Living in Antarctica

  • 33 Replies
  • 2156 Views
Living in Antarctica
« on: December 27, 2018, 10:03:47 PM »
I read an article this morning on an American being the first to cross the Antarctic continent alone and unaided. Took him 54 days without getting resupplied.

 https://www.pulse.com.gh/bi/sports/a-33-year-old-american-just-became-the-first-person-to-cross-antarctica-alone-and/7c6x2l2

The report also indicates a Briton trying the same feat but will apparently take longer. About 70 days.

It got me thinking. With the flat earth belief that that Antarctica is not a continent but rather a wall around the circumference of the flat earth, what is the flat earth opinion of those who work in any of the numerous scientific bases in Antarctica?

And I am not talking about those who subscribe to the dual pole models of the flat earth. They are obviously in the minority of flat earth thinking.

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2018, 10:58:31 AM »
52 days to cross Antarctica? ha ha ha ha ha. Man this is getting ridiculous. Even according to Globe earth Antarctica is a massive continent it is the size of United States and Mexico combined. There were people in the past that walked from New York to Los Angeles and it took them many months to do so. Now between New York and LA there is civilization, normal weather, highways, restaurants, hotels, shops and everything in between. In Antarctica there is none of it, there is bitter cold temperatures, making all travel impossible, needless to say walking. To cross Antarctica you will also need to be a professional mountain climber because there are several mountain ranges you need to climb over, with no fancy highway going around them as in the case of North America. If any of you actually believe that its possible to walk across Antarctica you are indeed lost.
Social Distancing = Social Control

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2018, 03:01:19 PM »
52 days to cross Antarctica? ha ha ha ha ha. Man this is getting ridiculous. Even according to Globe earth Antarctica is a massive continent it is the size of United States and Mexico combined. There were people in the past that walked from New York to Los Angeles and it took them many months to do so. Now between New York and LA there is civilization, normal weather, highways, restaurants, hotels, shops and everything in between. In Antarctica there is none of it, there is bitter cold temperatures, making all travel impossible, needless to say walking. To cross Antarctica you will also need to be a professional mountain climber because there are several mountain ranges you need to climb over, with no fancy highway going around them as in the case of North America. If any of you actually believe that its possible to walk across Antarctica you are indeed lost.
When were you last in Antarctica to verify that, "there is bitter cold temperatures, making all travel impossible, needless to say walking"?
Numerous expeditions have travelled to and from the South Pole and across Antarctica and you have no evidence that proves otherwise!

Ha ha ha ha yourself!
Quote
A 33-year-old American just became the first person to cross Antarctica alone and unaided.
 Here's what he ate during the journey.
  • Colin O'Brady, a 33-year-old American adventurer, just became the first person to cross Antarctica alone and unaided.

  • O'Brady finished his 932-mile, 54-day journey on Wednesday.

  • His sled, which weighed 400 pounds at the start, mostly contained food like oatmeal, freeze-dried meals, and special energy bars.

  • O'Brady said he ate the same items every day in order to consume a total of about 7,000 calories.
American explorer Colin O'Brady became the first person to cross Antarctica alone and unaided on December 26, when he reached the Ross Ice Shelf.

The 33-year-old skied 932 miles across the southern continent in 54 days without getting resupplied which required him to carry everything he'd need throughout the journey on a sled. Everyone who tried to accomplish feat before O'Brady either gave up or died.

But O'Brady traveled with impressive speed across Antarctica, completing the journey far ahead of his 70-day goal. That allowed him to beat British explorer Louis Rudd, who was also attempting to set the record. As of Thursday afternoon, Rudd was about 50 miles away from his finish line at the Leverett Glacier.

When O'Brady set off, his sled weighed 400 pounds . It contained a tent, sleeping bag, cameras, a satellite phone, and 30 pounds of fuel for cooking. Most of the sled's weight, however, came from 220 pounds of food enough to help O'Brady survive for more than two months.
Even you, Mr New Earth, with the aid of a computer might be able to work out that 932 miles in 54 days is 17 miles per day.
Skiiing/walking for only 8 hours per day avearges just over 2 miles per hour. Even I could do that (for ONE day, not 54 though ;D).

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2018, 03:39:12 PM »
52 days to cross Antarctica? ha ha ha ha ha. Man this is getting ridiculous. Even according to Globe earth Antarctica is a massive continent it is the size of United States and Mexico combined.

"Massive continent"? Antarctica is second smallest continent (Europe and Asia are actually one single continent) with less than 9% of earth's land area. Only Oceania (Australia and nearby islands) is smaller.
 
Quote
There were people in the past that walked from New York to Los Angeles and it took them many months to do so.

So what? Coast to coast across the US is more than 3,000 miles, three times as far. And there are some that do it slower than others.

Here's someone who did that in 81 days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_walked_across_the_United_States#Mark_Baumer

Colin O'Brady, a 33-year-old American adventurer, just became the first person to cross Antarctica alone and unaided.

O'Brady finished his 932-mile, 54-day journey on Wednesday.

932 mi / 54 days = 17.26 mi/day.

Even I can walk 18 miles in moderately flat open terrain in less than 8 hours, assuming no traffic, river crossings, or similar obstacles, and I'm not nearly as young and fit as Mr. O'Brady is. As recently as a few years ago, I completed the Keyhole Route to the summit of Longs Peak in Colorado and back, a 15-mile round trip in about 15 hours at age 60. The 14,255-foot summit is almost 5000 feet above the trailhead. No, I wasn't hauling 400 pounds of gear, but I wasn't using a sled, either, and I wasn't on skis.

Mark Baumer averaged 3000 mi / 81 days = 37 miles per day. Twice as far each day as Mr. O'Brady. And he was walking, not skiing.

Quote
Now between New York and LA there is civilization, normal weather, highways, restaurants, hotels, shops and everything in between.

Sometimes that stuff slows you down. It does mean you don't have to carry as much stuff, though, which is good, since using a sled to transport it would be impractical.

Quote
In Antarctica there is none of it, there is bitter cold temperatures, making all travel impossible, needless to say walking.

Travel in Antarctica is by no means impossible. Even walking. He was doing this in the milder part of the year. It is cold, but that can be both good and bad. The surface is mostly packed snow, which makes it easier if you use a good sled and skis.

Quote
To cross Antarctica you will also need to be a professional mountain climber because there are several mountain ranges you need to climb over, with no fancy highway going around them as in the case of North America.

Actually, there was only one mountain range, and his route took him down that one on a glacier. Pretty smart, huh? It's almost like he thought out his route and carefully planned it before even setting out! Glacier travel is not to be taken lightly, of course, but many people are very accomplished at it and he is a skilled mountaineer.

Quote
If any of you actually believe that its possible to walk across Antarctica you are indeed lost.

There are lots of things that are not even particularly difficult to do that many people can't do. Just because you can't accomplish something does not mean it's impossible.

[Edit] Remove spurious /quote tag and typo.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2018, 07:35:15 AM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2018, 04:30:44 PM »
Quote
Actually, there was only one mountain range, and his route took him down that one on a glacier. Pretty smart, huh? It's almost like he thought out his route and carefully planned it before even setting out! Glacier travel is not to be taken lightly, of course, but many people are very accomplished at it and he is a skilled mountaineer.

If he had bothered to "research" this story like they always claim, he would have easily seen that amongst pther things, Mr O'brady had also climbed mount Everest.

Dude is skilled.

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2018, 10:58:11 AM »
You guys dug yourself into the largest logical hole this site has ever seen. LOL Its your scientists who say that Antarctica is bigger than United States and when I said its massive continent you disagreed? So you don't believe in globe theory or conventional geography? Thank you. And now you guys are saying its not too cold to walk across? Let me stress something very basic here; IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO WALK ACROSS ANTARCTICA IT WOULD ALSO BE TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO COLONIZE IT AND BUILD CITIES THERE AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT HUNDRED YEARS AGO IF ANTARCTICA WAS INDEED POSSIBLE TO LIVE IN OR WALK ACROSS. End of argument, all other arguments are void. O'Brady never walked in Antarctica, he is a front, much like Armstrong in the moon. LOL
Social Distancing = Social Control

*

Stash

  • 5286
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2018, 12:10:41 PM »
You guys dug yourself into the largest logical hole this site has ever seen. LOL Its your scientists who say that Antarctica is bigger than United States and when I said its massive continent you disagreed? So you don't believe in globe theory or conventional geography? Thank you. And now you guys are saying its not too cold to walk across?

Our scientists are correct. Antarctica (a continent) is larger than the United States (a country)

US = 3.797 million mi²

Largest Continents?

    Asia - 17,212,000 sq mi (44,579,000 sq km)
    Africa - 11,668,599 sq mi (30,221,532 sq km)
    North America - 9,540,000 sq mi (24,709,000 sq km)
    South America - 6,890,000 sq mi (17,840,000 sq km)
    Antarctica - 5,400,000 sq mi (14,000,000 sq km)
    Europe - 3,930,000 sq mi (10,180,000 sq km)
    Australia/Oceania - 3,291,903 sq mi (8,525,989 sq km)

https://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/contnent.htm

Let me stress something very basic here; IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO WALK ACROSS ANTARCTICA IT WOULD ALSO BE TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO COLONIZE IT AND BUILD CITIES THERE AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT HUNDRED YEARS AGO IF ANTARCTICA WAS INDEED POSSIBLE TO LIVE IN OR WALK ACROSS. End of argument, all other arguments are void. O'Brady never walked in Antarctica, he is a front, much like Armstrong in the moon. LOL

It's been proposed, definitely some hurdles:

"Colonization of Antarctica refers to having humans including families living permanently on the continent of Antarctica. Currently, the continent only hosts a temporary transient population of scientists and support staff. Antarctica is the only continent on Earth without indigenous human inhabitants.

At present scientists and staff from 30 countries live on about 70 bases (40 year-round and 30 summer-only), with an approximate population of 4000 in summer and 1000 in winter. There have been at least eleven human births in Antarctica, starting with one in 1978 at an Argentine base, with seven more at that base and three at a Chilean base.

Past colonization speculation

An idea common in the 1950s was to have Antarctic cities enclosed under glass domes, which would make colonization of this continent possible. Power and temperature regulation of the domes would come from atomic driven generators outside of these domes. A light source at the top of the central tower had been proposed as an artificial sun during the dark months in Antarctica. This scenario would also include regular trans-Antarctic flights as well as mining towns which were dug into Antarctica's ice caps above the shafts down to mineral bearing mountains; however, there are problems with the idea of having an atomic driven generator giving the power and temperature regulation. The atomic reactor at McMurdo Station became a pollution hazard and hence was closed down long ago.[1]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_Antarctica

McMurdo Station Weather Today:

December 29, 2018 2:57 PM UTC
Temperature    -5° C    23° F
Wind Chill    Out of Range
Wind Speed    0 knots
Air Pressure    29.07 inches

Mean average is 0° F.



No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

JCM

  • 245
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2018, 12:29:44 PM »
You guys dug yourself into the largest logical hole this site has ever seen. LOL Its your scientists who say that Antarctica is bigger than United States and when I said its massive continent you disagreed? So you don't believe in globe theory or conventional geography? Thank you. And now you guys are saying its not too cold to walk across? Let me stress something very basic here; IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO WALK ACROSS ANTARCTICA IT WOULD ALSO BE TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO COLONIZE IT AND BUILD CITIES THERE AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT HUNDRED YEARS AGO IF ANTARCTICA WAS INDEED POSSIBLE TO LIVE IN OR WALK ACROSS. End of argument, all other arguments are void. O'Brady never walked in Antarctica, he is a front, much like Armstrong in the moon. LOL

What are you talking about?  You do know the United States is not a continent right? Canada is part of North America and it is even larger then the U.S. though sparsely inhabited. 

While sub freezing temperatures in the summer in Antarctica are livable, the majority of the year the temperatures are incredibly cold and winds so strong it would be incredibly uncomfortable. This is of course ignoring the giant problem that there is nothing to grow food on there, everything needs shipped in minus a few veggies grown under lights.  There is no reliable inexpensive energy availability either to power civilization in large numbers.  Lastly...   why??  Why would regular people want to live there? There is tons of land in Siberia or northernmost areas of Canada if you like the cold and those areas are more livable then Antarctica and people aren’t rushing to colonize those areas in large numbers.

As for crossing of Antarctica, there are many ways to cross something.  This crossing was defined as needing to come from one side to the geographic South Pole then to another side, hence a crossing.   There are many oddly shaped countries in the world, are you suggesting that you only cross it if you travel the longest way? He did this crossing by himself, powered only by his legs, at great risk to himself, no one had ever done this prior.  What have you done that no one in the history of the world has ever done before you ?

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2018, 01:24:15 PM »
You guys dug yourself into the largest logical hole this site has ever seen. LOL Its your scientists who say that Antarctica is bigger than United States and when I said its massive continent you disagreed? So you don't believe in globe theory or conventional geography?

No one disagrees that Antarctica is larger than the US. Describing it as a "massive continent", however, suggests it's one of the largest, or at least above average in area. It's not; it's one of the smallest continents.

Do you dispute that Mr. O'Brady's route was less than 1,000 miles? Yes or no? If yes, on what rational basis do you dispute it? Note: not wanting it to be true is not a rational basis.

Quote
And now you guys are saying its not too cold to walk across?

Yes, but that's nothing new, as implied by "now you're saying..." As far as I know, he skied most of the way, but that's a detail. It's not too cold to ski across Antarctica, if you're prepared; it's probably possible to walk across, too, but may take somewhat longer, but maybe not.

Quote
Let me stress something very basic here; IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO WALK ACROSS ANTARCTICA IT WOULD ALSO BE TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO COLONIZE IT AND BUILD CITIES THERE

Do you know what a non-sequitur is?



Quote
... AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT HUNDRED YEARS AGO IF ANTARCTICA WAS INDEED POSSIBLE TO LIVE IN OR WALK ACROSS.

Why do you think that? Do you think typing nonsense in ALL CAPS makes it true? It doesn't. No one has said it's easy to live in Antarctica, especially over a winter, which is why relatively few people do that.  Note that Mr. O'Brady (and Mr. Ruud, who took two days longer than Mr. O'Brady over essentially the same route) chose the austral summer to make their treks. Can you think of a reason why both would independently arrive at the same idea?

Quote
End of argument, all other arguments are void. O'Brady never walked in Antarctica, he is a front, much like Armstrong in the moon. LOL



Maybe you shouldn't argue about what is possible and what isn't until you have some actual facts, not just your own opinions.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2018, 06:23:04 PM »
You guys dug yourself into the largest logical hole this site has ever seen. LOL Its your scientists who say that Antarctica is bigger than United States and when I said its massive continent you disagreed?
No we didn't ;D! Look

Courtesy your friendly and accurate source of information about the Globe: NASA!
But as continents go Antarctica is not a "massive continent" - repeat slowly after me: "The . . . United . . . States . . of . . America . . is . . NOT . . a . . continent!"

Quote from: New Earth
So you don't believe in globe theory or conventional geography?
Of course! Everybody that knows the correct shape of the earth believes in the "globe theory or conventional geography", whatever that's supposed to mean.

Quote from: New Earth
Thank you. And now you guys are saying its not too cold to walk across?
No-one (except you) said that!
Numerous people have walked, skiied, ski-sailed, cycled on two and three wheels and in most other ways imaginable - and a few besides ;D ;).

Quote from: New Earth
Let me stress something very basic here;
You do that!

Quote from: New Earth
IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO WALK ACROSS ANTARCTICA IT WOULD ALSO BE TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO COLONIZE IT AND BUILD CITIES THERE AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT HUNDRED YEARS AGO IF ANTARCTICA WAS INDEED POSSIBLE TO LIVE IN OR WALK ACROSS.
That is totally illogical and incorrect! Numerous people have walked to the top of Mt Everest and some have even seen the sunrise from there!
Quote from: Young Hoon Oh
Anthropologist in Himalaya
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Summit

It was 4:30PM when I arrived finally at the last camp on the "South Col" as high as 8,000m.  The summit plan should be reconsidered as soon as possible.  Previously the idea was that most of us would arrive the camp at around 2 or 3PM, which would give us enough time to enjoy short hours of rest with the supplemental oxygen, getting up 6PM and braking up from the camp to the top 8PM.  However, now we faced two problems: Too many people that likely block the way to the top, and not enough time to take a rest at the camp. 

Young Hoon at the top of Mt. Everest at the dawn of May 19th.
       

The fifth highest mountain Makalu (8463m) seen from the top of Mt. Everest.
Now, Mr New Earth, YOU claimed that:
Quote
IF IT WAS POSSIBLE TO WALK ACROSS ANTARCTICA IT WOULD ALSO BE TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO COLONIZE IT AND BUILD CITIES THERE AND THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT HUNDRED YEARS AGO IF ANTARCTICA WAS INDEED POSSIBLE TO LIVE IN OR WALK ACROSS.
Well Young Hoon Oh climbed (walked) to the top of Mt Everest. Does that prove that we could colonise the top of Mt Everest?

Colin O'Brady crossed 932 miles of Antarctica from the tip of the Ronne Ice Shelf to the South Pole then to the Leverett Glacier on the Ross Ice Shelf.
But, Mr New Earth, he did that in summer when the conditions were comparitive good. In winter it's a totally different matter.
Here's where you think "IT WOULD ALSO BE TOTALLY POSSIBLE TO COLONIZE IT AND BUILD CITIES" in the least coldest time of the year:

Quote from: New Earth
End of argument, all other arguments are void.
You, sure is "End of argument". You never made any arguments void! All you posted was hogwash!

Quote from: New Earth
O'Brady never walked in Antarctica, he is a front, much like Armstrong in the moon. LOL
Laugh Out Loud all you like, little Mr New Earth but all you do is bleat that "O'Brady never walked in Antarctica" when many more have done similar treks!
You really are totally ignorant when it comes to Antarctica and the real Goegraphic South Pole! Maybe you should save up you pennies and vivit it!

ANd what about these earlier crossings? Here are just a few 21st century ones!
Quote
List of Antarctic expeditions
  • 2000-2001- Norwegian Liv Arnesen and the American Ann Bancroft crossed Antarctica on ski-sail from Blue 1 Runaway November 13th reaching after 94 days of expedition McMurdo, passing through the South Pole.
  • 2012 — Felicity Aston becomes the first person to ski alone across Antarctica using only personal muscle power, as well as the first woman to cross Antarctica alone. Her journey began on 25 November 2011, at the Leverett Glacier, and continued for 59 days and a distance of 1,084 miles (1,744 kilometers).
  • 2013-14 — Married couple Christine (Chris) Fagan and Marty Fagan became the first American married couple (and second married couple in history) to complete a full unguided, unsupported, unassisted ski from the Antarctic coast to the South Pole. They join just over 100 people in history who have traveled to the South Pole in this manner. Their expedition took 48 days. Their achievement is recognized by Guinness World Records. Learn more at www.3belowzero.com and www.christinefagan.com. A book about the expedition is forthcoming.
  • 2013−14 — Daniel P. Burton completes the first bicycle ride from coast to the South Pole.
  • 2015−16 — Henry Worsley died while attempting to complete the first solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic.
  • 2016−17 — February 7 Mike Horn completes first ever solo, unsupported north-to-south traverse of Antarctica from the Princess Astrid Coast (lat -70.1015 lon 9.8249) to the Dumont D'urville Station (lat -66.6833 lon 139.9167) via the South Pole. He arrived at the pole on February 7, 2017. A total distance of 5100 km was covered utilizing kites and skis in 57 days
  • 2018 - Colin’ O Brady (America), completed a crossing of parts of Antarctica (not including the ice shelves). He arrived at the Ross Ice Shelf on December 26th 2018
See the link for numerous more!






Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2018, 09:08:13 AM »
Bull shit on all accounts. I remember not too long ago you guys were saying that the reason airplanes don't fly over Antarctica is because in case of a crash it would make the rescue mission almost impossible due to Antarctica's harsh climate and its remote location. You also stated that flights over south Pacific ocean were much safer. (I guess you never looked at your globe to see how remote Pacific gets but its OK) So if Brady can walk across this scary place called Antarctica and bunch of college students can take selfies at the South Pole,  does Antarctica still remain a dangerous place to fly across? LOL
Social Distancing = Social Control

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2018, 01:44:31 PM »
Bull shit on all accounts. I remember not too long ago you guys were saying that the reason airplanes don't fly over Antarctica is because in case of a crash it would make the rescue mission almost impossible due to Antarctica's harsh climate and its remote location.
And that is still one reason that regular passenger routes don't overfly Antarctica.
Other reasons are that there is no commercial reason for regular passenger routes to overfly Antarctica.
A direct route from Perth International Airport to Santiago, Chile, International Airport of 12,739 km would be feasible but
there are already direct routes from Sydney International Airport and Sydney International Airport to Santiago, Chile, International Airport.
Since Perth is a much smaller city QANTAS deemed that it's not worth the extra trouble of overflying Antarctica.

Quote from: New Earth
You also stated that flights over south Pacific ocean were much safer. (I guess you never looked at your globe to see how remote Pacific gets but its OK) So if Brady can walk across this scary place called Antarctica and bunch of college students can take selfies at the South Pole, does Antarctica still remain a dangerous place to fly across? LOL
Yes, Antarctica hasn't changed but you should get your story straight before trying to deceive people with it!So yes of course "Antarctica still remains a dangerous place to fly across" because of the remoteness and extremely cold air, especially at high altitude.

So Mr New Earth, you should open your eyes and really see what is going on around you!
You and the and other flat-earthers are the indoctrinated ones - you are all self-indoctrinated and that, I suspect, is incurable unless you manage to convince yourself.

*

Stash

  • 5286
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2018, 10:58:54 PM »
Bull shit on all accounts. I remember not too long ago you guys were saying that the reason airplanes don't fly over Antarctica is because in case of a crash it would make the rescue mission almost impossible due to Antarctica's harsh climate and its remote location. You also stated that flights over south Pacific ocean were much safer. (I guess you never looked at your globe to see how remote Pacific gets but its OK) So if Brady can walk across this scary place called Antarctica and bunch of college students can take selfies at the South Pole,  does Antarctica still remain a dangerous place to fly across? LOL

A big part of limited passenger plane routes over places like Antarctica have to do with ETOPS (Extended Operations) procedures, requirements & certifications. There are all kinds of rules regarding plane certification using more remote passageways in terms of things like distances to emergency diverting airports, varying safety/survival equipment needed on board, etc. Planes have to have specific ETOPS level certifications depending upon their routes b/c of the aforementioned. I believe the southern oceans and Antarctica have the highest level ETOPS certification requirements due to the large unpopulated expanse and limited airports with which to ditch if necessary. And if ditching, the limited resources for rescue/recovery.

Here's a good primer: https://aerosavvy.com/etops/

Any area of the globe that's remote with more extreme weather/temps is going to be more difficult for plane travel. Just look at that Airfrance flight from I think Brazil to Paris a few years back, where the airspeed indicator on the outside of the plane froze over - The pilots couldn't gauge their speed, stalled and plummeted thousands of feet into the Atlantic. And that was near the equator.

No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2018, 11:43:15 AM »
I get it I get it, Brady is a Superhero. Oh yeah and those are real scientists in Antarctica pretending to be in Hawaii, working so hard being bored out of their skulls, I want my tax dollars back. LOL

Happy New Year ya all.
Social Distancing = Social Control

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2018, 05:03:09 PM »
Oh yeah and those are real scientists in Antarctica pretending to be in Hawaii, working so hard being bored out of their skulls...

Don't you just hate it knowing that someone, somewhere, is enjoying life.

Quote
Happy New Year ya all.

Thanks, and Happy New Year!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2018, 10:27:39 PM »
I get it I get it, Brady is a Superhero. Oh yeah and those are real scientists in Antarctica pretending to be in Hawaii, working so hard being bored out of their skulls, I want my tax dollars back. LOL

Happy New Year ya all.

Which is another way of saying
My blinders are on fast. There is no way I am going to accept thebfacts of this matter because it puts paid my steongly held belief in a flat earth because I need to believe in a flat earth.

A happy new year to you too.
And to everyone else here.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2018, 11:36:13 PM »
I get it I get it, Brady is a Superhero.
I agree Colin O’Brady, Mike Horn and a number of others seem to be almost superheros but you seem to accept climbing Mt Everest but still doubt Antarctica.
Why? I suspect that Mt Everest might kill you quicker.

Quote from: New Earth
Oh yeah and those are real scientists in Antarctica pretending to be in Hawaii, working so hard being bored out of their skulls, I want my tax dollars back. LOL
What do you mean by "working so hard being bored out of their skulls"? Do expect that the NSF scientists should work 24 hours a day?
After all the Amundsen-Scott base at the South Pole gets 24 hour daylight all summer.
Please note that this near the March Equinox, not the Summer Solstice:

What does the Sun do at the South Pole?
A 5 day time-lapse - 8th to 13th March 2017 by Wolfie6020

Mirrored with permission from Robert Schwarz.


Quote from: New Earth
Happy New Year ya all.
I know it's a bit late but Happy New Year to you too.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2019, 02:51:28 AM »
Wading through all the globeearth gibberish i have to agree with New Earth !
Why has humanity not occupied Antartica ?
Oymyakon has a record temperature of -71.2 degrees Celcius in the 1920’s.
Children from the village in that area still have to go to school when the temperature is  -55 degrees and above !  :o

BUT FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON ..... humanity decided not to disturb Antartica while braking treaties at will anywhere else on earth.
The ‘we use Antartica for scientific purposes’ gets long in the tooth.... and an occasional puppet that supposedly crosses Antartica doesn’t change that.

New Earth is right..... we should have occupied Antartica long ago for reasons beyond the vague ‘ scientific purposes’.
Just as we should have had a moonbase with human activity.
Instead we are being served with a flagrant violation of human integrity with flip flopping ,perm hair,  guitar playing actors in the ISS that do all sorts of ‘scientific tests’ all day long for the benefit of all mankind while risking their lives on occasion because of an outside nut that needs to be tightened in a six hours lasting operation to prevent the craft that flies over 17.000 km an hour from falling apart in the endless black void without visible stars according to Neil Armstrong but in the realm of Edgar Mitchell has ten times numerous stars and ten times brighter stars compared to the darkest night at the darkest place on earth.
 ;D ;D ;D


« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 02:57:02 AM by dutchy »

*

Stash

  • 5286
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2019, 03:51:32 AM »
we should have occupied Antartica long ago for reasons beyond the vague ‘ scientific purposes’.

Why?

Just as we should have had a moonbase with human activity.

Why?
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2019, 05:01:41 AM »
we should have occupied Antartica long ago for reasons beyond the vague ‘ scientific purposes’.

Why?

Just as we should have had a moonbase with human activity.

Why?
Because humans have MINED earth's resources whenever they are located.
It doesn't matter wether it's a delicate eco system, hostile environment we do everything to take what we want and kill or enslave the locals getting into our affairs in the process.

Both the moon and southpole happen to be places with supposedly endless resources which are on our list !

You answer your own questions instead, but please promise me one thing don't give me the 'we lost interrest, to hostile, no money' excuses , because we are both long past those childish arguments don't you think ?
« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 05:08:18 AM by dutchy »

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2019, 07:39:04 AM »
Being difficult and expensive are pretty big factors when it comes to deciding where to mine resources.

I guess we’ll add return on investment to the list of concepts flat earthers are unable to grasp.


?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #21 on: January 01, 2019, 10:27:08 AM »
Being difficult and expensive are pretty big factors when it comes to deciding where to mine resources.
O no...against my strong advise in a post earlier you do bring in the childish argument....tush !!

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #22 on: January 01, 2019, 10:32:44 AM »
In Admiral Byrd's interview he clearly says Antarctica is filled with natural resources and that many countries are interested in settling it.  Yes I agree that in his interview he didn't say earth was flat but he did made it very clear that Antarctica is cold yet habitable and open for Young Americans to explore and that there is interest from the Russians and many others. And then boom nothing. They sign Antarctic Treaty and Antarctica becomes only a place for science. Very very strange. Why did I concentrate so much on half naked scientists Rab provided, because to me this picture is basically mocking us. They are trying to tell us "You idiots know anything about Antarctica."
Social Distancing = Social Control

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #23 on: January 01, 2019, 12:27:35 PM »
Being difficult and expensive are pretty big factors when it comes to deciding where to mine resources.
O no...against my strong advise in a post earlier you do bring in the childish argument....tush !!

I apologize for stating a point so blindingly obvious a very small child would understand.

 


?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #24 on: January 01, 2019, 02:27:46 PM »
Being difficult and expensive are pretty big factors when it comes to deciding where to mine resources.
O no...against my strong advise in a post earlier you do bring in the childish argument....tush !!

I apologize for stating a point so blindingly obvious a very small child would understand.

 
Exageration is a form of art for most globeearth believers.
Most adults with a proper education cannot explain the coriolis effect properly and still think you can see a slight curve from an airplane window.
The (highly intelligent) ''small child'' argument is a figment of your imagination or a Hollywood invention.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2019, 02:30:19 PM by dutchy »

*

Stash

  • 5286
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #25 on: January 01, 2019, 02:58:34 PM »
Here's an informative article on the state of mining in and around Antarctica:

https://www.azomining.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=239
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #26 on: January 01, 2019, 03:15:30 PM »
Wading through all the globeearth gibberish i have to agree with New Earth !
Why has humanity not occupied [Antarctica]?
Oymyakon has a record temperature of -71.2 degrees Celcius in the 1920’s.
Children from the village in that area still have to go to school when the temperature is  -55 degrees and above !  :o

[New Zealand photographer Amos Chapple] experienced temperatures in the mid -40s on his visit to Oymyakon, which has a population of 500 residents and was originally founded as a stopover for reindeer herders due to a thermal spring which never freezes.

He remembers the icy streets being largely empty during his visit, the solitude only punctuated by the glimpse of a local rushing from one door to another with a mitt clasped over their face, or the occasional drunk aimlessly wandering through the rural roads.

“I'd expected that the locals would be accustomed to the winters and there would be everyday life happening in the streets,” he told The Telegraph, “but people were very wary of the cold”.

...

He recollects being threatened by drunks on two separate occasions, making him wary of venturing outside.   

“Being knocked unconscious when it's that cold could be a death sentence,” he says. “It didn't feel like a happy place.”

...

Chapple describes the effort of just navigating around the forbidding landscape, located just outside the Arctic Circle, as “exhausting”.

Sounds like a bustling and lovely place! BTW, its population is similar to McMurdo's annual average. Maybe there's a reason for that.

Quote
BUT FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON ..... humanity decided not to disturb [Antarctica] while [breaking] treaties at will anywhere else on earth.

Unknown reason? It should be pretty obvious, especially after finding out about Oymyakon. Antarctica not suited for human settlement, for the same reason Oymyakon is so isolated. Only small-scale and mostly short-term (for an individual) occupation is practical in Antarctica, because it's so expensive to keep any settlement supplied. This is due to the fact that necessities like food and fuel (which is necessary to have liquid water, among other things) are not locally available at all and must be brought in by specialized transport manned by specialized crews from far away.

Quote
The ‘we use [Antarctica] for scientific purposes’ gets long in the tooth....

Sorry, but truth has no expiration date. Whether or not you're tired of hearing it doesn't matter.

Quote
New Earth is right..... we should have occupied [Antarctica] long ago for reasons beyond the vague ‘ scientific purposes’.
Just as we should have had a moonbase with human activity.

Lol! Sure... how hard could any of that be?

Quote
Instead we are being served with a flagrant violation of human integrity with flip flopping ,perm hair,  guitar playing actors in the ISS that do all sorts of ‘scientific tests’ all day long for the benefit of all mankind while risking their lives on occasion because of an outside nut that needs to be tightened in a six hours lasting operation to prevent the craft that flies over 17.000 km an hour from falling apart in the endless black void without visible stars according to Neil Armstrong but in the realm of Edgar Mitchell has ten times numerous stars and ten times brighter stars compared to the darkest night at the darkest place on earth.

Nice rant! Thanks for sharing your opinion; it will be given all the consideration it deserves, which is approximately none.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2019, 04:39:55 AM »
Being difficult and expensive are pretty big factors when it comes to deciding where to mine resources.
O no...against my strong advise in a post earlier you do bring in the childish argument....tush !!

I apologize for stating a point so blindingly obvious a very small child would understand.

 
Exageration is a form of art for most globeearth believers.
Most adults with a proper education cannot explain the coriolis effect properly and still think you can see a slight curve from an airplane window.
The (highly intelligent) ''small child'' argument is a figment of your imagination or a Hollywood invention.


That’s about as concise as I’ve come to expect from you.

Neither the Coriolis effect, view from aeroplane windows or classic Battlestar have anything to do with the point being made.  Although you do get some points in my book for referencing Dirk Benedict’s creepy half alien child.

The fact that companies only make a profit if they can keep costs to a reasonable level is basic (or childish, if you prefer) capitalism.   You know full well that this makes you argument complete nonsense, which is why you said you didn’t want to hear it, and are now in deflection mode.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2019, 03:35:35 PM »
Unknown reason? It should be pretty obvious, especially after finding out about Oymyakon. Antarctica not suited for human settlement, for the same reason Oymyakon is so isolated. Only small-scale and mostly short-term (for an individual) occupation is practical in Antarctica, because it's so expensive to keep any settlement supplied. This is due to the fact that necessities like food and fuel (which is necessary to have liquid water, among other things) are not locally available at all and must be brought in by specialized transport manned by specialized crews from far away.
Superb reasoning !!
If mankind coud live in extreme cold temperatures in 1920 without the modern means to shelter, supply and protect we should certainly be able to do it in 2019.
If an induvidual could cross Antartica ,while being on the move, then we can live and mine there too, in a modern environment equiped with the latest technologies derived from the moon missions  ::) ::) ::).
Or do we still need coal, a bear's skin and a sled to remain nourished, warm and cozy ?

*

Stash

  • 5286
Re: Living in Antarctica
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2019, 03:54:22 PM »
Unknown reason? It should be pretty obvious, especially after finding out about Oymyakon. Antarctica not suited for human settlement, for the same reason Oymyakon is so isolated. Only small-scale and mostly short-term (for an individual) occupation is practical in Antarctica, because it's so expensive to keep any settlement supplied. This is due to the fact that necessities like food and fuel (which is necessary to have liquid water, among other things) are not locally available at all and must be brought in by specialized transport manned by specialized crews from far away.
Superb reasoning !!
If mankind coud live in extreme cold temperatures in 1920 without the modern means to shelter, supply and protect we should certainly be able to do it in 2019.
If an induvidual could cross Antartica ,while being on the move, then we can live and mine there too, in a modern environment equiped with the latest technologies derived from the moon missions  ::) ::) ::).
Or do we still need coal, a bear's skin and a sled to remain nourished, warm and cozy ?

It is literally all about ROI. All the infrastructure needs to be built to mine, let's say, like ports created to transport resources in and resources out, etc.

As pointed out in that link, the US and several other countries have been lobbying to explore for mineral deposits. Knowing humans, when a profitable ROI can be projected, we'll find that treaty partially torn up right quick.
No. That sudden lurch forwards is the atmospheric slosh effect.