Antarctica is just an ice wall with only minor rock outcrops (source:fes wiki)?
I'm not convinced that the Wiki says that. All I can see is a breakdown of the Antarctic coastline (which appears to be consistent with RET).
I know I'm being pedantic, but all the Wiki shows is a
tiny fraction of the Antarctic coastline. Of course the Wiki is consistent with RET, because that's what the video and photograph shows, the real Antarctic ice shelf. However, it doesn't talk about the length of the coastline or the area of the land mass or the continent/ring contradiction (which admittedly is mentioned in the Antarctica Wiki). Whether or not you choose to believe the topological surveillance and measurements, the Antarctic has a measured
coastline of 33,000 miles including the ice sheet, with a measured
area of 5.5 million square miles. This is not theory, I hope we can agree?
I'm not saying FET says it
should have the same length coastline, but if it did, the ice wall/sheet would have to extend approximately 7,200 miles inland, giving it a surface area of over 400 million square miles. This would leave an occupied area in the middle of the Earth of roughly 10,600 miles in diameter. There are cities on Earth that are more than 10,600 miles apart, so this suggests that under FET, the Antarctic must have a much longer coastline than we actually measure, and indeed it does if you look at the flat Earth maps. I know the maps are just representative, but if that's all we have to go on then so be it, but based on the Azimuthal Polar Projection map that seems popular, Antarctica would have a coastline in excess of 70,000 miles, closer to 78,000 miles depending on how wide the ice sheet is. This is within the known Earth, so if it is over 70,000 miles, why has this not been verified?
Fossils are mostly fiction. This is important to understand. The natural museum of history is a taxidermy and sculpture museum - no science takes place there nor are fossils good evidence of anything beyond swift cataclysm.
The process of interpreting a dead animal from a few bone fragments (we virtually never find more than 10% of a fossilized animal) is art - not science.
I somewhat disagree with that statement. Art is subjective, science is objective. Taking some bones from an animal and piecing them together doesn't just take place in isolation, it happens in the context of other knowledge and reference material from decades of discovery. Of course there has to come a point where some artistic license is applied, but that shouldn't undermine the science that preceded it, in my opinion anyway.
The notion that fossils are
mostly fiction is an interesting one though. I assume from your comments that you do believe in the process itself of fossilisation? If so, I'd love to understand why it's mostly fiction. Is it a case that you accept some fossils as real because you know and recognise those animals, but choose to reject the ones where such proposed animals no longer exist? I know I'm relatively new here and I don't want to come across as anything other than curious and wanting to understand more about flat Earth theory and the views that people have in relation to it and related conspiracies.