South Pole is Fake

So well, I was random searching the net and stuff...

https://covertnews.blogspot.com/2010/12/south-pole-doesnt-exist-to-anyone.html

So then I went to Google Earth to check it out.

First you see this. We go from clear borders, cities and towns to immediate fog




So then I zoomed in.





There seems to be some weird cover art. Like seriously, wtf is that?

When I zoom in further, I find a whited-out circle.



Anyone who thinks I'm doctoring this somehow? Here you go.
https://earth.google.com/web/@-84.07669739,-28.19372893,1350.56733835a,5691266.12377167d,35y,71.3860952h,6.12583734t,359.99999879r
Straight from Google Earth.

But it gets weirder.

Let's look at coordinates, shall we? So the South Pole should be 90°S 0°E/W(ish), right?



But the coordinates seem to hint that Antarctica is far bigger than the map actually shows, and the closer you get to the center, the more strange the coordinates get. In an extremely small area, 89°S goes from about 178E to 1 W in a completely tiny area. And then outside of it, we have all sorts of strange coordinates.

Btw, there is no 90°S 0°E/W. I went up and down, side to side, and even zoomed in. I never got any closer than 89°55'50" S (and that said it was 137°E), then it turned right around. I did this for a good twenty or thirty minutes. And the areas that are supposed to be 0°E or 0°W are waaaay off center.

So well, I was random searching the net and stuff...

https://covertnews.blogspot.com/2010/12/south-pole-doesnt-exist-to-anyone.html

So then I went to Google Earth to check it out.

First you see this. We go from clear borders, cities and towns to immediate fog




So then I zoomed in.





There seems to be some weird cover art. Like seriously, wtf is that?

When I zoom in further, I find a whited-out circle.



Anyone who thinks I'm doctoring this somehow? Here you go.
https://earth.google.com/web/@-84.07669739,-28.19372893,1350.56733835a,5691266.12377167d,35y,71.3860952h,6.12583734t,359.99999879r
Straight from Google Earth.

But it gets weirder.

Let's look at coordinates, shall we? So the South Pole should be 90°S 0°E/W(ish), right?



But the coordinates seem to hint that Antarctica is far bigger than the map actually shows, and the closer you get to the center, the more strange the coordinates get. In an extremely small area, 89°S goes from about 178E to 1 W in a completely tiny area. And then outside of it, we have all sorts of strange coordinates.

Btw, there is no 90°S 0°E/W. I went up and down, side to side, and even zoomed in. I never got any closer than 89°55'50" S (and that said it was 137°E), then it turned right around. I did this for a good twenty or thirty minutes. And the areas that are supposed to be 0°E or 0°W are waaaay off center.

The blind can find the South Pole, but flat earther’s can’t find their ice wall?

Hahahaha

Mark Pollock (born 29 February 1976) is an international motivational speaker, explorer, and author from Ireland[1][2] who became the first blind man to race to the South Pole.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Pollock

Anyway

The first women at the South Pole were Pamela Young, Jean Pearson, Lois Jones, Eileen McSaveney, Kay Lindsay and Terry Tickhill on 12 November 1969. Rear Admiral David F. Welch is in the middle.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women_in_Antarctica

Why do flat earther’s hate women and the blind enough to claim the South Pole is fake, and take away such achievements.

Probably out of jealousy since most flat earther’s can’t find their way out of their parent’s basement.

So you're basically smearing me as a sexist and ummmm blind-hater person, because you don't want to admit to this map being seriously wrong?

And sure, it makes an inspiring story.

But it's not only woke as hell, but fake as hell. Lines of latitude and longitude can't be seen or felt.

How would a blind man know where he is? They could take him to North Dakota. He feels that it's really cold there. "Oh those are penguins" when he hears nearby birds squawking (actually they're turkeys). Or if he goes by sea, Greenland or  Iceland.

Iceland and Greenland have puffins for that matter.

https://guidetoiceland.is/nature-info/birds-in-iceland

https://guidetogreenland.com/travel-blogs/ina-andersson/puffins-in-greenland/

If you want a good enough facsimile to fool a blind man, you could even catch a puffin and have him feel it.

A blind person doesn't know where he is once removed from his original location.

He can be given clues. But you can trick those a bit. If you were actively committed to a hoax, you could walk a blind person into a movie set and convince them they were in France or Germany. Speak the language, make the feels and smells of a German pub, and so on.

The blind are very vulnerable. Not that the sighted are any less gullible. In fact, they are worse in some ways as they can fall for a green screen, while a blind person needs the other senses to play out correctly.

Even if indeed they brought him to where Antarctica is supposed to be, he has no way of knowing that he found the pole. He has to travel with someone who tells him "Yup, you found the South Pole (now let's got home, I'm cold)."

As for women, they are no less or more gullible than everyone else taken to "Antarctica" (ahem, Greenland). Because literally nobody actually pays attention to what direction planes turn. If the map says they are going one place, they believe it.

How would a blind man know where he is?

So.  Now he’s disabled and stupid?  Nice.

So.  How do blind people find their way to work and shop?


What flat earther has found the ice wall?

They could take him to North Dakota. He feels that it's really cold there. "Oh those are penguins" when he hears nearby birds squawking (actually they're turkeys). Or if he goes by sea, Greenland or  Iceland.

Who’s “they”.  And he had a team with him.  With the numerous teams that also have been to the South Pole.

As for women, they are no less or more gullible than everyone else taken to "Antarctica" (ahem, Greenland).

Now women are too stupid to navigate for themselves?

Your an idiot…

But the coordinates seem to hint that Antarctica is far bigger than the map actually shows, and the closer you get to the center, the more strange the coordinates get. In an extremely small area, 89°S goes from about 178E to 1 W in a completely tiny area. And then outside of it, we have all sorts of strange coordinates.

Btw, there is no 90°S 0°E/W. I went up and down, side to side, and even zoomed in. I never got any closer than 89°55'50" S (and that said it was 137°E), then it turned right around. I did this for a good twenty or thirty minutes. And the areas that are supposed to be 0°E or 0°W are waaaay off center.

I guess, according to you, all the same applies to the North pole. I did this for a good twenty or thirty seconds. And the areas that are supposed to be 0°E or 0°W are waaaay off center.

I think this means that the North Pole is also a ring around the flat earth. Though I'm not sure how that works. Maybe you with your vast knowledge of geography and cartology can figure it out.

South Pole:


North Pole:


Care to share any other amazing insights?

Additionally, regarding “South”, you know how in the Northern hemisphere, if you look basically due North you see Polaris. Well, for the folks in the Southern hemisphere, when they look due South, they see the Crux.

How can looking due South in the Southern hemisphere from various locations on earth result in all people staring at the Crux?



How does that work?

And sure, it makes an inspiring story.

Hmm, what was your reply to this post?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 03, 2022, 07:26:55 PM

nobody can prove that the ocean curves around the underside of the equator,

One.  How people in the Southern Hemisphere can look south and see the same stars and constellations.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 10, 2023, 07:00:08 PM

How would a blind man know where he is?

So.  Now he’s disabled and stupid?  Nice.

More smearing. Let's blindfold you, and feed you all kinds of false leads, and see how you do. Lead you by the hand to a ship. "Alright, I'll take you to Antarctica.    "  I make all kinds of turns, and after about the eighth one, you've lost track where you are. Then I deliver you instead to a place that is very cold, a large island, and which doesn't appear to be near any major continents. Greenland, parts of Russia, Norway, Sweden, and Canada, some of which have puffins. But he could also deliver you to anywhere sufficiently cold area, so long as there were no trees nearby.



All of these white spots are polar climates. This includes alot of countries. Exporers of "Antarctica" fall in two categories. Hopeless rubes that don't bother to verify they are not in fact in the middle of Russia or something, and people who are deliberately spreading a hoax.

So.  How do blind people find their way to work and shop?

I've heard from others how blind people manage. Through routine. They say that people who clean houses for blind folks don't have to do that great a job (mainly vacuuming and dusting), but unlike sighted people they don't nitpick about cleaning under objects. Rather it is harder for them if objects are moved.

Blind people make it to areas because they memorize spatial relationships.  Using those, blind people can do amazing things. They can skate or play the piano.



But you know what they can't do? They can't be taken totally out of their comfort zone and understand the spatial dimensions of a totally new area. Or a new situation, as shown by the above video.

They also have issues with Non-24 sleep cycles and making it to the right job at the right place at the wrong time.

A blind person must have some way of knowing that where they are told it is actually is what they are told.  Sighted people can't even do this that well. Were you to get kidnapped, and then the kidnappers shoot off a bunch of pistols and machine guns, then take off your blinders and pose as cops, I am reasonably certain that you would believe they were cops unless there was some glaring detail they missed. In fact, if someone kidnapped you within the first few years of your life, and changed their hair color and such to match yours, it would be possible for you to go your whole life never knowing you are adopted.  But you're adopted. I saw the papers. 

What flat earther has found the ice wall?

Straw man. Not all FE types even believe in an ice wall. And I don't care enough to form a strong opinion.

Quote

They could take him to North Dakota. He feels that it's really cold there. "Oh those are penguins" when he hears nearby birds squawking (actually they're turkeys). Or if he goes by sea, Greenland or  Iceland.

Who’s “they”.  And he had a team with him.  With the numerous teams that also have been to the South Pole.

Exactly. He had a team with him. All of which sold him out to make a few bucks. The expedition got the reputation as "first blind man to explore South Pole." Poor fool didn't know if he had explored it or not, but NASA gave them a cut, and he got his fifteen minutes of fame.

Quote

As for women, they are no less or more gullible than everyone else taken to "Antarctica" (ahem, Greenland).

Now women are too stupid to navigate for themselves?

Your words, not mine. I believe most of the population wants to believe in RE, so they believe it even when they should see evidence to the contrary. But you yourself are being a sexist, and making it about gender.

Your an idiot…

You're is spelled this way.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 10, 2023, 05:10:25 PM

But the coordinates seem to hint that Antarctica is far bigger than the map actually shows, and the closer you get to the center, the more strange the coordinates get. In an extremely small area, 89°S goes from about 178E to 1 W in a completely tiny area. And then outside of it, we have all sorts of strange coordinates.

Btw, there is no 90°S 0°E/W. I went up and down, side to side, and even zoomed in. I never got any closer than 89°55'50" S (and that said it was 137°E), then it turned right around. I did this for a good twenty or thirty minutes. And the areas that are supposed to be 0°E or 0°W are waaaay off center.

I guess, according to you, all the same applies to the North pole. I did this for a good twenty or thirty seconds. And the areas that are supposed to be 0°E or 0°W are waaaay off center.

On the contrary.



I got within a half degree of both 90 N and 0 E. No big white circle here, and this seemed to be in the middle of the ocean between US and Russia (and Europe). I was able to pin down a location that looked on center and areas seemed to have a sensible measurement to the point where I could actually find the center. 



The reason I pointed out these coordinates is that even using the lines of latitude above them, they don't seem to match up at all. Oh yes, it looks like a 180 degree circle. Until you figure out that 55 and  and 0 are too far away from each other, that 69 and 89 look as close as 82 and 89, and that degrees near the center are more about getting it to fit neatly into little latitude lines than using actual measurements of where the line is. It is clearly strung together using a model. I was able to quickly find the center with that. You know where the center was in this?



When I moved closer to what should be the center, it told me that 89 S, anywhere from 16 to 54 (or more in a tiny space).  It's creating radial lines while the rest of the "globe" uses conventional x/y, including the area near the North Pole. In other words, it's faking the dimensions. And you can tell because they are simply too far apart for the size of the continental and the center is not on center. 

You're lying and making excuses for fraud. Again.

Your an idiot…

You're is spelled this way.

Your retarted.


You should have lurked moar.

When I moved closer to what should be the center, it told me that 89 S, anywhere from 16 to 54 (or more in a tiny space).  It's creating radial lines while the rest of the "globe" uses conventional x/y, including the area near the North Pole. In other words, it's faking the dimensions. And you can tell because they are simply too far apart for the size of the continental and the center is not on center. 

I have no idea what you are talking about. These two are identical from a coordinates standpoint - What's your point?

South Pole:


North Pole:


And you haven't addresses the Crux yet. Give it a shot with your amazing geographical, cartological, and cosmological insights...

Additionally, regarding “South”, you know how in the Northern hemisphere, if you look basically due North you see Polaris. Well, for the folks in the Southern hemisphere, when they look due South, they see the Crux.

How can looking due South in the Southern hemisphere from various locations on earth result in all people staring at the Crux?



How does that work?

So I guess we have established bulmabriefs implicitly trusts Google Earth then? You realise that it shows the earth as a globe if you zoom out?

So well, I was random searching the net and stuff...

And found that different regions of the globe are covered by different resolution imagery.
You don't even seem to understand that different images were taken at different times which will produce artefacts like the cross you appeal to.
And don't understand how coordinates work.

Here is a random patch of Greenland. Do you think Greenland is fake:

https://earth.google.com/web/search/90,+0/@80.95512499,-23.84969869,433.60040649a,441466.91682637d,35y,1.20895668h,0t,0r/data=CigiJgokCaWHZpxiTlVAEcDIHfGLlFRAGd2kotuaA2ZAIe00-rrfvmXA

But the coordinates seem to hint that Antarctica is far bigger than the map actually shows, and the closer you get to the center, the more strange the coordinates get. In an extremely small area, 89°S goes from about 178E to 1 W in a completely tiny area. And then outside of it, we have all sorts of strange coordinates.

Yes, this is expected. The same thing happens at the north pole.
1 degree of longitude gets smaller in physical distance as you go away from the equator, reaching 0 at the poles.
This is one way we know Earth is round.
If it was flat, you should get the opposite.

As for women, they are no less or more gullible than everyone else taken to "Antarctica" (ahem, Greenland). Because literally nobody actually pays attention to what direction planes turn. If the map says they are going one place, they believe it.

And you think they are too stupid to recognise the 24 hour sun in Antarctica wouldn't be observed in Greenland at that time?

All of these white spots are polar climates. This includes alot of countries. Exporers of "Antarctica" fall in two categories. Hopeless rubes that don't bother to verify they are not in fact in the middle of Russia or something, and people who are deliberately spreading a hoax.

See, this is smearing.
Suggesting anyone who doesn't believe your delusional BS and has experiences which can demonstrate you are wrong are either incredibly stupid, or lying.

Your words, not mine. I believe most of the population wants to believe in RE, so they believe it even when they should see evidence to the contrary.

Quite the opposite.
Brainwashed fools have been conned into thinking Earth is flat, so they believe it, even with plentiful evidence to the contrary and no evidence capable of distinguishing a flat Earth from a round Earth which demonstrates Earth is flat.
They spout all sorts of dishonest, delusional BS to keep their fantasy alive.

I got within a half degree of both 90 N and 0 E.

So math isn't your strong suit either?
You got within half a degree of 90 S. Specifically you managed to get to 89 degrees 55 minutes, 50 seconds. That is 0.08 degrees.

And by actually looking at where you are, and moving around, you can easily get to where you want:

No big white circle here

No, instead it has other stitching artefacts:

I was able to pin down a location that looked on center and areas seemed to have a sensible measurement to the point where I could actually find the center.

Just like the south pole.

The reason I pointed out these coordinates is that even using the lines of latitude above them, they don't seem to match up at all. Oh yes, it looks like a 180 degree circle. Until you figure out that 55 and  and 0 are too far away from each other, that 69 and 89 look as close as 82 and 89

Because you are also changing latitude. And the same happens at the north pole.

Try it further out.

It's creating radial lines while the rest of the "globe" uses conventional x/y, including the area near the North Pole.

Pure BS.
It is using latitude and longitude, just like the rest of the world, including the north pole.
The only time you get cartesian coordinates is when you use a rectangular projection, or you look at a tiny area near the equator.

You're lying and making excuses for fraud. Again.

You are projecting, again.

Quote

As for women, they are no less or more gullible than everyone else taken to "Antarctica" (ahem, Greenland).

Now women are too stupid to navigate for themselves?

Your words, not mine.

Hello.  Look at the punctuation. It was my question to you…

Your the one who evidently thinks women are too stupid to navigate for themselves.

As for women, they are no less or more gullible than everyone else taken to "Antarctica" (ahem, Greenland).

Here.  I will not confuse you this time. Not only are you implying women are to stupid to navigate for themselves.  You explicitly show YOU BELIEVE they are too stupid to use stars to navigate.  Your the one that believes women are too stupid to use stars to know if they are in the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere.

 Holly shit Sally, the southern cross shows we are in the southern hemisphere and definitely not in Greenland.  Only a stupid flat earther’s would think women couldn’t look up to read the stars to know what hemisphere they are in.  Probably flat earthers don’t leave the basement enough to understand why the Southern Cross isn’t visible in Greenland.  It’s curvature. On the flat earth delusion, the southern cross should be visible to Greenland. 

Hey Sally, the Aurora Australis looks beautiful. 

Just like the pacman.

I was sad when I couldn't see the pacman shortcut on your desktop.



There is nothing as south pole. We must organize an organization that explores the magnetic mountain in the center of the earth.

If anyone visiting Antarctica was actually in Greenland, how does one get from southern Chile to Greenland in a few hours in an aircraft like a DeHavilland Canada Dash-7, such as the British Antarctic Survcey use?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Canada_Dash_7

Is Data just a FEer trying to make REers look bad? And/or there actually is a conspiracy and I missed that meeting, yikes. (If I'm meant to be getting paid for posting here, someone let me know and we can arrange it)

Okay, trying to cut through all the distraction, the south pole on Google Earth looks wrong, covered in low res imagery and some odd quirks of shape, which would make sense if it was a false depiction. Am I understanding that argument?
Can we all please agree "FEers can't explain these other things!" is a dumb response? Something adjacent to a tu quoque fallacy, if you want to get fancy, 'We can't explain it but neither can you!' It doesn't address the argument, and if the argument stands then all it means is that everyone has problems. Unless you're conceding this is an issue for RET, better to slow down and actually engage.

So, on-topic. The odd visual artefacts like neat borders when the colours shift come from photos being taken at different times, hence the neat shapes of most such relics. The cross-image would likely be a series of square pictures, etc.
There have been other examples presented of low res imagery reflective of other areas on the Earth - ditto for the other pole. One explanation would be how hard it can be to get good satellite images of the poles because they aren't areas known for getting loads of daylight. Another could be the lack of drive to use a satellite to get high-res pictures of a sea of snow, especially when if there is daylight, it's going to be reflecting off a stark white surface which is gonna suck for getting details anyway - which would seem to also explain the other low-res images.
Am I missing any details? They're not exactly great photos, sure, but the argument against RET is reliant on RET being able to provide better photos.

Is Data just a FEer trying to make REers look bad?

Glad I live in your head rent free😆

Am I missing any details? They're not exactly great photos, sure, but the argument against RET is reliant on RET being able to provide better photos.

I wasn't so concerned about the imagery. There are all kinds of anomalous satellite images of earth from all over the world. It's basically a non-issue.

"All bridges/highways must be oddly warped because this image" kind of argument...



I imagine that since the majority of satellite images are "stitched" over time it makes sense that there will be some optical inconsistencies.


Essentially a nothing burger argument. But if the argument is that it's incumbent on RE to produce better images in order to defend RE, that's just lame, because it doesn't matter - Because any image, no matter how pristine, if it doesn't fit with FE, would just be deemed fake. Like always.

So for me, more the second part, the coordinates. Somehow stating that the coordinates are off for Antarctica, making it much "larger", (I guess), therefore a ring around the flat earth (I guess - I'm not even really sure what the argument is).

So, if that is the argument, back to Ye Olde "Antarctica is a ring around the flat earth" schtick, then yeah, I have some questions as to how that would actually work in reality. Regardless of imagery.

So for me, more the second part, the coordinates. Somehow stating that the coordinates are off for Antarctica, making it much "larger", (I guess), therefore a ring around the flat earth (I guess - I'm not even really sure what the argument is).

I think the argument functions as an attack on RET if it is just 'This doesn't make sense.' Like, arguing against the ice wall interpretation feels like an odd take unless you're conceding 'The co-ordinates don't work.'

Will admit, I'm not convinced by the composite image argument, so we're likely on the same page there. I think the argument would be that if it appeared altered/stitched together that could be evidence of fakeness - it's just also evidence of satellite imagery by its very nature, so it needs more to sort between those two options.
But the same reasoning seems to be used for Antarctica in the second case - that it's somehow stitched together from false data, hence co-ordinates not lining up.
Will admit I don't fully get the implication, but there's almost always questions of practicality when it comes to conspiracy. This feels like something where they could trivially fake it if indeed it was fake. I guess the argument is they made an oversight, though whether that's more persuasive than something more mathematical is going to be dubious. Will try to play around with GE here, when I can, to see if I can see the same results at the north and south, and anywhere else (like the equator) to get an idea of what's happening.

As for women, they are no less or more gullible than everyone else taken to "Antarctica" (ahem, Greenland). Because literally nobody actually pays attention to what direction planes turn. If the map says they are going one place, they believe it.

By the way…

Jade Hameister OAM (born 5 June 2001) is an Australian woman who, at age 16, became the youngest person in history to pull off the "polar hat-trick", ski to the North and South Poles, and cross the second largest polar icecap on the planet: Greenland.[1] Hameister travelled over 1,300 km on these three missions, which totalled almost four months on ice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Hameister

Rosie Stancer
At only 5’3″, Rosie Stancer may not cut a towering figure, but her remarkable feats of exploration certainly set the bar high. Among the many accomplishments she has to her name, she’s skied solo to the South Pole and journeyed alone for 84 days across the Arctic Ocean. Plucky and courageous, she even amputated two of her toes with a Leatherman knife after experiencing frostbite and gangrene.

https://www.aurora-expeditions.com/blog/fearless-females-top-women-in-polar-adventure/

I would pay money to see you tell Rosie Stancer she didn’t skied to the South Pole and she was duped.

Not women.  But I hope they know the difference from navigating in the Southern Hemisphere vs the Norther Hemisphere.

  Hvitserk Ski South Pole
Norwegian Outfitter Hvitserk will lead an Anniversary South Pole Expedition. The team will follow the 'Messner Route' and ski unsupported to the South Pole, arriving by December 14 to join the Amundsen Centenary celebrations.
 
Steffen Dahl
Norwegian Steffen Dahl is skiing to both North and South Poles in 2011 to honor the achievements of Fridtjof Nansen and Roald Amundsen. Dahl reached the North Pole on April 11 and will ski alone and unsupported from Hercules Inlet to the South Pole.
http://polfarer.no/ (Norwegian)

https://7summitsclub.com/news/all/item_2689/

Only in the delusional mind of a flat earther, people living near the Arctic never been to the Antarctic.  And these individuals can’t navigate for themselves, but have to have the infamous “they” to navigate for them? 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on January 10, 2023, 05:10:25 PM

Just like the pacman.

I was sad when I couldn't see the pacman shortcut on your desktop.

I started gaming at NES era. I've played Pac-Man, but mainly at arcades.

Okay, trying to cut through all the distraction, the south pole on Google Earth looks wrong, covered in low res imagery and some odd quirks of shape, which would make sense if it was a false depiction. Am I understanding that argument?

Yes, that was my point. It looks weird and fake, and at the the distance that other borders are visible (Antarctica is supposed to have named "towns")

but at that distance, we instead get fog. And no such names ever appear. Just weird shapes and weirder coordinates.

And yes, you seem to have missed the meeting. Or just are able to use your eyes. The other folks seem like "Nothing is weird, nothing is weird, nothing is weird, nothing is weird..."

So you have an issue with how Google presents Antarctica? You would like them to show more info? Have you contacted them to ask if they could provide some more labels?

And what's wrong with the coordinates again?

And how do people in the Southern hemisphere all look South, see the same thing but are looking in vastly different directions? How doe that work?

Is there a single conspiracy theory that bulmabriefs doesn't embrace? It wasn't the Titanic that sank, but the Olympic? Black Knight satellite? Birds aren't real? Soylent Green is people?

Yes, that was my point. It looks weird and fake, and at the the distance that other borders are visible (Antarctica is supposed to have named "towns")
but at that distance, we instead get fog. And no such names ever appear. Just weird shapes and weirder coordinates.

It doesn't look weird or fake.
Anomalies like those you appeal to can be found all over the place.

What borders are you trying to find?
The borders on Google Earth are borders of countries.
Antarctica doesn't have that so it wont be displayed. It also depends upon what settings you use for what is displayed.

As for the places, I wouldn't really call them towns. Some are just named placed, without any settlement. Others are more just an outpost.

But if you go to the correct location, you can see them.

And you are yet to demonstrate anything weird about the coordinates.
Instead you seem to be complaining that the coordinates work just like you would expect on a RE, and nothing like you would expect for a FE.

And yes, you seem to have missed the meeting. Or just are able to use your eyes. The other folks seem like "Nothing is weird, nothing is weird, nothing is weird, nothing is weird..."

No, we just know what to expect.
What you have done is try to prove Antarctica is fake, by using this, going straight to Antarctica, seeing something you didn't expect and complaining about it.
Conversely, we have seen things like this plenty of times, in plenty of locations.
We understand how it uses images of regions of Earth, taken at different times, under different lighting conditions, which are stitched together, which will create artefacts like the ones you are objecting to.
Because of that, we see these artefacts as normal, not weird.
What you are doing is effectively the same as a hypothetical person who has never seen a low resolution digital photograph looking at one and saying it must be fake because of the visible pixels.

Is there a single conspiracy theory that bulmabriefs doesn't embrace? It wasn't the Titanic that sank, but the Olympic? Black Knight satellite? Birds aren't real? Soylent Green is people?

We could ask him about some of the Heiwa conspiracies?

Is there a single conspiracy theory that bulmabriefs doesn't embrace? It wasn't the Titanic that sank, but the Olympic? Black Knight satellite? Birds aren't real? Soylent Green is people?

There's plenty of conspiracies I don't embrace, and plenty that I am totally indifferent about (Bigfoot/Yetis and UFOs).

Titanic did indeed sink.

I dunno what Black Knight satellite is. But I don't buy most of the satellite stuff, so...

That "birds aren't real" meme is silly.

And Soylent Green is people.



But there is in fact a health drink with the unfortunate name of Soylent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(meal_replacement)

But you people know better than such superstitions, only to embrace superstitions of your own.

Btw, if you're looking for a show that shows space travel well, I recommend Infinite Ryvius. Not that I believe it, but it's good.

Quote

Okay, trying to cut through all the distraction, the south pole on Google Earth looks wrong, covered in low res imagery and some odd quirks of shape, which would make sense if it was a false depiction. Am I understanding that argument?

Yes, that was my point. It looks weird and fake, and at the the distance that other borders are visible (Antarctica is supposed to have named "towns")

but at that distance, we instead get fog. And no such names ever appear. Just weird shapes and weirder coordinates.

McMurdo Station (not "town") shows up just fine on Google Earth. Lat -77.846°, Lon 166.670° (negative latitude is south, positive longitude is east). It's labeled and everything. Just type those numbers into Google Earth's search box (just the two numbers separated by a space or comma is fine, no need for the degree symbol, but do pay attention to the negative sign) if you still can't find it. I've been there. It's real.

And yes, you seem to have missed the meeting. Or just are able to use your eyes. The other folks seem like "Nothing is weird, nothing is weird, nothing is weird, nothing is weird..."

What's weird is that you can't find McMurdo on Google Earth and then loudly complain about it here.

I don't know why you can't see it, but I can easily get to 89° 59' 59" N and  89° 59' 59" S on the web version of Google Earth, although for the north pole the registration between displayed long and lat versus the graphical overlay of the yellow long/lat lines is off by about 15".

And what do I attribute that to? A worldwide conspiracy that hundreds of years of confirmed observation are invalid and the truth is intentionally hidden and faked? Or that there's a bug in the code?

I don't know why you can't see it, but I can easily get to 89° 59' 59" N and  89° 59' 59" S on the web version of Google Earth, although for the north pole the registration between displayed long and lat versus the graphical overlay of the yellow long/lat lines is off by about 15".

That's nice.
Teacher: But class, tell him what he did wrong.
Student 1: It was the South Pole, not the North Pole that mattered?
Student 2: The actual pole center should be at either the 180 or zero point, not the 59 degree point. Also if possible, we mean exactly 90 degrees. I mean, talking about angles, we have a fairly clear North Pole, even though Santa's village is in Alaska, roughly 64°N 147°W and nowhere near 90 degrees.
Student 3: There's a big fake ugly photoshop all around Antarctica that might as well be saying "We have no idea how this looks, so we've placed a weird shadow with a cross and circle as an admission of ignorance."
Student 4: There's also a magnetic North Pole, so talk of poles becomes kinda stupid when the average person can find a pole that's nowhere near the geographical North Pole. To say nothing of there being a fucking North Pole mountain in Texas.
Teacher: That's right, kids! Especially you, (Student 3). (Student 4), you can go to the principal's office for coarse language. But you're right too.

 That's right kids. And no, I don't have schizophrenia, they're a construct.

It is a bug in the code. But the code shows very clear signs that there is no satellite imagery of the area.  You get the same phenomenon in the middle of the Pacific in deadzone islands. You can say that such graphiced out areas are secret bases, but most of them are simply wireless-free zones (there's one near Nepal, and who knows what those Buddhist monks are scheming).  With Antarctica it's different. We have an entire continent that is obviously uncharted. When I ask ppl about this, I get a stock deflect.

The conspiracy isn't really that the thing looks photoshopped or even the coordinates. It's the instant dogpile effect. Like you all rushed in to control some kinda damage, that's the real conspiracy. But a giant continent that Google Earth basically says "Here Be Dragons" is also pretty sketchy.