[Mark]

Hi All,

I've done some research into this whole thing and although there are a couple of points I'm still not happy with, at the moment it feels like it's near on impossible to prove either way to the man on the street unless a couple of experiments are carried out. Forget sending something into outer space if FE theories are right that wouldn't work anyhow. To my mind there are two very straight forward experiments:

1) go near enough to the Antarctica to see the shore with a powerful telescope, then sail east. Video the whole thing (view through the telescope) as you circumnavigate the Antarctica from a distance that shouldn't harm the wildlife. Record your speed, distance travelled and time taken. Then you can say how big it is. If it's massive, then the globe earth is pretty dead (although the pear shape might get some support).

2) go near enough to the Antarctica with a weather balloon and a built in pressure valve that can release some of the helium once it gets to the height where they usually pop (just trying to think how to maximise the height). Have four wide angel, or fish eye lens cameras (doesn't matter), pointing down at varying angles. Then, as long as there's not loads of cloud cover, you will either video a continent (the shape of which will bend away from you), or you'll see a way which will start to bend backwards around you. The tricky bit might be retrieving the video as it will land in the sea, but I'm sure a smart engineer can come up with a way of keeping them buoyant with a radio transmitter or something to find it. It's less predictable than the first one but the results would be pretty conclusive.

Has anyone done this before? And don't quote people hundreds of years ago as modern people don't believe anything old apart from Newton and Einstein.

[Thork]

1) Sail the most dangerous seas on earth (cape of good hope and cape horn) where there is a military exclusion zone south of 60 degrees, maintained by 59 nations. Nice idea, need $millions for a vessel and will be turned away when you get here.

2) Again, you can't go to Antarctica. There is the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits this. You certainly can't start sending off balloons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Simple experiments? Is taking on the United Nations naval power simple?

[Icaruss]

1) Sail the most dangerous seas on earth (cape of good hope and cape horn) where there is a military exclusion zone south of 60 degrees, maintained by 59 nations. Nice idea, need $millions for a vessel and will be turned away when you get here.

2) Again, you can't go to Antarctica. There is the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits this. You certainly can't start sending off balloons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Simple experiments? Is taking on the United Nations naval power simple?

Even if you were allowed to go to Antarctica you would need massive funding to conduct that type of expedition, either way spending millions of dollars isn't 'simple'.

[Rounder]

you can't go to Antarctica. There is the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits this

Not exactly.  It is difficult to get there, no doubt about it, and expensive, to be sure.  But it is not prohibited.  The treaty prevents any nation from claiming any part of the continent as their own, but nations, corporations, and even individuals are allowed to go.

http://www.outsideonline.com/1927676/everything-you-need-know-about-getting-antarctica

[rabinoz]

1) Sail the most dangerous seas on earth (cape of good hope and cape horn) where there is a military exclusion zone south of 60 degrees, maintained by 59 nations. Nice idea, need $millions for a vessel and will be turned away when you get here.

2) Again, you can't go to Antarctica. There is the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits this. You certainly can't start sending off balloons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Simple experiments? Is taking on the United Nations naval power simple?

You have read it?  Doesn't sound like it. 
"Adventurers" can fly to the South Pole.  It is expensive and I might suggest taking you own sextant (much less expensive and more compact than a theodolite) so you verify where you are using sun sightings, the way Amundsen did (Scott actually used a theodolites).

No, I haven't been there, but I do believe some things others report, after I do what "due diligence" that I can.

Do you really believe what you write when you say "Sail the most dangerous seas on earth (cape of good hope and cape horn)".

Yes, at times the seas are very dangerous, though not so much near the Cape of Good Hope (it is only about 34° South)

Then saying "there is a military exclusion zone south of 60 degrees" is pure rubbish!

[Mark]

Sorry, I was under the impression that tourists could go there for about 10,000. As schools and others can engineer a weather balloon, I would have thought that an engineer could come up with a reasonable design. It shouldn't matter what time of year so you could pick a slightly warmer climate. You don't have to travel inland. Letting it go on the edge should be good enough.

Contradictions and fear mongering from replies about military. Here's something for you. I happen to know that at least one of the FE believers is very well off so could easily afford such a trip and experiment. Imagine the coast of Antarctica curving back around the balloon as far as the sets of cameras can see. Now that would be proof.

Just in case the other comments are right you may want to get a tv company to follow your experiment / expedition. Wouldn't want the military just shooting you and stealing the footage.

[rabinoz]

Sorry, I was under the impression that tourists could go there for about 10,000. As schools and others can engineer a weather balloon, I would have thought that an engineer could come up with a reasonable design. It shouldn't matter what time of year so you could pick a slightly warmer climate. You don't have to travel inland. Letting it go on the edge should be good enough.

Contradictions and fear mongering from replies about military. Here's something for you. I happen to know that at least one of the FE believers is very well off so could easily afford such a trip and experiment. Imagine the coast of Antarctica curving back around the balloon as far as the sets of cameras can see. Now that would be proof.

Just in case the other comments are right you may want to get a tv company to follow your experiment / expedition. Wouldn't want the military just shooting you and stealing the footage.

For a comparitively low price, tourists can overfly Antarctica from Australia, and I assume other places, but they don't go far inland.
You'll have to hurry for the next! See: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/Flights-to-Antarctica/Sydney-7-February-2016.

SYDNEY 7 FEBRUARY 2016
FLIGHT TO ANTARCTICA
FROM $1,199

There's another from Melbourne on the 14th.

But, these flights do not get to the South Pole!  For that you need an "Adventure Tour" in a smaller plane that can land at the Pole.
Check on: http://www.adventure-network.com/experiences/south-pole-flights, last I checked arounf $US50,000!
Or do it the hard way with http://www.icetrek.com/join-a-trip/south-pole-and-antarctica.html#dates-prices, prices $US50,000 to $US128,000 - yes a little outside my budget of fitness level.
Pictures at:
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=adventure+antarctica+flights+south+pole&biw=1486&bih=761&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6xeWliNjKAhVDMKYKHWHwCpMQsAQIRg

On these advanced "tours", taking your own sextant for (solar fixes) would be a good idea.

But, I doubt any FE supporter will take any notice of your word of photos.

[Bookish Neptune]

Sorry, I was under the impression

I have a question for you?

If the earth is round and Antarctica is a large island? Where is the footage of circumnavigation by boat or by air?

Where is the footage of even a plane flying all the way over Antarctica? A complete trip? Not the B.S. NASA showed you of bits and bits...

A simple time lapse of flying all the way over the supposed continent?

How many circumnavigations have taken place by foot? None. Last person attempted this past month and had to stop only 30 miles from finish. Air lifted. Died while in transport to the hospital. How convenient.

You think the FE community should attempt these things, yet I submit to you that they should have already been done!!

[rabinoz]

Sorry, I was under the impression

I have a question for you?
If the earth is round and Antarctica is a large island? Where is the footage of circumnavigation by boat or by air?
Where is the footage of even a plane flying all the way over Antarctica? A complete trip? Not the B.S. NASA showed you of bits and bits...
A simple time lapse of flying all the way over the supposed continent?

You are the sceptics, why should we pander to your doubts?  Do you really think people are going to waste their time just because of your silly ideas. And, you would not believe the photos anyway! Just as you deny every photo from a satellite or of a satellite!
 

How many circumnavigations have taken place by foot? None. Last person attempted this past month and had to stop only 30 miles from finish. Air lifted. Died while in transport to the hospital. How convenient. 

Of course there have been NONE!  You, do have some idea of the size of Antarctic and the conditions you would meet?  And NO he was not attempting a circumnavigation!
How many have circumnavigated Canada on foot? That is probably easier.

from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/25/explorer-henry-worsley-dies-during-antarctic-record-attempt

Explorer Henry Worsley dies attempting unaided Antarctic crossing

*********************************************

Worsley, 55, had covered 913 miles over 71 days on his own, including passing the south pole, when he was forced to call for help after succumbing to exhaustion and severe dehydration.

Then you come up with "Air lifted. Died while in transport to the hospital. How convenient."  I really find you utterly unbelievable and despicable!
A word of sympathy possibly?

You think the FE community should attempt these things, yet I submit to you that they should have already been done!!

Why ever should these things. "already been done"?  It would be a complete waste of time, we have been told by "Thork" I believe,  that photos are not acceptable evidence!  Also, YOU are the ones who refuse to believe simple reports, why should anyone pander to your wants as though you are a bunch of spoilt kids.

By the way I live in Australia. The most accepted FE map has my country at least 50% too wide, and grossly distorted!
Your FE model would seem to have the sun rise in the NE in summer, believe me it does not - it rises much closer to the SE!
The sun I see certainly appears to rise from behind the horizon stay the same size as it moves over the sky then appears to set behind the horizon.

Fix your house up before pushing it as the answer to the meaning of life, or so it seems.

 

[Mark]

I'm not decided either way. I'd like it to be flat from an easier to grasp perspective (intuition is right), but its been demonstrated that that human intuition isn't always that intuitive.

I would like to believe that the world is a globe because then I don't have the dilemma of some vile groups trying to control the world through such lies (but we all know evil people have existed throughout time and democracy didn't suddenly magic away human nature).

I see problems or bad arguments on both sides. If you just use the argument of why hasn't somebody done something to prove something, "it should have already been done" then this is more speculation than a strong proof. i agree it is suspicious, odd even but it is not proof.

If FEs are a small minority then they have no power to demand governments or universities to do such things to prove anything. Also, even if they did then the FEs would not believe it and would say it's all part of the lie with cgi.

So FEs really have only one choice, to do an experiment that shows that the coast of Antarctica just goes as far as the camera can see in both directions and bends back around the field of view, no matter how high you go. Then using the round earth map and the location you can simulate how the coast should look if it were a continent on a curved ball vs the results from the video. If there is a distinct and large difference then you've just proven that it's not a continent but a surrounding wall. If I had the money, I would go and do it. As I said, I've seen FEs doing various expensive trips to far off places to show the horizon is flat, and some are wealthy enough to spend up to $150,000 on an experiment to show its flat. They'd easily get that money back from a TV station and newspapers when they come back with their exclusive evidence that the world is flat. Or the evidence will be destroyed and they'll end up dead. Doing it public with media involvement, these forums etc would help reduce the chance of the latter.

I think it's got to a point where FEs say that THEY won't prove this, and whether you are wrong or right they don't have to prove anything, FEs do.

Stop wasting money on telescopes, expensive cameras etc to try and prove a bulge or curve and just prove the coast of Antarctica isn't a coast. Without this, I have to remain an agnostic.

[Munky]

Sorry, I was under the impression

I have a question for you?

If the earth is round and Antarctica is a large island? Where is the footage of circumnavigation by boat or by air?

Where is the footage of even a plane flying all the way over Antarctica? A complete trip? Not the B.S. NASA showed you of bits and bits...

A simple time lapse of flying all the way over the supposed continent?

How many circumnavigations have taken place by foot? None. Last person attempted this past month and had to stop only 30 miles from finish. Air lifted. Died while in transport to the hospital. How convenient.

You think the FE community should attempt these things, yet I submit to you that they should have already been done!!

And I have a question for you. Where is the photos or evidence that the earth is flat?

See link before. Antartica is free for anyone with the will to visit. You too can go to Antartica and see for yourself with your own eyes.


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

[Woody]

1) Sail the most dangerous seas on earth (cape of good hope and cape horn) where there is a military exclusion zone south of 60 degrees, maintained by 59 nations. Nice idea, need $millions for a vessel and will be turned away when you get here.

2) Again, you can't go to Antarctica. There is the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits this. You certainly can't start sending off balloons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

Simple experiments? Is taking on the United Nations naval power simple?

I have sailed around both.  I am not a millionaire.  I did the Cape of Good Hope with a $45,000 sail boat single handed and I crewed on a boat worth about $150,000 for Cape Horn.

Nothing is stopping you from sailing there.  I ran into one couple in South Africa who said they did the trip.  They decided to make the trip after meeting another couple right after they returned and they told them how beautiful it was.


Why not send a trusted member of TFES and have them document the whole thing.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/antarctica_travel_home.php

http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/

https://www.adventuresmithexplorations.com/antarctica-air-cruise

http://www.mtsobek.com/trips/polar-expeditions/antarctica/antarctica-fly-cruise

http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/en/antarctic/expeditions/antarctic-express-cruise-south-fly-north?gclid=Cj0KEQiAxMG1BRDFmu3P3qjwmeMBEiQAEzSDLjQXsBvqz7c_Wf_rrz0jWv_NsLTZojkbzBp80nCzSYoaAtfh8P8HAQ

The treaty you speak of does not allow military operations and the only military personnel and equipment allowed is in support of scientific operations.

[Mark]

Having read more of the forum and having researched everything further, I have to now conclude that there is isn't sufficient evidence for me to question a globe earth. I do think there's is sufficient evidence to question NASA activities and especially the moon landings. BUT people must not mix the two up. One does not necessarily lead to the other.

As with most things in life I'm not 100% sure but am content that I don't need to investigate further. If new evidence or proper experiments come to light, of course I will assess them and question myself but for now I'm happy to let it go.

One thing I am sure if is that the FE maps don't work, so if it is flat, you guys gotta get some cleverer cartographers to begin with before you start designing other theories around it.

It was good to question and something most people don't do enough of these days. Good luck with the experiments.

[Bookish Neptune]

Of course there have been NONE!  You, do have some idea of the size of Antarctic and the conditions you would meet? 

Yes I do have an idea. Let's review shall we?

High on the plateau, at the South Pole, however, the average wind speed is typically less than 14 km per hour, with the peak winds rarely over 40 km per hour.

Source: arc.nasa.gov

And here is more "evidence" that Antartica  is the most hostile place on earth......



BEHOLD! THE SOUTH POLE! ITS SO COLD AND HOSTILE YOU CAN WEAR SHORTS!

Almost all RE'rs repeat this same thing over and over...

Yet the edvidence clearly shows its not hostile at all!

This is YOUR science talking to you. ARE YOU LISTENIN?

Addition: Perhaps Explorer Henry Worsley should have stopped and had a beer with these guys huh? You see the beer in the photo right? Looks like a party to me!

[Munky]

if it isnt that hostile and you can wear shorts, then you should go... sounds like a good vacation spot. You can work on your tan.

Because clearly you have found an insurmountable amount of evidence that shows that it is hospitable there.. So get your ticket, and pack your shorts. Send us pictures and a post card.

[Woody]

Seems to me TFES does not want to prove the Earth is flat.

They will not even begin trying to chart areas and come up with a map that can be used to navigate.

Will not take flights or cruises with routes that if the world was flat would have the wrong distances and thus travel times.

For some reason when they do experiments water is involved, which means refraction is increased. Why not go out into a desert?  Tom Bishop lives in California he can conduct experiments there.  I can make it to some nice open flat areas in the desert and back from where I live in about 8 hours.  It would make a nice trip. 

Now it is Antarctica is impossible for them to get close to.  The harsh weather that will kill them, if that doesn't it will be the military might of 59 nations if they try to get too close,. Seems odd I can find pictures and videos from ordinary people who have taken their own boats there.  I have met two people who have been there and they told me they meet another two people.  You can book trips to go either by plane or boat. Yet it is out of reach to anyone who thinks the world is flat.

[rabinoz]

Of course there have been NONE!  You, do have some idea of the size of Antarctic and the conditions you would meet? 

Yes I do have an idea. Let's review shall we?
High on the plateau, at the South Pole, however, the average wind speed is typically less than 14 km per hour, with the peak winds rarely over 40 km per hour.
Source: arc.nasa.gov
And here is more "evidence" that Antartica  is the most hostile place on earth......

BEHOLD! THE SOUTH POLE! ITS SO COLD AND HOSTILE YOU CAN WEAR SHORTS!
Almost all RE'rs repeat this same thing over and over...
Yet the edvidence clearly shows its not hostile at all!
This is YOUR science talking to you. ARE YOU LISTENIN?
Addition: Perhaps Explorer Henry Worsley should have stopped and had a beer with these guys huh? You see the beer in the photo right? Looks like a party to me!

"ARE YOU LISTENIN?" - of course and it's not new.

Just possibly Explorer Henry Worsley did! I don't know! But, I believe you were talking about circumnavigating the Antarctic!  Do you really believe Henry Worsley died in clear skies and a 14 km per hour breeze?  Have a touch of common sense. The weather in Antarctica suffers extremes The highest temperature ever recorded at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station was −12.3 °C (9.9 °F) on Christmas Day, 2011, and the lowest was −82.8 °C (−117.0 °F) on June 23, 1982 . Sure, if can be like that at times - at other times positively treacherous! Why do you think Robert Scott and his expedition died on their way back from the Pole in 1912!  They were trapped by a blizzard till they ran out of fuel for heating. Have a look over on the right and see how shallow your comments are! Yes, the weather can be cold, crisp and clear - and in a few hours it can be treacherous!

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Nova_Expedition Scott's party at the South Pole, 18 January 1912. L to R: (standing) Wilson, Scott, Oates; (seated) Bowers, Edgar Evans Look like they're standing around have a beer?

[Rounder]

BEHOLD! THE SOUTH POLE! ITS SO COLD AND HOSTILE YOU CAN WEAR SHORTS!

Almost all RE'rs repeat this same thing over and over...

Yet the edvidence clearly shows its not hostile at all!

Context for that photo: http://jeffreydonenfeld.com/blog/2013/01/frequently-asked-questions-about-life-at-the-amundsen-scott-south-pole-station-antarctica/  Clearly, a LOT of snow everywhere, lots of parkas and mittens.  Just because some young and athletic types chose to dash out into the cold for a photo, does not prove the environment isn't hostile.  Watch any outdoor-stadium NFL game on TV , you'll see an obligatory shot of some super-fan(s) with no shirt and painted chest.  Doesn't mean it's not wicked cold there, just that some individuals can stand it.

[Hoppy]

BEHOLD! THE SOUTH POLE! ITS SO COLD AND HOSTILE YOU CAN WEAR SHORTS!

Almost all RE'rs repeat this same thing over and over...

Yet the edvidence clearly shows its not hostile at all!

Context for that photo: http://jeffreydonenfeld.com/blog/2013/01/frequently-asked-questions-about-life-at-the-amundsen-scott-south-pole-station-antarctica/  Clearly, a LOT of snow everywhere, lots of parkas and mittens.  Just because some young and athletic types chose to dash out into the cold for a photo, does not prove the environment isn't hostile.  Watch any outdoor-stadium NFL game on TV , you'll see an obligatory shot of some super-fan(s) with no shirt and painted chest.  Doesn't mean it's not wicked cold there, just that some individuals can stand it.

I guess they are all holding their breath then.

[rabinoz]

BEHOLD! THE SOUTH POLE! ITS SO COLD AND HOSTILE YOU CAN WEAR SHORTS!

Almost all RE'rs repeat this same thing over and over...

Yet the edvidence clearly shows its not hostile at all!

Context for that photo: http://jeffreydonenfeld.com/blog/2013/01/frequently-asked-questions-about-life-at-the-amundsen-scott-south-pole-station-antarctica/  Clearly, a LOT of snow everywhere, lots of parkas and mittens.  Just because some young and athletic types chose to dash out into the cold for a photo, does not prove the environment isn't hostile.  Watch any outdoor-stadium NFL game on TV , you'll see an obligatory shot of some super-fan(s) with no shirt and painted chest.  Doesn't mean it's not wicked cold there, just that some individuals can stand it.

I guess they are all holding their breath then.

If you bother to look at https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4498.msg88315#msg88315 you might note that it is not like that all the time at the South Pole.

Robert Scott was there at roughly the same time of the year and his team found it very hostile! I don't see them in shorts!