as far as you could see.
Worsley retraced an expedition which tried and failed to cross the Antarctic, and then died when he actually tried to cross it.

It seems to me that crossing Antarctica is well established as impossible. As such, it must be a ring.

Going to Antarctica is not the same as crossing it. Most of those expeditions did not even attempt that feat (and the vast majority of those that did failed). You can visit a ring and it wouldn't look any different to a continent: just ice as far as you could see.
Worsley retraced an expedition which tried and failed to cross the Antarctic, and then died when he actually tried to cross it.

It seems to me that crossing Antarctica is well established as impossible. As such, it must be a ring.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

Notice how it does not say first person, but first woman?  Do a little research.  Look at the list I linked.  Some where failures, some where successful.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

They flew most of the way and had to finish on foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

Two teams starting from different locations.  Once reaching the South Pole both teams returned to Scott Base.

There are more successful crossings and circumnavigations.

The number of failures and first hand accounts of successes suggest that it is a harsh environment that certainly make it very difficult to accomplish. Not that it is impossible. 

If you do not think the distance travelling around Antarctica would be vastly different if it was a ring I would take a moment to compare an FE map and RE map. Maybe find two that are about the same scale and measure the distances.

I've seen a lot of round earthers talk about how clear proofs that the world is flat, such as the bedford level experiment, or cases where the light of a light house was visible when it should be blocked by the Earth's curvature, or situations where more of the world over a lake could be seen than should be possible on a round Earth, are unreliable given they have only been performed a handful of times.

If this is so, why do you claim, Antarctica is not a ring?
Who has crossed it? Amundsen is said to, though he only went to a certain magnetically interesting point. Scott was said to, but all of his expedition died. Shackleton failed. Mackintosh's whole expedition died. Primarily, all anyone does is map the coast, which is possible on a ring.
Anyone who tries to actually cross Antarctica dies, with no survivors. Scott, Mackintosh... Only Wilkins and Fuchs can really be said to have crossed Antarctica, and are contradicted by the likes of Ronne who claim they observed no sea on the far side.
You have at best two out of numerous attempts to cross Antarctica. Why is that rare event given more credence than the multitude of experiments that prove the Earth is flat?

Twiddles your talk is all twaddle!

Amundsen and Scott determined their position quite accurately using sun sightings. They only used magnetic compasses for rough location. Look and the earlier post:

Quote from: FalseProphet on February 25, 2016, 10:39:58 AM

I guess they used a sextant. It is easy to determine your latitude.

No need to guess, go read all about it! Yes, Amundsen did use sextants and Scott used theodolites, which are more accurate, but heavier than sextants.

As noted elsewhere, on land a sextant can use a reflective artificial horizon, which doubles the angle read.

Best read up on it yourself in http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html. Here is a little bit:

Quote from: Amundsen's original South Pole Station

Roald Amundsen arrived in the general vicinity of Pole on the afternoon of 14 December 1911, traveling from grid south (he was using the local time of Framheim, which would have been approximately GMT-11; some accounts, including Amundsen's original field notes, use time on the west side of the Date Line which Scott was using, this would make the date 15 December). When their sledge meters indicated they should be at the right place, they stopped at the location marked "Sledge" on the map at right (from The South Pole) to determine their position more accurately from sun shots.

What about backing up some of your ridiculous claims with something other than rubbish from your own pen!

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 10:11:26 AM

I've seen a lot of round earthers talk about how clear proofs that the world is flat, such as the bedford level experiment, or cases where the light of a light house was visible when it should be blocked by the Earth's curvature, or situations where more of the world over a lake could be seen than should be possible on a round Earth, are unreliable given they have only been performed a handful of times.

If this is so, why do you claim, Antarctica is not a ring?
Who has crossed it? Amundsen is said to, though he only went to a certain magnetically interesting point. Scott was said to, but all of his expedition died. Shackleton failed. Mackintosh's whole expedition died. Primarily, all anyone does is map the coast, which is possible on a ring.
Anyone who tries to actually cross Antarctica dies, with no survivors. Scott, Mackintosh... Only Wilkins and Fuchs can really be said to have crossed Antarctica, and are contradicted by the likes of Ronne who claim they observed no sea on the far side.
You have at best two out of numerous attempts to cross Antarctica. Why is that rare event given more credence than the multitude of experiments that prove the Earth is flat?

Twiddles your talk is all twaddle!

Amundsen and Scott determined their position quite accurately using sub sightings. They only used magnetic compasses for rough location. Look and the earlier post:

Quote from: rabinoz on February 25, 2016, 03:31:58 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on February 25, 2016, 10:39:58 AM

Iguess they used a sextant. It is easy to determine your latitude.

No need to guess, go read all about it! Yes, Amundsen did use sextants and Scott used theodolites, which are more accurate, but heavier than sextants.

As noted elsewhere, on land a sextant can use a reflective artificial horizon, which doubles the angle read.

Best read up on it yourself in http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html. Here is a little bit:

Quote from: Amundsen's original South Pole Station

Roald Amundsen arrived in the general vicinity of Pole on the afternoon of 14 December 1911, traveling from grid south (he was using the local time of Framheim, which would have been approximately GMT-11; some accounts, including Amundsen's original field notes, use time on the west side of the Date Line which Scott was using, this would make the date 15 December). When their sledge meters indicated they should be at the right place, they stopped at the location marked "Sledge" on the map at right (from The South Pole) to determine their position more accurately from sun shots.

What about backing up some of your ridiculous claims with something other than rubbish from your own pen!

I never contested how they determined their position, I'm not sure why you feel that's important. They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole). They did not attempt to cross Antarctica. That's all I said. Do you take issue with that?

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 10:55:46 AM

Going to Antarctica is not the same as crossing it. Most of those expeditions did not even attempt that feat (and the vast majority of those that did failed). You can visit a ring and it wouldn't look any different to a continent: just ice as far as you could see.
Worsley retraced an expedition which tried and failed to cross the Antarctic, and then died when he actually tried to cross it.

It seems to me that crossing Antarctica is well established as impossible. As such, it must be a ring.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

Notice how it does not say first person, but first woman?  Do a little research.  Look at the list I linked.  Some where failures, some where successful.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

They flew most of the way and had to finish on foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

Two teams starting from different locations.  Once reaching the South Pole both teams returned to Scott Base.

There are more successful crossings and circumnavigations.

The number of failures and first hand accounts of successes suggest that it is a harsh environment that certainly make it very difficult to accomplish. Not that it is impossible. 

If you do not think the distance travelling around Antarctica would be vastly different if it was a ring I would take a moment to compare an FE map and RE map. Maybe find two that are about the same scale and measure the distances.

It's very impressive that she was the first woman to cross the Antarctic alone given that Worsley died trying to be the first person to do that four years later. Check your sources. I suspect she was found to have lied.
Otherwise you just referenced Fluchs, which I stated myself.

People are going to claim to do anything. Why do you believe the accounts of a handful when the vast majority of the expeditions die? You can make all kinds of excuses, but that isn't evidence. It is what we expect to see if it is a harsh environment (only it isn't: we would expect a handful of survivors who turned back, and we'd expect fewer survivors on the complete expeditions): it is also what we expect to see if there is a cover-up. What is the reason for the contradiction in the standards you apply to evidence?

Quote from: Woody on July 09, 2016, 12:31:13 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 10:55:46 AM

Going to Antarctica is not the same as crossing it. Most of those expeditions did not even attempt that feat (and the vast majority of those that did failed). You can visit a ring and it wouldn't look any different to a continent: just ice as far as you could see.
Worsley retraced an expedition which tried and failed to cross the Antarctic, and then died when he actually tried to cross it.

It seems to me that crossing Antarctica is well established as impossible. As such, it must be a ring.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

Notice how it does not say first person, but first woman?  Do a little research.  Look at the list I linked.  Some where failures, some where successful.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

They flew most of the way and had to finish on foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

Two teams starting from different locations.  Once reaching the South Pole both teams returned to Scott Base.

There are more successful crossings and circumnavigations.

The number of failures and first hand accounts of successes suggest that it is a harsh environment that certainly make it very difficult to accomplish. Not that it is impossible. 

If you do not think the distance travelling around Antarctica would be vastly different if it was a ring I would take a moment to compare an FE map and RE map. Maybe find two that are about the same scale and measure the distances.

It's very impressive that she was the first woman to cross the Antarctic alone given that Worsley died trying to be the first person to do that four years later. Check your sources. I suspect she was found to have lied.
Otherwise you just referenced Fluchs, which I stated myself.

People are going to claim to do anything. Why do you believe the accounts of a handful when the vast majority of the expeditions die? You can make all kinds of excuses, but that isn't evidence. It is what we expect to see if it is a harsh environment (only it isn't: we would expect a handful of survivors who turned back, and we'd expect fewer survivors on the complete expeditions): it is also what we expect to see if there is a cover-up. What is the reason for the contradiction in the standards you apply to evidence?

The vast majority did not die.  The majority returned.  Some had to be rescued and did not complete what they set out to do, some had to make adjustments like finishing on foot when they were planning on flying the whole way, for some things went basically as planned.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/05/07/2238308.htm

This guy successfully sailed around Antarctica solo.  Again notice the distinguishing thing is solo, since it was already done by others who were not by themselves.  When he was doing it, people could track his position in real time. 

What I am guessing the stories you are claiming to be true are the failures and the ones that are lies are the ones claiming success.  Which brings me to the questions what evidence do you have?  Is it simply if people were successful then it means Antarctica is not a ring with us in the middle?

A bit like NASA needs to be lying and the evidence is you would be wrong about the shape of the Earth if they are not. 

It's very impressive that she was the first woman to cross the Antarctic alone given that Worsley died trying to be the first person to do that four years later. Check your sources. I suspect she was found to have lied.

Nope.  She's in the Guinness record holder.  And she won an MBE:



Worsley was a different attempt:

The plan was to cross the continent "unassisted and unsupported" - with no supply drops or help from dogs or any other source.

The first solo and unsupported crossing of the continent was achieved by Norwegian Borge Ousland in 1997. But Mr Worsley's record attempt differed as Mr Ousland used a kite to help drag his supply sled.

The point is, a number of people have crossed the Antarctic.

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 02:38:35 PM

Quote from: Woody on July 09, 2016, 12:31:13 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 10:55:46 AM

Going to Antarctica is not the same as crossing it. Most of those expeditions did not even attempt that feat (and the vast majority of those that did failed). You can visit a ring and it wouldn't look any different to a continent: just ice as far as you could see.
Worsley retraced an expedition which tried and failed to cross the Antarctic, and then died when he actually tried to cross it.

It seems to me that crossing Antarctica is well established as impossible. As such, it must be a ring.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

Notice how it does not say first person, but first woman?  Do a little research.  Look at the list I linked.  Some where failures, some where successful.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/

They flew most of the way and had to finish on foot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Trans-Antarctic_Expedition

Two teams starting from different locations.  Once reaching the South Pole both teams returned to Scott Base.

There are more successful crossings and circumnavigations.

The number of failures and first hand accounts of successes suggest that it is a harsh environment that certainly make it very difficult to accomplish. Not that it is impossible. 

If you do not think the distance travelling around Antarctica would be vastly different if it was a ring I would take a moment to compare an FE map and RE map. Maybe find two that are about the same scale and measure the distances.

It's very impressive that she was the first woman to cross the Antarctic alone given that Worsley died trying to be the first person to do that four years later. Check your sources. I suspect she was found to have lied.
Otherwise you just referenced Fluchs, which I stated myself.

People are going to claim to do anything. Why do you believe the accounts of a handful when the vast majority of the expeditions die? You can make all kinds of excuses, but that isn't evidence. It is what we expect to see if it is a harsh environment (only it isn't: we would expect a handful of survivors who turned back, and we'd expect fewer survivors on the complete expeditions): it is also what we expect to see if there is a cover-up. What is the reason for the contradiction in the standards you apply to evidence?

The vast majority did not die.  The majority returned.  Some had to be rescued and did not complete what they set out to do, some had to make adjustments like finishing on foot when they were planning on flying the whole way, for some things went basically as planned.

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/05/07/2238308.htm

This guy successfully sailed around Antarctica solo.  Again notice the distinguishing thing is solo, since it was already done by others who were not by themselves.  When he was doing it, people could track his position in real time. 

What I am guessing the stories you are claiming to be true are the failures and the ones that are lies are the ones claiming success.  Which brings me to the questions what evidence do you have?  Is it simply if people were successful then it means Antarctica is not a ring with us in the middle?

A bit like NASA needs to be lying and the evidence is you would be wrong about the shape of the Earth if they are not.

If they did not cross Antarctica, then they're irrelevant. The fact remains that of all the people that tried, the majority failed or died: including people who did not cross the Antarctic in your 'majority' of people who crossed the Antarctic would be dishonest. If it seems as though no one is capable of completing the journey, the reasonable conclusion is that those that claimed to did not.

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 02:38:35 PM

It's very impressive that she was the first woman to cross the Antarctic alone given that Worsley died trying to be the first person to do that four years later. Check your sources. I suspect she was found to have lied.

Nope.  She's in the Guinness record holder.  And she won an MBE:



Worsley was a different attempt:

Quote

The plan was to cross the continent "unassisted and unsupported" - with no supply drops or help from dogs or any other source.

The first solo and unsupported crossing of the continent was achieved by Norwegian Borge Ousland in 1997. But Mr Worsley's record attempt differed as Mr Ousland used a kite to help drag his supply sled.

The point is, a number of people have crossed the Antarctic.

2 is 'a number,' my statement stands. How many people failed attempting what those lone people managed? What do the numbers say?

If it seems as though no one is capable of completing the journey, the reasonable conclusion is that those that claimed to did not.

Wow, that's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Well done?

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2016, 03:08:55 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 02:38:35 PM

It's very impressive that she was the first woman to cross the Antarctic alone given that Worsley died trying to be the first person to do that four years later. Check your sources. I suspect she was found to have lied.

Nope.  She's in the Guinness record holder.  And she won an MBE:



Worsley was a different attempt:

Quote

The plan was to cross the continent "unassisted and unsupported" - with no supply drops or help from dogs or any other source.

The first solo and unsupported crossing of the continent was achieved by Norwegian Borge Ousland in 1997. But Mr Worsley's record attempt differed as Mr Ousland used a kite to help drag his supply sled.

The point is, a number of people have crossed the Antarctic.

2 is 'a number,' my statement stands. How many people failed attempting what those lone people managed? What do the numbers say?

The majority did not die.  The majority either made it, had to be rescued, or alter their plans like shortening there trip.  The majority did not do it solo. 

If you are saying the majority who tried it solo failed I agree.  I will once again reference you to the list I linked.  Most made it, most had some complications.  If you look at the earlier expeditions they suffered the highest casualties and failures.  The later ones were more successful.

So it seems the evidence you need is only you think you are right and anything that suggest otherwise is lies, hoaxes and part of a conspiracy.

I think it is telling that there has been no attempt of an expedition by FE's.  It is certainly doable.  People go their on boats simply for the experience and to test themselves against others in a race.  The couple I met seemed honest to me, they were in their 50's and they did not mention patrols or being stopped.  They sailed near the coast for about a week.

You know what crosses Antarctica every 90 minutes?  Polar satellites.  Go outside sometime; you might see a few. 

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

I never contested how they determined their position, I'm not sure why you feel that's important. They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole). They did not attempt to cross Antarctica. That's all I said. Do you take issue with that?

1)		So if the South Pole exists the "Ice Wall" model of the Flat Earth doesn't exist.
2)		You claim "They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole)", but there is nothing particularly "magnetically interesting" at the "Geographical South Pole" but at the "Magnetic South Pole". In 1911 that was around 73° S and not even close to the "South Pole" at 90°S.

Even though the South Pole is not really "a magnetically interesting location".

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 03:09:08 PM

If it seems as though no one is capable of completing the journey, the reasonable conclusion is that those that claimed to did not.

Wow, that's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Well done?

It is no more circular than rejecting the accounts of the Bedford Level Experiment and similar observations that would be impossible on a round Earth, assuming a priori that a mistake was made, because you hold that the world is round.

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 03:10:50 PM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2016, 03:08:55 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 02:38:35 PM

It's very impressive that she was the first woman to cross the Antarctic alone given that Worsley died trying to be the first person to do that four years later. Check your sources. I suspect she was found to have lied.

Nope.  She's in the Guinness record holder.  And she won an MBE:



Worsley was a different attempt:

Quote

The plan was to cross the continent "unassisted and unsupported" - with no supply drops or help from dogs or any other source.

The first solo and unsupported crossing of the continent was achieved by Norwegian Borge Ousland in 1997. But Mr Worsley's record attempt differed as Mr Ousland used a kite to help drag his supply sled.

The point is, a number of people have crossed the Antarctic.

2 is 'a number,' my statement stands. How many people failed attempting what those lone people managed? What do the numbers say?

The majority did not die.  The majority either made it, had to be rescued, or alter their plans like shortening there trip.  The majority did not do it solo. 

If you are saying the majority who tried it solo failed I agree.  I will once again reference you to the list I linked.  Most made it, most had some complications.  If you look at the earlier expeditions they suffered the highest casualties and failures.  The later ones were more successful.

So it seems the evidence you need is only you think you are right and anything that suggest otherwise is lies, hoaxes and part of a conspiracy.

I think it is telling that there has been no attempt of an expedition by FE's.  It is certainly doable.  People go their on boats simply for the experience and to test themselves against others in a race.  The couple I met seemed honest to me, they were in their 50's and they did not mention patrols or being stopped.  They sailed near the coast for about a week.

I am talking about crossing Antarctica, please remember that. Many people have been there, I do not contest that, but very very few have crossed it. Most expeditions did not even attempt the feat. Those that did died.

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.
I do not contest that you claim it is as dangerous as that. I ask why you choose to use as evidence something that has been achieved so few times.

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 02:33:17 PM

I never contested how they determined their position, I'm not sure why you feel that's important. They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole). They did not attempt to cross Antarctica. That's all I said. Do you take issue with that?

1)		So if the South Pole exists the "Ice Wall" model of the Flat Earth doesn't exist.
2)		You claim "They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole)", but there is nothing particularly "magnetically interesting" at the "Geographical South Pole" but at the "Magnetic South Pole". In 1911 that was around 73° S and not even close to the "South Pole" at 90°S.

Locations of South Magnetic Pole from
direct observation and model prediction.

So thanks, with your statement "They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole)" you have proved that you cannot support the "Ice Wall" map.

Even though the South Pole is not really "a magnetically interesting location".

Your claim does not follow. There is a southern magnetic pole no matter which model of the world you adhere to.
I admit, I made a small slip up because I did not want to dedicate any particular amount of time to something irrelevant to the point I was making, they did not travel to the magnetic south pole.

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2016, 03:12:02 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 03:09:08 PM

If it seems as though no one is capable of completing the journey, the reasonable conclusion is that those that claimed to did not.

Wow, that's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Well done?

It is no more circular than rejecting the accounts of the Bedford Level Experiment and similar observations that would be impossible on a round Earth, assuming a priori that a mistake was made, because you hold that the world is round.

On the basis that the Bedford experiment has not been shown to be correct when it is apparently so easy. Clearly the path of the sun and measured distances show a round earth.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.

Neither has dishonesty or libel, but that doesn't stop you.  For example claiming that Felicity Aston was "found out to have lied" whereas she actually won an MBE.  Or dismissing all the other explorers as "frauds" or "hoaxes" without a shred of evidence to support your claims. 

If you want to keep things civilised then stop with the scurrilous name calling.

Most expeditions did not even attempt the feat. Those that did died.

Well, apart all the ones that made it.   

What's the point of all this anyway?  Antarctica is thoroughly explored and fully mapped from ground, aerial photography and satellite images.  We know what shape it is and where it is.

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.
I do not contest that you claim it is as dangerous as that. I ask why you choose to use as evidence something that has been achieved so few times.

Few? Even if it had happened a single time it would prove clearly enough crossing Antarctica is possible. A ring of ice would make it impossible, as it would mean that an explorer starting their expedition south of Argentina would turn up south of New Zealand on foot!

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2016, 12:47:24 AM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 02:33:17 PM

I never contested how they determined their position, I'm not sure why you feel that's important. They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole). They did not attempt to cross Antarctica. That's all I said. Do you take issue with that?

1)		So if the South Pole exists the "Ice Wall" model of the Flat Earth doesn't exist.
2)		You claim "They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole)", but there is nothing particularly "magnetically interesting" at the "Geographical South Pole" but at the "Magnetic South Pole". In 1911 that was around 73° S and not even close to the "South Pole" at 90°S.

Locations of South Magnetic Pole from
direct observation and model prediction.

So thanks, with your statement "They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole)" you have proved that you cannot support the "Ice Wall" map.

Even though the South Pole is not really "a magnetically interesting location".

Your claim does not follow. There is a southern magnetic pole no matter which model of the world you adhere to.
I admit, I made a small slip up because I did not want to dedicate any particular amount of time to something irrelevant to the point I was making, they did not travel to the magnetic south pole.

Fine, you were claiming that they (presumably Amundsen and Scott) "did not travel to the magnetic south pole".
Maybe they didn't, but Ross (1841), Mawson (1909), Webb (1912) and Mayaud (1952) did visits points very close to the Soth Magnetic Pole.

And more importantly, Amundsen, Scott and at least hundreds of others have visited the Geographic South Pole since 1911.

The Flat Earth Society (at Rowbotham, numerous members and presumably yourself ) claim that the South Pole does not exist, simply because it does not fit into the "Ice Wall" model for the Flat Earth.

I would claim that there is abundant evidence that the Geographic South Pole does exist, thus completely disproving the possibility of the "Ice Wall" model for the Flat Earth.

There is plenty of other evidence, such as the fact that the South Celestial Pole (and even the Southern Cross - Crux) can at a few times be seen from Australia, South Africa and South America by looking south at the same time!

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:10:52 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.

Neither has dishonesty or libel, but that doesn't stop you.  For example claiming that Felicity Aston was "found out to have lied" whereas she actually won an MBE.  Or dismissing all the other explorers as "frauds" or "hoaxes" without a shred of evidence to support your claims. 

If you want to keep things civilised then stop with the scurrilous name calling.

Quote

Most expeditions did not even attempt the feat. Those that did died.

Well, apart all the ones that made it.   

What's the point of all this anyway?  Antarctica is thoroughly explored and fully mapped from ground, aerial photography and satellite images.  We know what shape it is and where it is.

Agreed.

The point is that brain damaged morons like Tiddles keep  posting these stupid ice wall theories,  even the most addle brained flat earthers long ago accepted that the South Pole existed,  that  the sky in the southern hemisphere revolves around the south celestial pole,  and that there is 24 hour daylight inside the Antarctic circle.   There's even a permanently manned research staion at the geographic south pole with webcams.    Nope..   calling that lying moron,  brain damaged is being way too kind. 

If he want to believe in a flat earth,  that's fine.   He can join the other loonies in the sanitarium.   I still want to see a real bipolar flat earth model,  but I'm not holding my breath.
 

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:12:20 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on July 10, 2016, 12:47:24 AM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 02:33:17 PM

I never contested how they determined their position, I'm not sure why you feel that's important. They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole). They did not attempt to cross Antarctica. That's all I said. Do you take issue with that?

1)		So if the South Pole exists the "Ice Wall" model of the Flat Earth doesn't exist.
2)		You claim "They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole)", but there is nothing particularly "magnetically interesting" at the "Geographical South Pole" but at the "Magnetic South Pole". In 1911 that was around 73° S and not even close to the "South Pole" at 90°S.

Locations of South Magnetic Pole from
direct observation and model prediction.

So thanks, with your statement "They reached a magnetically interesting location (the pole)" you have proved that you cannot support the "Ice Wall" map.

Even though the South Pole is not really "a magnetically interesting location".

Your claim does not follow. There is a southern magnetic pole no matter which model of the world you adhere to.
I admit, I made a small slip up because I did not want to dedicate any particular amount of time to something irrelevant to the point I was making, they did not travel to the magnetic south pole.

Fine, you were claiming that they (presumably Amundsen and Scott) "did not travel to the magnetic south pole".
Maybe they didn't, but Ross (1841), Mawson (1909), Webb (1912) and Mayaud (1952) did visits points very close to the Soth Magnetic Pole.

And more importantly, Amundsen, Scott and at least hundreds of others have visited the Geographic South Pole since 1911.

The Flat Earth Society (at Rowbotham, numerous members and presumably yourself ) claim that the South Pole does not exist, simply because it does not fit into the "Ice Wall" model for the Flat Earth.

I would claim that there is abundant evidence that the Geographic South Pole does exist, thus completely disproving the possibility of the "Ice Wall" model for the Flat Earth.

There is plenty of other evidence, such as the fact that the South Celestial Pole (and even the Southern Cross - Crux) can at a few times be seen from Australia, South Africa and South America by looking south at the same time!

That is the opposite of what I claimed. I am only saying there are too few supposed expeditions that crossed Antarctica for it to be considered reliable information.

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:10:52 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.
I do not contest that you claim it is as dangerous as that. I ask why you choose to use as evidence something that has been achieved so few times.

Few? Even if it had happened a single time it would prove clearly enough crossing Antarctica is possible. A ring of ice would make it impossible, as it would mean that an explorer starting their expedition south of Argentina would turn up south of New Zealand on foot!

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:07:45 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2016, 03:12:02 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 03:09:08 PM

If it seems as though no one is capable of completing the journey, the reasonable conclusion is that those that claimed to did not.

Wow, that's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Well done?

It is no more circular than rejecting the accounts of the Bedford Level Experiment and similar observations that would be impossible on a round Earth, assuming a priori that a mistake was made, because you hold that the world is round.

On the basis that the Bedford experiment has not been shown to be correct when it is apparently so easy. Clearly the path of the sun and measured distances show a round earth.

Why do you believe it has not been shown to be correct? It was performed, the result was unambiguous, on more than one occasion. What more do you require?
Why do you believe the path of the Sun and distances cannot be explained on a flat surface? Please answer without appealing to a certain map, or to round earth mechanisms of light, as your claim would not follow. If only a round earth is possible, you should be capable of justifying your claim without needing specificity. Without assuming the details of your model, explain why the round earth is the exclusive explanation?
Doing so is impossible. You cannot refute models and knowledge you have no knowledge of.

Quote from: GlaringEye on July 10, 2016, 12:49:47 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:10:52 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on July 09, 2016, 08:32:53 PM

So why is crossing Antarctica such a rare and noteworthy achievement?   

Well,  if you take the longest pole crossing path,  it's  about 5000 km or so of sub zero ice and snow,  with  100 km/hour driving blizzards,  and if you pick the wrong time of year it's 24 hours of pitch black all day every day.   Throw in a few mountain ranges,  and large areas criss-crossed with dangerous crevasses.

I'm not surprised that so few attempt it,  let alone make it.   But then again I'm not brain damaged like Triddles. 

Here's a job opportunity for a flat earther https://www.bas.ac.uk/jobs/vacancies/

Please can you leave behind the name-calling. It has no place in civilized discussion.
I do not contest that you claim it is as dangerous as that. I ask why you choose to use as evidence something that has been achieved so few times.

Few? Even if it had happened a single time it would prove clearly enough crossing Antarctica is possible. A ring of ice would make it impossible, as it would mean that an explorer starting their expedition south of Argentina would turn up south of New Zealand on foot!

Science is based upon repetition. If you accept the idea that one crossing is immediately reliable, then you must in turn accept that the world is flat due to experiments such as the Bedford Level Experiment.
Worsley died in the attempt of crossing Antarctica: one of many.

Look at the map and tell me how Worsley got from south of Argentina to south of New Zealand on foot in only 71 days using a flat map. Don't try to ignore the question.

Crossing the Antarctic continent is repeatable, but incredibly dangerous.

As for the Bedford level experiment, it's been explained hundreds of times how it was at first badly executed (Rowbotham to his companions: "See those boats down there? You wouldn't see them in a round earth" was all his experiment did) and later, when performed properly (with the alignment of discs to measure their aparent height), showed the curvature of the earth, so I wouldn't use it as evidence of the contrary if I were in your place.

Quote from: inquisitive on July 10, 2016, 09:39:01 AM

Quote from: Triddles on July 10, 2016, 09:07:45 AM

Quote from: JimmyTheCrab on July 09, 2016, 03:12:02 PM

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 03:09:08 PM

If it seems as though no one is capable of completing the journey, the reasonable conclusion is that those that claimed to did not.

Wow, that's one of the most circular arguments I've ever seen.  Well done?

It is no more circular than rejecting the accounts of the Bedford Level Experiment and similar observations that would be impossible on a round Earth, assuming a priori that a mistake was made, because you hold that the world is round.

On the basis that the Bedford experiment has not been shown to be correct when it is apparently so easy. Clearly the path of the sun and measured distances show a round earth.

Why do you believe it has not been shown to be correct? It was performed, the result was unambiguous, on more than one occasion. What more do you require?
Why do you believe the path of the Sun and distances cannot be explained on a flat surface? Please answer without appealing to a certain map, or to round earth mechanisms of light, as your claim would not follow. If only a round earth is possible, you should be capable of justifying your claim without needing specificity. Without assuming the details of your model, explain why the round earth is the exclusive explanation?
Doing so is impossible. You cannot refute models and knowledge you have no knowledge of.

The BLE has not been repeated, unless you can provide links to recent proofs using modern equipment which will be more accurate than that used 100 years ago.

Distances between points on earth have been proven without any doubt.  These only map to a round earth.

Maybe you could show a flat earth map that shows the path of the sun and accurate distances.  Please show the accurate shape of Australia as a start.

Or maybe you know the earth is round...