[trivialGalaxy]

Hi. I don't personally believe in the flat earth theory, but I'm willing to always give new ideas a listen instead of dismissing them as insane. I've been reading up on the flat earth theory lately, and I have a minor question. On the FAQ page, I read about the suggestion that there is an ice wall in Antarctica (or moreso that Antarctica is the ice wall). Have all of the missions to Antarctica and the bases set up there been false, or have those who have actually traveled to Antarctica been lying about what they saw? Furthermore, I read on a different section of the page, "In light of the above, please note that we are not suggesting that space agencies are aware that the earth is flat and actively covering the fact up. They depict the earth as being round simply because that is what they expect it to be." Surely these space agencies would have the tools to fly to Antarctica and investigate the presence of an ice wall. If there is one, then wouldn't that confirm the validity of the flat earth theory, which would mean that they do know that the Flat Earth exists, and are indeed covering it up? I'm not saying that this minor detail being confirmed wrong disproves the entire flat earth theory, but I would like to know the answer to this hole in the theory.
Edit: Grammar

[J-Man]

Like with pics from national geo?

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-coastal-impact-climate-change/#/MM7792_090628_0391.jpg



http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-coastal-impact-climate-change/#/PIG_090125_08089.jpg

[Curious Squirrel]

Like with pics from national geo?

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-coastal-impact-climate-change/#/MM7792_090628_0391.jpg



http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-coastal-impact-climate-change/#/PIG_090125_08089.jpg

For the record, your first image is neither much of an ice wall, nor is it in Antarctica. It's in Greenland. Nearly the other side of the globe, unless you've done something to the continents in a new model while I wasn't looking.

The second is the Pine Island glacier, which is only part of the coast, so not much proof for a wall all the way around.

[J-Man]

Of course the wall of ice is real and goes for a 360. No fly zones, no hiking, no finding the truth and the dome.

[douglips]

No fly zones?

[J-Man]

No fly zones is right. No twin engines over Antarctica. All planes must be equipped with a high about of survival gear which reduces the capacity of the plane. This is a tour plane, 12 hr flight, 4 hours in, 4 hrs at, 4 hrs home. 4hrs is not anywhere near enough time to explore much except the edge where you came in at. The plane does repeated figure 8's so passengers can swap seats from inside rows. You basically cover everything twice. About 1.5 hrs max depth of flying into the interior if that.

So yeah, its a no fly zone......

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Except for the flying bit!

[StinkyOne]

Except for the flying bit!

This made me lol.

J-man, why do you persist in posting things that a easily proven false? You can't even claim religion on the ice wall thing because there is no ice wall mentioned in the Bible. You gotta pick up your trolling game. The rules requiring extra safety gear were aimed at tourist flights. Who enforces the no-fly zone? If this fake ice wall were to actually surround the whole planet, it would be impossible to actually guard the whole thing.

[3DGeek]

No fly zones is right. No twin engines over Antarctica.

So when I google "airplane landing at south pole" - I see:

The famous "Polar Pumpkin" which is the only airplane to ever land on both the North AND South poles:

A two engined 757:

A three engined Falcon 7X:

A USAF four engined LC-130:


I thought there was a rule about only allowing planes with 2 or more engines to land at the South polar research station - but I'm finding lots of single-engined plane photos...so I guess not.

[J-Man]

Of course qeek cheats (lies, a true deceitful post), no jet planes under 3 engines are allowed. The one he posts was a test to try to prove feasibility. They are not approved, this was a test. It also only had a few seats and plenty of room for the required survival gear.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2017/05/15/icelandair-has-new-glacier-themed-boeing-757-200/101714042/#

Here's that same plane today with a new paint job and no it hasn't been cleared to land in Antarctica anymore. It's a tour plane.

[mtnman]

Of course qeek cheats, no jet planes under 3 engines are allowed. The one he posts was a test to try to prove feasibility. They are not approved, this was a test. It also only had a few seats and plenty of room for the required survival gear.

JMan claims ice wall and Antarctic no fly zone, then proves by posting picture from Greenland and sharing a video about a company working on commercial passenger flights to Antarctica. Priceless, lol.

[J-Man]

More cheat and lies by qeek

the orange thang is more or less owned by NASA or funded by them with instruments. Who we fooling here?

NASA'S Hyperspectral Imager

The Polar Pumpkin will become a flying laboratory as I fly across the Arctic Ocean. One of the primary instruments that I will be carrying is a Hyperspectral Imager, owned by NASA. After I returned from Russia, Mr. Joe Casas from Marshall Space Flight Center and Mr. Ken Copenhaver from the University of Illinois, came to Alaska for the installation of the hyperspectral imager. With the help of my excellent mechanics, we completed the installation quickly; and then proceeded to do test flights. The instrument worked well; and, over the course of the Spring, I continued the testing, flying at varied altitudes and conditions. Another instrument that will be on board the Pumpkin is a Sun Photometer, also owned by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

http://www.polarflight90.com/About_the_Polar_Pumpkin.htm

[gizmo910]

Several trans-antarctic expeditions have been done since the geographic south pole was traversed in 1911 (long before NASA was a thought).
A multi-national team even crossed Antarctica in 1989-1990 traveling from roughly 76S 166E to 79S 37W, crossing the south pole, taking 220 days (and about 3700 miles). The path was later flown in roughly 11 hours. No NASA involvement.

It's not like Antarctica is locked down preventing anyone access. The reason no one goes inland recreationally: it will literally kill you if you aren't prepared, even then it's a crapshoot given the harsh, semi-unpredictable weather. The only "ice walls" that exist are the many glaciers that line the coast.

[Curious Squirrel]

More cheat and lies by qeek

the orange thang is more or less owned by NASA or funded by them with instruments. Who we fooling here?

NASA'S Hyperspectral Imager

The Polar Pumpkin will become a flying laboratory as I fly across the Arctic Ocean. One of the primary instruments that I will be carrying is a Hyperspectral Imager, owned by NASA. After I returned from Russia, Mr. Joe Casas from Marshall Space Flight Center and Mr. Ken Copenhaver from the University of Illinois, came to Alaska for the installation of the hyperspectral imager. With the help of my excellent mechanics, we completed the installation quickly; and then proceeded to do test flights. The instrument worked well; and, over the course of the Spring, I continued the testing, flying at varied altitudes and conditions. Another instrument that will be on board the Pumpkin is a Sun Photometer, also owned by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

http://www.polarflight90.com/About_the_Polar_Pumpkin.htm

Ok, so two things that you've left out (again) in posting this. The first is that he overflew Antarctica well before doing the Arctic things for NASA. The second is that his trip over the North pole was neither for, nor with NASA. The last, is that NASA doesn't own the Polar Pumpkin, and in fact according to that site doesn't fund him at all. They are loaning instruments for him to take readings during his trip(s) over the Arctic. This is an extremely common practice for NASA and other businesses/agencies to ask people to do things for them, especially when it involves minimal extra effort from someone who is already planning to do a related thing. This is what contractors do sometimes. Please stop presenting half truths, and attempting to deceive those reading this forum. I already don't take you seriously personally, but there are others who might not have learned that lesson yet.

[mtnman]

I thought there was a rule about only allowing planes with 2 or more engines to land at the South polar research station - but I'm finding lots of single-engined plane photos...so I guess not.

One engine, two engine, three engine, four engine. Great post!

[3DGeek]

I thought there was a rule about only allowing planes with 2 or more engines to land at the South polar research station - but I'm finding lots of single-engined plane photos...so I guess not.

One engine, two engine, three engine, four engine. Great post!

I'm pretty sure one of those 6 engined Russian transports landed there too - but I couldn't find a photo.

[mtnman]

I'm pretty sure one of those 6 engined Russian transports landed there too - but I couldn't find a photo.

That would be impressive. I saw an AN-124 at an airshow a long time ago. Quite a sight. It's so big that the scale messes with your head, makes you think it's closer that it actually is, which makes it look like it is barely moving. Or maybe it was magic perspective.

[3DGeek]

I'm pretty sure one of those 6 engined Russian transports landed there too - but I couldn't find a photo.

That would be impressive. I saw an AN-124 at an airshow a long time ago. Quite a sight. It's so big that the scale messes with your head, makes you think it's closer that it actually is, which makes it look like it is barely moving. Or maybe it was magic perspective.

Yeah - indeed.  My father had occasion to fly on one of those crazy-large Russian aircraft once (I'm not sure if it was the AN-124 - I kinda thought it was an Illushin of some kind) - he was an aircraft radio/radar tech and there was some problem at an airshow at the airport he worked at.   He was able to help out with it and avoid delaying the Russian's demo flight.  Their pilot offered to take him up for a ride when they did the demo.  As you say, the inside is so insanely huge, it's hard to believe that it's in the air at all.  It actually had an elevator to get you from the cargo bay up to the flight deck.

[mtnman]

Yeah - indeed.  My father had occasion to fly on one of those crazy-large Russian aircraft once (I'm not sure if it was the AN-124 - I kinda thought it was an Illushin of some kind) - he was an aircraft radio/radar tech and there was some problem at an airshow at the airport he worked at.   He was able to help out with it and avoid delaying the Russian's demo flight.  Their pilot offered to take him up for a ride when they did the demo.  As you say, the inside is so insanely huge, it's hard to believe that it's in the air at all.  It actually had an elevator to get you from the cargo bay up to the flight deck.

Very cool!

[J-Man]

Yeah - indeed.  My father had occasion to fly on one of those crazy-large Russian aircraft once (I'm not sure if it was the AN-124 - I kinda thought it was an Illushin of some kind) - he was an aircraft radio/radar tech and there was some problem at an airshow at the airport he worked at.   He was able to help out with it and avoid delaying the Russian's demo flight.  Their pilot offered to take him up for a ride when they did the demo.  As you say, the inside is so insanely huge, it's hard to believe that it's in the air at all.  It actually had an elevator to get you from the cargo bay up to the flight deck.

Very cool!

Low content, kicked your ass over in GPS now you hide here. No one cares about qeek daddy. Stay on topic or its 3 days in the hole, or maybe an eternity waaay down below? Yeah thinking that. swish  I--->>>> dropped an ear, hurt much?