Lets revisit this flight scenario again....

So here is my question, its not a new question but this is my way of doing it.

If you get on a plane and you pick one direction, lets say South from the tip of South Africa, and fly in that direction without changing course, where do you end up when you get to the edge of your flat earth and then continue to fly in the same direction?

Its a simple question which you flat earthers have not anwered, but have instead gone way off topic in the past discussing what is a straight line and talking about altitudes and all kinds of other stuff that does not matter, just to avoid answering the question. Forget about the definition of what is a straight line or how fast you are going or how high you are, or how much fuel you have, etc, and focus only on flying in the SAME DIRECTION. Fly straight south, nonstop, continue flying in that direction until you see the edge of your world, then continue flying towards it and over all the ice and everything....just keep going. So where would you end up in your flat earth model? Where? 

Its a simpe thing to do because many people have done it and continue to do it in our global world everyday. So why can't a single flat earther answer that question? Why? Can flat earthers not get on a plane? Can flat earthers not get their OWN plane and do this themselves? What is stopping you? Global NASA conspiracy at the edge of the earth preventing you from flying there? Did any of you get your own plane and try to do this to see if anyone will stop you? What about a boat? Have you taken any pictures of armies or military bases patrolling the thousands of miles of borders at the edge of world? Is every single mile of the edge patrolled so that you can't even find a window to go through it? If you don't believe in GPS then how would NASA, or whoever, know you are there and track you anyway? Is there a continuous line of ships or soldiers at the esge of the earth holding hands so no one gets through? Many people sneak through borders between countries all the time, so nothing can be tracked completely 100% of the time...why do you think thousands and thousands of miles at earth's edge are so secure that no one can go there or get through? Is NASA just so concerned, that they will go through all that trouble just to make sure we don't go there and catch a cold or fall off the edge of the earth or slip on the ice and break a wrist?

Please answer....where you will end up if you travel in one DIRECTION only without stopping? Don't give me some BS about "oh you will have to turn around when you get to the edge just because we said so", but actually explain with proof or physics or mathematics or science or photos WHY you may have to turn around when you get to the edge. Why? Do you hit a glass wall or dome? Show it to me. Do you fly out into space? Prove it to me. Do you fall off a huge waterfall? Take a picture and stream it live while doing that. Send a drone. Do something. Show anyone any proof of anything. All i have heard so far is "well, when you get there you can't go further so you have to turn around"...why? How do you know you can't go further? What is your proof? Would your plane hit the dome and explode into pieces? Do you bounce off some cotton balls or what? How would you know when its time to turn around?

Also don't give me some BS about world is infinite, unless you have even an inkling of proof. If it was, each human will have their own continent to live on.

Also don't try to change the topic to something else, and asnwer my original question. I know you guys perfectly understand the question, but, from my experience, when a flat earther does not know the answer, they tend to go off on wild tangents about conspiracy theories, and point to links of youtubers or some John Does who have no scientific experience or they just call the OP a liar and throw insults. Lets not have that here. Lets keep it strictly scientific. 

Also, for those who believe NASA is guarding the edge of the earth, lets pretend that NASA gave you guys a free pass to do what you want and go where you want, and now you don't have to turn around at the edge of the earth but keep flying in that same direction, what happens? If not one flat earther can answer this most basic question, what basis do you have for any other flat earth theories?

Again, DO NOT give me a "because it is so" answer. Show real proof with photos, scientific trials and experiments, mathematical equations, published articles that have been peer reviewed and tested by other scientist, or anything in that manner. Us "globeheads" can explain all that in details easily with tons of proof on our end. We are just waiting for your proof now. So tell us...PLEASE.

I only want grown ups to answer, those who can have a serious debate with facts to prove their debate...real facts, not links to some random sites made by random people who are not in any way, shape, or form, scientists. Your uncle's website saying "we tried to go there but couldn't" is not good enough, unless your uncle has proof and records or plane tickets or ships course charting data or videos or photos to prove their claim. This is simple people.

When someone forms a theory to present to others, first they get real data to back up their claims. Those claims and that data then gets tested and confirmed by many others and when everyone gets the same results, then the theory is no longer a theory but a fact. As of right now, you guys dont even have a theory really, because not even all flat earthers believe the same thing. Some even say earth is diamond shaped or an egg, or it sits on 4 pillars, etc.

Only real debaters please. I want to keep this civil.

From an FE perspective, as far as I can tell, the answer to your question is unknown.

From an FE perspective, as far as I can tell, the answer to your question is unknown.

Thank you for answering. Let me ask you this then...since this is the whole basis of the flat earth theory, meaning its a round disk that has edges, wouldn't one say that the simplest way to test that theory is to go to the edge? Correct? Pick a boat, a plane, a hot air balloon, jet ski, anything, and just go there correct? So how can the basis of flat earth theory be correct if it is unknown if it even exists. Where did the theory come from?Usually a theory comes from an observation. A scientist sees something, then forms a theory about it, then goes to test the theory.

So if flat earthers say they have never even seen the edge, then how do you even know its there. And since you don't even know its there, how can you state that as a fact and say to the whole world that the earth is flat and the edges are all covered in a wall of ice and there is a dome. Shouldn't someone go and test this from the flat earthers side?

If i blindfold you and place you in the middle of a huge round room and tell you there is one door somewhere on the wall and that is only way to get out, would you then not go to walk over to the wall and explore around until you find the door? You would. So why can't any flat earther just go and see. Stop saying its forbidden. Because it is not. Everyone just says its forbidden because someone before them has said it, so no one even bothers to go and no one even bothers to see if it is or produce any proof that it is forbidden. I would be happy to look at the proof that it is forbidden.

Real scientists on earth know things because they explore and observe and test things and learn from mistakes then test again. People go to the highest mountains, explore caves, travel down rivers, send submarines to the deepest parts of the Mariana trench of the ocean and risk their lives everyday to find the truth and learn about the world and make new technologies that benefit ALL of us. Everything we have on earth and use everyday, like our phones and internet and tv is because scientists tried and tried and tried experiments until they succeeded. Yet a flat earther can't go a few hundred miles to test the validity of their whole theory that the earth is flat?

What I see mostly from the arguments of flat earthers is that they spend most of their time trying to prove the earth is not a globe, instead of trying to prove its flat.

My other observation is that flat earthers spend all their money in organizing events and conference to discuss their flat earth, instead of spending the money to go on expeditions, like to north pole or south pole, or spend money to carry out real experiments. Yes many have made the effort to go to the beach and look at boats dissapearing behind the horizon, and even when they prove themselves wrong, they chalk it up to things like mirror effects and light reflections and...well you get my drift.

All flat earthers say "give us proof that earth is round", then we show them, then they say "we don't accept your proof because you guys are spies and brainwashed by government and the whole world is in on it". So how can we prove anything to someone who does not accept the proof. Do you go out and test the facts that we give yourselves? NO. You just ignore it.

Why would 7 billion people on earth all be in on a lie lasting thousands of years just to fool a handfool of people? Just why? What does anyone have to benefit from. Science has made our lives easy. We don't live in the dark ages anymore people.

In another 10 to 20 years we will have space travel for the general population. They even have that now in its early stages, but it is currently too expensive for regular folks like us yet. What will you do or think in 10 or 20 years when we can all go up in space for ourselves and see everything? Will you feel like an idiot, like someone who was fooled by some con artists who came up with a flat earth theory in order to have followers and to make money for themselves by propagating a lie? Think for yourselves people. Stop following a couple people online.

WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO BE RIGHT, 7 BILLION PEOPLE ON EARTH OR FEW THOUSAND FLAT EARTHERS?

So how can we prove anything to someone who does not accept the proof.

Actual research and demonstration rather than a single picture. Time lapse photography, repeated observations, a compilation of arguments and points against the most common arguments given, etc.

Quote

So how can we prove anything to someone who does not accept the proof.

Actual research and demonstration rather than a single picture. Time lapse photography, repeated observations, a compilation of arguments and points against the most common arguments given, etc.

All of that info is out there. Its not one picture. Its thousands of pictures, its videos, its satellites, there is a space station out there for god's sake. The info is in all the school books, in all the libraries, in all the research papers from hundreds of scientist, dating back thousands of years. What do you mean there is nothing out there but a single picture.

This is what I mean. Flat earthers focus on one thing someone else said and keep repeating that. Your arguments are about trying to prove earth is not a globe yet you havent provided a single shred of evidence to show even the most basic facts on why it is flat. Open your eyes.

Everything that you listed above is just what we have been showing you yet you call it fake. If you think its fake, you have to PROVE its fake, otherwise sir, you CANNOT call it fake. Can you prove it is fake sir? Can you? Did you hire an expert to analyze any pictures to see for yourself if they were made by CGI or not? Did you try to contact anyone on the space station to have them stream live video of earth for you?

WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE that shows you that the information we have shown you so far is fake. You HAVE to have evidence, ALWAYS, to back up any claim you make, otherwise, you will be the fraud.

If you say earth is flat, back it up. If you say photos are fake, back that up with real evidence. Not evidence like "i looked at it and i thought it was fake". I mean evidence like you spent $10,000 to hire an expert imaging lab whose purpose is to analyze images to determine if they are real. Did you do that sir? So please dont give me any BS that we havent shown you any proof. You just dont care to bother to see. You just follow the ring leader and all the other youtubers.

Quote from: Stash on December 14, 2019, 07:50:16 PM

From an FE perspective, as far as I can tell, the answer to your question is unknown.

If i blindfold you and place you in the middle of a huge round room and tell you there is one door somewhere on the wall and that is only way to get out, would you then not go to walk over to the wall and explore around until you find the door? You would.

You're assuming I want to get out of the room.

You have to understand that FE Theory is a complicated belief system more than anything else. A lot of it is rooted in scripture, though no so much here. But certainly the founding Fathers (and Mother) of Modern FEism were very bible-centric in their beliefs.

That aside, just swizzle in some conspiracy theories and you've got yourself a Flat Earth paradigm. Just like you're probably not going to dissuade a NASA moon landing denier or a 9/11 truther away from their core conspiratorial beliefs, the same goes for FE, no matter the evidence.

In the case of FE, it's easiest to just simply state that "we don't know about x" because if they did have an answer, it would most likely be easily refuted with any modern observations, experimentation and/or technology. And with presented with such, it's easiest to just dispel them as fake and/or part of some conspiracy.

All in all, it's not rocket science.

But perhaps you could work on your engagement style. As it's not very engaging toward an FEr. Just like an FEr is probably not going to change their mind regardless of the mountain of evidence in existence, nor will you change your mind given any evidence. The only thing you can do here is engage in a debate and let the chips fall where they may.

You're blindfolded in a room with no doors but have been told there is one.

So here is my question...

And then 29 questions.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 14, 2019, 09:39:20 PM

Quote

So how can we prove anything to someone who does not accept the proof.

Actual research and demonstration rather than a single picture. Time lapse photography, repeated observations, a compilation of arguments and points against the most common arguments given, etc.

All of that info is out there. Its not one picture. Its thousands of pictures, its videos, its satellites, there is a space station out there for god's sake. The info is in all the school books, in all the libraries, in all the research papers from hundreds of scientist, dating back thousands of years. What do you mean there is nothing out there but a single picture.

Well, lets say the subject is the sinking ship effect that you brought up. As you know, the FE response is that the effect changes a lot, and inconsistent evidence is insufficient.



https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Light_refracts_up_AND_down._Thanx_Soundly.mp4

FE quotes other observations of seeing further than you should, etc.

The response to this would be to do some research to show that the sinking ship effect is consistent, or that it's inconsistent, but favors RET. Do something like show that the same amount was obscured on a distant lighthouse on repeated observations, with only discrepancies from that baseline.

That's not what typically happens, however. You repeatedly post singular pictures of the sinking ship effect, with full knowledge that people have observed the effect to be inconsistent. The matter is beyond the stage of single pictures, and the RE play a game of deliberate ignorance by repeatedly posting that material.

Tom Bishop, lets not go off topic here and start talking about other experiments.

Answer my first and original question about flying south in same direction without changing course please.

Also Tom Biship, this video absolutely does not prove your point, in fact it disproves it. Thank you for showing more proof that you are wrong. Even if the video shows some light refraction up and down, which could make a very distant object disappear in and out of sight for a brief moment, that object would still not permanently disappear completely out of view in a flat earth. If you are watching a ship with a set of binoculars at the edge of the horizon and If the ship is almost out of view with your current binoculars, then light refraction could cause the ship to flash in and out of view temporarily, but in a flat earth, that ship would not disappear. To prove that, you can get a much much stronger set of binoculars with which you can now see the ship crystal clear again then light refraction won't matter in that case since you will again be zoomed in very close to the ship. But in reality, even if you get the most powerful binoculars or telescope to look at the ship, you will no longer find the ship because it will be beyond the curvature of the earth. So how do you explain that Tom?

The cameras you guys use for your experiments only have so much zoom to look at the ship at the horizon. Now get the most powerful camera and zoom you can or get a telescope and look for that ship again Tom...it won't be there. Its a simple thing Tom....go do it please then report back.

Also Tom Biship, this video absolutely does not prove your point, in fact it disproves it. Thank you for showing more proof that you are wrong. Even if the video shows some light refraction up and down, which could make a very distant object disappear in and out of sight for a brief moment, that object would still not permanently disappear completely out of view in a flat earth. If you are watching a ship with a set of binoculars at the edge of the horizon and If the ship is almost out of view with your current binoculars, then light refraction could cause the ship to flash in and out of view temporarily, but in a flat earth, that ship would not disappear. To prove that, you can get a much much stronger set of binoculars with which you can now see the ship crystal clear again then light refraction won't matter in that case since you will again be zoomed in very close to the ship. But in reality, even if you get the most powerful binoculars or telescope to look at the ship, you will no longer find the ship because it will be beyond the curvature of the earth. So how do you explain that Tom?

What am I supposed to address? You wrote a few "nah-uh, the sinking ship effect is real and consistent" sentences and think that you wrote is proof.

Tom, address the fact that when an object disappears over the horizon, you cannot see it even with the most powerful telescope, not even a telescope that can zoom to Mars Tom. Why is that Tom? But in any case, if you want to discuss that, please join a topic that discusses that.

The topic here is my original question. And as I stated earlier, when flat earthers can't answer something, they change the topic just as you did Tom, because you have absolutely no clue how to answer my question, and you have no clue at all on how the world works Tom. So please leve this discussion if you can't answer my original question.

Why are you telling people to answer your original question and not go off topic, while also going on to ask off-topic questions? Take a deep breath. Everything is going to be OK. Think before you type. If you need a few days in read-only mode to facilitate that, I'm happy to help.

Why are you telling people to answer your original question and not go off topic, while also going on to ask off-topic questions? Take a deep breath. Everything is going to be OK. Think before you type. If you need a few days in read-only mode to facilitate that, I'm happy to help.

There is but one main question. The other questions are supporting questions which you need to be able to explain or answer in order to be able to answer the main question. Unless of course you have a single explanation to answer the main question. The other questions also point out all the excuses flat earthers have used to avoid answering the main question. You very well know that and are again just trying to deflect the main question. Please leave if you can't answer anything.

Quote from: boydster on December 15, 2019, 09:23:32 AM

Why are you telling people to answer your original question and not go off topic, while also going on to ask off-topic questions? Take a deep breath. Everything is going to be OK. Think before you type. If you need a few days in read-only mode to facilitate that, I'm happy to help.

There is but one main question. The other questions are supporting questions which you need to be able to explain or answer in order to be able to answer the main question. Unless of course you have a single explanation to answer the main question. The other questions also point out all the excuses flat earthers have used to avoid answering the main question. You very well know that and are again just trying to deflect the main question. Please leave if you can't answer anything.

Excuse you? I'm not deflecting anything. I'm telling you to stop demanding people stay on topic while you meander wherever your easily distracted mind takes you.

Tom Bishop, lets not go off topic here and start talking about other experiments.

Answer my first and original question about flying south in same direction without changing course please.

Also Tom Biship, this video absolutely does not prove your point, in fact it disproves it. Thank you for showing more proof that you are wrong. Even if the video shows some light refraction up and down, which could make a very distant object disappear in and out of sight for a brief moment, that object would still not permanently disappear completely out of view in a flat earth. If you are watching a ship with a set of binoculars at the edge of the horizon and If the ship is almost out of view with your current binoculars, then light refraction could cause the ship to flash in and out of view temporarily, but in a flat earth, that ship would not disappear. To prove that, you can get a much much stronger set of binoculars with which you can now see the ship crystal clear again then light refraction won't matter in that case since you will again be zoomed in very close to the ship. But in reality, even if you get the most powerful binoculars or telescope to look at the ship, you will no longer find the ship because it will be beyond the curvature of the earth. So how do you explain that Tom?

The cameras you guys use for your experiments only have so much zoom to look at the ship at the horizon. Now get the most powerful camera and zoom you can or get a telescope and look for that ship again Tom...it won't be there. Its a simple thing Tom....go do it please then report back.

Case in point. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. You want people to stay on topic, stay on topic. If you can't handle staying on topic, don't complain about others. Now please return to the topic. If you want to spend more time discussing moderation, there is a separate board for that.

Boydster, please leave my discussion. I dont want you commenting if you have nothing to say about my original question.

This is a public forum, first of all. Second of all, my role here is that if moderator. So when you tell people not to post off topic, while further going off topic, I have the pleasure of letting you know about it. Would you like to get back to addressing the topic now?

Okay, Boydster. I think that FEr's TEND to go off-topic when they're asked a question they're not qualified to answer. That's my opinion on that. But what I think NormalHuman is trying to say is, what would happen when they've reached over the ice wall, or have reached the point where they just can't keep going in a straight line. But I, want to go off-topic and have a question of my own. Assuming the two theories about the circumference a round earth and flat earth are the same, how would NASA keep up with paying the security guards patrolling the ice walls? Keep in mind the sheer amount of money and power NASA and any company like them have to pour into just paying these security guards.

Okay, Boydster. I think that FEr's TEND to go off-topic when they're asked a question they're not qualified to answer. That's my opinion on that. But what I think NormalHuman is trying to say is, what would happen when they've reached over the ice wall, or have reached the point where they just can't keep going in a straight line. But I, want to go off-topic and have a question of my own. Assuming the two theories about the circumference a round earth and flat earth are the same, how would NASA keep up with paying the security guards patrolling the ice walls? Keep in mind the sheer amount of money and power NASA and any company like them have to pour into just paying these security guards.

It seems to me you go off topic when you aren't qualified to talk to your points.

At any rate, a former user has supplied a reasonable estimate of guards, which mind you would not be necessary given the climate of the edge.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0

Quote from: Migi on December 15, 2019, 06:49:43 PM

Okay, Boydster. I think that FEr's TEND to go off-topic when they're asked a question they're not qualified to answer. That's my opinion on that. But what I think NormalHuman is trying to say is, what would happen when they've reached over the ice wall, or have reached the point where they just can't keep going in a straight line. But I, want to go off-topic and have a question of my own. Assuming the two theories about the circumference a round earth and flat earth are the same, how would NASA keep up with paying the security guards patrolling the ice walls? Keep in mind the sheer amount of money and power NASA and any company like them have to pour into just paying these security guards.

It seems to me you go off topic when you aren't qualified to talk to your points.

At any rate, a former user has supplied a reasonable estimate of guards, which mind you would not be necessary given the climate of the edge.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0

"You can decrease it further by giving them snowmobiles and having them ride between waypoints. If they can ride 10 mph and still keep an eye on things, then in one hour one sixth the previous number -- or 652 men -- can cover the wall in an hour. In fact, doing this gives them better coverage, since this way their 15-mile-radius field of vision doesn't have any holes."

Snowmobiles? Seriously?

A hot debate for decades in the States has been the southern border. You know, all the 'Build a wall' business. If many believe we have not been able to adequately 'defend' our southern border it seems ludicrous that the ice wall around the entire planet is adequately guarded with men on snowmobiles.

I doubt there is much call for guards at a location so environmentally hostile. Who would care if you surreptitiously visited the beginning of the vast stretches of the rim? "I saw rocks. And ice. Lots of ice".
They need only concern themselves with overflights or a serious expedition. Both of which are regulated and reasonably limited. Already there is talk of ending tourism altogether.

I doubt there is much call for guards at a location so environmentally hostile. Who would care if you surreptitiously visited the beginning of the vast stretches of the rim? "I saw rocks. And ice. Lots of ice".

According to the "INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANTARCTICA TOUR OPERATORS" (IAATO), approximately 40k+ tourist visit Antartica each year. Apparently quite a few people wish to see rocks, ice and lots of it.

They need only concern themselves with overflights or a serious expedition. Both of which are regulated and reasonably limited. Already there is talk of ending tourism altogether.

I found nothing related to talks of ending tourism altogether. Where did you see that?

I doubt there is much call for guards at a location so environmentally hostile. Who would care if you surreptitiously visited the beginning of the vast stretches of the rim? "I saw rocks. And ice. Lots of ice".
They need only concern themselves with overflights or a serious expedition. Both of which are regulated and reasonably limited.

All that's needed to put the kibosh on the "Ice-Ring" map is one well documented land or air crossing via the South Pole.
And have been dozens. Here's just a few that include only small land expeditions by land:

• 1989–1990 – Antarctic crossing on foot by Reinhold Messner and Arved Fuchs. 2800 km. 92 days.
• 1992–1993 – British Polar Plod – led by Ranulph Fiennes with Mike Stroud (physician), first unassisted expedition crossing the continent by ski, (2,173 km in 95 days).
• 1992–1993 – Erling Kagge (Norway), first unassisted, and first solo expedition to the South Pole by ski, (1,310 km in 53 days).
• 1996–1997 – Børge Ousland (Norway) first person to travel across Antarctica solo. The crossing went from coast to coast, from Berkner Island to the Ross Sea, and was unsupported (without resupplies). He used a kite as traction for parts of the expedition. 63 days, 3,000 km.
• 2000–2001- Norwegian Liv Arnesen and the American Ann Bancroft crossed Antarctica on ski-sail from Blue 1 Runaway 13 November reaching after 94 days of expedition McMurdo, passing through the South Pole.
• 2008 – Todd Carmichael sets coast-to-pole solo/unsupported record of 39 days, 7 hours and 49 minutes.
• 2016−2017 – 7 February 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 7 February 2017. A total distance of 5100 km was covered utilizing kites and skis in 57 days.
• 2018–2019 – 13 January, Matthieu Tordeur (France) becomes the first French and youngest in the world (27 years and 40 days) to ski solo, unsupported (no resupply) and unassisted (no kiting) from the coast of Antarctica (Hercules Inlet) to the South Pole

There were no guards supervising them. Why should there be? What to hide?

Already there is talk of ending tourism altogether.

Quote from: Ski on December 16, 2019, 06:35:13 PM

I doubt there is much call for guards at a location so environmentally hostile. Who would care if you surreptitiously visited the beginning of the vast stretches of the rim? "I saw rocks. And ice. Lots of ice".

According to the "INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANTARCTICA TOUR OPERATORS" (IAATO), approximately 40k+ tourist visit Antartica each year. Apparently quite a few people wish to see rocks, ice and lots of it.

And precisely what threat do they possibly pose that necessitates guarding?

Quote from: Migi on December 15, 2019, 06:49:43 PM

Okay, Boydster. I think that FEr's TEND to go off-topic when they're asked a question they're not qualified to answer. That's my opinion on that. But what I think NormalHuman is trying to say is, what would happen when they've reached over the ice wall, or have reached the point where they just can't keep going in a straight line. But I, want to go off-topic and have a question of my own. Assuming the two theories about the circumference a round earth and flat earth are the same, how would NASA keep up with paying the security guards patrolling the ice walls? Keep in mind the sheer amount of money and power NASA and any company like them have to pour into just paying these security guards.

It seems to me you go off topic when you aren't qualified to talk to your points.

At any rate, a former user has supplied a reasonable estimate of guards, which mind you would not be necessary given the climate of the edge.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0

So these 'guards' would be up 24/7, eat snow for sustenance and ride along in their snowmobiles and gunships also powered by snow launched from one of hundreds of helipads manned apparently by trained penguins?

Quote from: John Davis on December 16, 2019, 09:42:07 AM

Quote from: Migi on December 15, 2019, 06:49:43 PM

Okay, Boydster. I think that FEr's TEND to go off-topic when they're asked a question they're not qualified to answer. That's my opinion on that. But what I think NormalHuman is trying to say is, what would happen when they've reached over the ice wall, or have reached the point where they just can't keep going in a straight line. But I, want to go off-topic and have a question of my own. Assuming the two theories about the circumference a round earth and flat earth are the same, how would NASA keep up with paying the security guards patrolling the ice walls? Keep in mind the sheer amount of money and power NASA and any company like them have to pour into just paying these security guards.

It seems to me you go off topic when you aren't qualified to talk to your points.

At any rate, a former user has supplied a reasonable estimate of guards, which mind you would not be necessary given the climate of the edge.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0

So these 'guards' would be up 24/7, eat snow for sustenance and ride along in their snowmobiles and gunships also powered by snow launched from one of hundreds of helipads manned apparently by trained penguins?

Come on! 
These snowmobiles are penguined  by trained mutant ninji penguins! These "mutant ninji trained penguins" are invincible!

Quote from: Stash on December 16, 2019, 06:59:16 PM

Quote from: Ski on December 16, 2019, 06:35:13 PM

I doubt there is much call for guards at a location so environmentally hostile. Who would care if you surreptitiously visited the beginning of the vast stretches of the rim? "I saw rocks. And ice. Lots of ice".

According to the "INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANTARCTICA TOUR OPERATORS" (IAATO), approximately 40k+ tourist visit Antartica each year. Apparently quite a few people wish to see rocks, ice and lots of it.

And precisely what threat do they possibly pose that necessitates guarding?

None threat. Precisely my point. Same for 'overflights or a serious expedition(s)'. So let's dispense with the "guards on the ice rim" bit which is silly and stick to the OP.

Someone already answered your original question accurately.

Someone already answered your original question accurately.

Interesting misuse of the word 'accurately'.

Quote from: Ski on December 17, 2019, 03:56:11 PM

Quote from: Stash on December 16, 2019, 06:59:16 PM

Quote from: Ski on December 16, 2019, 06:35:13 PM

I doubt there is much call for guards at a location so environmentally hostile. Who would care if you surreptitiously visited the beginning of the vast stretches of the rim? "I saw rocks. And ice. Lots of ice".

According to the "INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANTARCTICA TOUR OPERATORS" (IAATO), approximately 40k+ tourist visit Antartica each year. Apparently quite a few people wish to see rocks, ice and lots of it.

And precisely what threat do they possibly pose that necessitates guarding?

None threat. Precisely my point. Same for 'overflights or a serious expedition(s)'. So let's dispense with the "guards on the ice rim" bit which is silly and stick to the OP.

If there is no threat posed by someone to something (we never managed to clarify that) why would Shifter have started this thread and carried it on for 9 pages?
Shifter: Proof that Antarctica is out of bounds