The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: QED on April 21, 2019, 02:45:37 AM
-
Below is the ice wall picture from the wiki. I am hoping to receive input on whether this is the evidence mentioned for an ice wall existing (from previous threads). I could not find another pic on the wiki for it.
If this is the photo, I would love to ask:
1. How did you acquire it?
2. It appears as those the ice wall borders Antarctica on the coast! Is my interpretation correct?
3. Of the above is true, then this is verifiable information. Ships and planes can verify it without crossing an unknown distance into the continent.
So that it is not misunderstood, I wish to indicate that my queries are genuine, and ones I could not find answers for on the wiki.
I mean in no way, shape, or form to be mocking or insulting with these queries. I do believe their answers to be of high scientific importance.
Although I do err on occasion, it is my intention to keep chicanery limited to AR/CN.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3d/Ice_Wall.jpg)
-
I am hoping to receive input on whether this is the evidence mentioned for an ice wall existing
As per the FAQ, we lend very little credibility to photographs, and I wouldn't call it evidence. A "visual aid" would be a better term. Unfortunately, many of those on the other side of the debate repeatedly demand this photo (or similar ones), so we've included it.
1. How did you acquire it?
I'm not sure. It's been there for the better part of a decade. My suspicion is that it was one of Google search results for what you would call one of the ice shelves. Funnily enough, this has become difficult to verify, since virtually all sources that still host this image are Flat Earth ones, many of which credit us as the source.
2. It appears as those the ice wall borders Antarctica on the coast! Is my interpretation correct?
The words "Antarctica" and "the Ice Wall" are interchangeable. Whether the Ice Wall borders itself is a question I'll leave to theorists and philosophers.
3. Of the above is true, then this is verifiable information. Ships and planes can verify it without crossing an unknown distance into the continent.
Indeed, anyone can witness the Antarctic coast and see that it exists. Many people have done so, which is why visual aids are easily accessible.
-
Below is the ice wall picture from the wiki. I am hoping to receive input on whether this is the evidence mentioned for an ice wall existing (from previous threads). I could not find another pic on the wiki for it.
If this is the photo, I would love to ask:
1. How did you acquire it?
2. It appears as those the ice wall borders Antarctica on the coast! Is my interpretation correct?
3. Of the above is true, then this is verifiable information. Ships and planes can verify it without crossing an unknown distance into the continent.
So that it is not misunderstood, I wish to indicate that my queries are genuine, and ones I could not find answers for on the wiki.
I mean in no way, shape, or form to be mocking or insulting with these queries. I do believe their answers to be of high scientific importance.
Although I do err on occasion, it is my intention to keep chicanery limited to AR/CN.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3d/Ice_Wall.jpg)
That photo is the B-15 Iceberg, which was once the biggest floating object on Earth. It was bigger than Jamaica at one point.
No Ice Wall at sight.
-
I am hoping to receive input on whether this is the evidence mentioned for an ice wall existing
As per the FAQ, we lend very little credibility to photographs, and I wouldn't call it evidence. A "visual aid" would be a better term. Unfortunately, many of those on the other side of the debate repeatedly demand this photo (or similar ones), so we've included it.
1. How did you acquire it?
I'm not sure. It's been there for the better part of a decade. My suspicion is that it was one of Google search results for what you would call one of the ice shelves. Funnily enough, this has become difficult to verify, since virtually all sources that still host this image are Flat Earth ones, many of which credit us as the source.
Well sorry Pete, but rodriados is right. That photo is of the B-15A iceberg, not the Ice Wall. Here's the source: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OperationAntarctica/operationantarctica4.php (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OperationAntarctica/operationantarctica4.php)
This site seems to be as close to the original source as you can get, after perusing the AMRC/AWC iceberg images (the original source), it appears to be gone. How ironic it turns out to be a NASA archive.
-
Pete did not claim this was a picture of the the ice wall, so the rebuttal against him is unfair. He clearly stated that it served as a visual aid and the FES does not lend much credibility to photographs.
Pete: I think I am confused still. It was my understanding that you said photographic evidence exists for the ice wall, and that it was commonly known. I get that this picture is not considered to be that. So I am under the impression that I misunderstood you. Can you confirm whether such pictures FES considers accurate do or do not exist?
If it does exist, I would be grateful for the link.
-
It was my understanding that you said photographic evidence exists for the ice wall, and that it was commonly known.
I don't think I said that. I said that there's an abundance of evidence, and that Antarctica can be plainly seen by anyone who wishes to see it. What I didn't say is that it would take some resources, but I'm sure you'll find it in you to forgive me this logistical omission.
Can you confirm whether such pictures FES considers accurate do or do not exist?
If it does exist, I would be grateful for the link.
Photographs of Antarctica do exist. Since I have personally not taken any, I will not make a personal recommendation. Perhaps in a the distant future, though...
That said, it's interesting to find out that this photograph only represents a former part of the Ice Wall. I would be keen to replace it with a more recent photo of the Ross Ice Shelf proper, but I'll hold back on that until I'm able to acquire one from a source I can trust (in other words, we'll likely be waiting indefinitely)
-
Yes of course. Insisting on it would be pedantic. I simply must have misunderstood your statement, but it is clear now.
I too look forward to a reputable source in the future of any evidence which addresses the ice wall issue. Irrespective of the conclusion.
-
This was discussed a couple of years ago.
That would really depend whether Iceberg B-15A was run aground on November 15th, 2000, the date the picture was taken according to the exif data. If it was run aground or touching the coast in any manner then it can be classified as the coast of Antarctica. According to the wikipedia page (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_B-15) the Iceberg B-15 started cracking/calving in 2000, but B-15A isn't mentioned as drifting away until November 2003. The high altitude picture you provided was taken in 2006.
Since it appears that the Iceberg was still touching Antarctica at the time the picture was taken, the picture stays.
-
it's interesting to find out that this photograph only represents a former part of the Ice Wall.
That’s an interesting turn of phrase.
Former part of the Ice Wall.
I thought in the most common FE model the Ice Wall went all the way around the world. I didn’t think bits of it could randomly break off, doesn’t it keep the oceans in?
-
I didn’t think bits of it could randomly break off, doesn’t it keep the oceans in?
"Randomly"? In this case it was part of a natural cycle, by the looks of it.
Are you telling me, in a world plagued with climate change, that it surprises you that a large iceberg calved from the Ross Ice Shelf? It's probably going to start happening more often, y'know.
-
Are you telling me, in a world plagued with climate change, that it surprises you that a large iceberg calved from the Ross Ice Shelf?
No. I’m telling you that the Ross Ice Shelf isn’t the “Ice Wall” which is commonly claimed to encircle the earth in FE models.
Ross is quoted in your Wiki as stating it to be impassible. But that quote is from the 19th century when he first discovered it.
Roald Amundsen and Scott crossed the shelf to reach the Pole in 1911. It’s just part of Antarctica.
-
No. I’m telling you that the Ross Ice Shelf isn’t the “Ice Wall” which is commonly claimed to encircle the earth in FE models.
Please remember that just stating you think RET is correct is not a useful argument in the upper fora.
-
No. I’m telling you that the Ross Ice Shelf isn’t the “Ice Wall” which is commonly claimed to encircle the earth in FE models.
Please remember that just stating you think RET is correct is not a useful argument in the upper fora.
He has a point though insofar as 'The Ice Wall' wiki page could maybe do with some touchups. I mean like "How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply." Really? There have been literally hundreds of people that have gone past 'The Ice Wall' described by Sir Ross. I mean, you can fall back on 'they're all liars' if the wiki so chooses, or maybe you want to remove Ross' comment to make just what is being reference a bit more vague, but it seems the wiki could do with a bit of assistance in that regard. But I also just don't think the monopole 'model' does FE any favors at this point.
-
No. I’m telling you that the Ross Ice Shelf isn’t the “Ice Wall” which is commonly claimed to encircle the earth in FE models.
Please remember that just stating you think RET is correct is not a useful argument in the upper fora.
As usual you provide no argument at all.
But this is nothing to do with the shape of the earth. Your collective claim is that there is a wall of ice around the flat earth.
But in the Wiki you go on to claim that:
Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall. The 150 foot Ice Wall is on the coast of Antarctica. The Ice Wall is a massive wall of ice that surrounds Antarctica. The shelf of ice is several hundred meters thick. This nearly vertical ice front to the open sea is more than 50 meters high above the water's surface.
The Ice Wall was discovered by Sir James Clark Ross, a British Naval Officer and polar explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the South Magnetic Pole.
You then quote his remark about it being impassable from the mid 19th century and then say:
Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply
...but it's not anyone's guess. Ross might well not have found a way to get past the ice shelf but other people subsequently did.
With its immense, gently undulating surface reaching back nearly 600 miles (950 km) southward into the heart of Antarctica, the Ross Ice Shelf provides the best surface approach into the continental interior. The McMurdo Sound region on the shelf’s western edge thus became the headquarters for Robert F. Scott’s 1911–12 epic sledging trip to the South Pole and also served several Antarctic research programs later in the century. The eastern barrier regions of the ice shelf were headquarters for the Norwegian Roald Amundsen’s first attainment of the South Pole on Dec. 14, 1911; for Richard E. Byrd’s three U.S. expeditions of 1928–41 at Little America I–III stations; and for several subsequent expeditions and research programs.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Ross-Ice-Shelf
Is the FE claim that all of this is fake and part of the big conspiracy? You just have to do a Google image search for "route to the south pole and you'll find loads of images from different expeditions which start at the Ross ice shelf.
None of this proves the earth is a globe, on your Wiki there's a nod to the bi-polar model.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica
Antarctica could well be a continent as claimed and there could also be an ice wall going round a flat earth.
-
As usual you provide no argument at all.
Indeed, that was a moderation comment. It would be unwise to interweave it with an argument.
...but it's not anyone's guess. Ross might well not have found a way to get past the ice shelf but other people subsequently did.
So, you have evidence that people explored beyond the known parts of Antarctica? This is revolutionary stuff.
Of course, that's not what you're saying. You're saying you think Antarctica is as described in RET. I'm sure you understand the futility of just stating that.
-
I see two competing ideas:
1. There is an ice wall, and folks have been there to confirm.
2. There is not an ice wall, and folks have been there to confirm.
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence forthcoming for #1, and Pete has confirmed to me that the picture is meant as a visual aid which he does not believe is literal.
There is evidence for #2, and pictures, videos can be found. There is a laboratory there for cosmic rays. Members of my own family have visited the continent.
I recognize that this evidence is rejected in the current conversation. But I also ask: what is the FE argument? Since no evidence has been presented in this thread yet, only the bare claim exists (#1). In my understanding, a claim must be twinned with evidence to form an argument.
In this fashion, a RE rebuttal which states “what is your argument” is a literal logical challenge quite appropriate and relevant in the present context. A FE rebuttal which states the same does not make sense, because the evidence for the claim has been presented (and rejected - but still presented).
I think it is possible to use logic to aid conflict in arguments, and in the context of the current discussion, it appears relevant for parsing competing ideas about whether the ice wall does or does not exist. Thoughts?
-
What about this?
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacier-processes/glacial-lakes/subglacial-lakes/
There are over 280 mapped subglacial lakes. An abundant number of them occur within the middle of the Antarctic continent. This to me would prove that Antarctica has been explored well enough to determine that it is not an ice wall.
Here are expected FE rebuttals:
1) Mapping of the locations has been changed to fit a globe GPS location.
2) This is fake - or data does not actually exist, or their equipment was measuring something else - along with the location data being wrong or faked.
3) Satellites don't exist (which is commonly turned into - "its all high altitude aerial photography")
4) NASA was mentioned in the article - therefore it is fake, fudged, or intentionally misleading.
-
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence forthcoming for #1, and Pete has confirmed to me that the picture is meant as a visual aid which he does not believe is literal.
There is evidence for #2, and pictures, videos can be found.
It's extremely discourteous of you to apply two different standards of evidence depending on which side you want to support. Either you agree with me that photographic material is not evidence for the purpose of this debate, or you don't. Pick one, and stick with it.
I also never said that "I don't believe for the photographs to be literal", to my knowledge, and frankly I don't see how a photograph could be anything but literal.
-
On the contrary, I enjoy applying equal standards to both sides. Moreover, if you read my reply carefully you may note that I distinguish between evidence and acceptance of it. You have dismissed the RE evidence, as is you prerogative. Also, you indicated that the wiki photo was more of a visual aid than a piece of evidence, and did not think any direct evidence would be forthcoming that you trust in the immediate future. I can quote the sentences in particular if you’d like. Have you changed your mind on this position?
The two options you have provided to me for photographic evidence are not a true dichotomy. There is a third that I see: evaluate each piece of photographic evidence on its own merits, rather than believing all or none. This is the position that I hold.
I have seen photographs of family members on this continent. That is compelling to me. I do apologize for not sharing them with the FES, and would do so if they were not personal information. Of course, I would not expect you to grant any credence to my claim here, I merely am providing an example for what photographic evidence is compelling to me and what is not.
I would consider the wiki picture not compelling, as its origin is in dispute, and appears to be a well-known ice-shelf rather than an ice wall.
-
The two options you have provided to me for photographic evidence are not a true dichotomy. There is a third that I see: evaluate each piece of photographic evidence on its own merits, rather than believing all or none. This is the position that I hold.
Then you disagree with me, and consider photographic material to be evidence, and should be doing so consistently. In that case, you have a whole lot of ice shelf photography to deal with. But that's your problem - you set a silly standard for yourself.
-
The two options you have provided to me for photographic evidence are not a true dichotomy. There is a third that I see: evaluate each piece of photographic evidence on its own merits, rather than believing all or none. This is the position that I hold.
Then you disagree with me, and consider photographic material to be evidence, and should be doing so consistently. In that case, you have a whole lot of ice shelf photography to deal with. But that's your problem - you set a silly standard for yourself.
I do believe I apply it consistently, but am happy to adjust if you are aware of an instance otherwise. I just don’t think that all photographs must necessarily be either good evidence or not evidence. I’d rather assess each piece of evidence separately.
That’s really all, honest. I don’t want to be manipulative or subjective about it. And this seems like the best way to do that.
I just googled flat earth ice wall, and saw a fair amount of returns displaying various walls of ice. I’ll presently be spending some time reviewing them separately, and will pass along any to you that I find interesting (just in case you might also).
-
I do believe I apply it consistently, but am happy to adjust if you are aware of an instance otherwise. I just don’t think that all photographs must necessarily be either good evidence or not evidence. I’d rather assess each piece of evidence separately.
That is the blatantly obvious position for the "photographs are evidence" camp. The question isn't whether all photos are always strong evidence of something, the question is whether they can ever be evidence. Your compatriots, in my mind, showed that they can't - dismissing photographs as CGI before a photograph was even nominated, because it clashed with their worldview. It is therefore my preference to assume, overzealously, that no photographs are good evidence.
You are welcome to disagree with me, but then you have to apply it evenly - thus dismissing my own claim that no photographic evidence of the Ice Wall exists. You can grab any appropriate visual aid and elevate it to evidence status via your own (in my view, misguided) standard. Any photo of the "Ross Ice Shelf" will be a good starting point for your inquiry, but I won't be able to assist you with something I don't myself believe to be meaningful.
-
I do believe I apply it consistently, but am happy to adjust if you are aware of an instance otherwise. I just don’t think that all photographs must necessarily be either good evidence or not evidence. I’d rather assess each piece of evidence separately.
That is the blatantly obvious position for the "photographs are evidence" camp. The question isn't whether all photos are always strong evidence of something, the question is whether they can ever be evidence. Your compatriots, in my mind, showed that they can't - dismissing photographs as CGI before a photograph was even nominated, because it clashed with their worldview. It is therefore my preference to assume, overzealously, that no photographs are good evidence.
You are welcome to disagree with me, but then you have to apply it evenly - thus dismissing my own claim that no photographic evidence of the Ice Wall exists. You can grab any appropriate visual aid and elevate it to evidence status via your own (in my view, misguided) standard. Any photo of the "Ross Ice Shelf" will be a good starting point for your inquiry, but I won't be able to assist you with something I don't myself believe to be meaningful.
I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree here. Sorry we couldn’t see eye-to-eye on this matter. I think the impasse is that you desire all photographs to either be accepted or rejected - because they cannot be trusted to be undoctored or accurate - and this is your standard. My standard is to assess each separately.
So I do believe middle ground can be found whereby we each apply our chosen standards consistently, even though we disagree on what that standard is.
Moving forward, I will do my best to be mindful and respectful of your position on photographs with respect to evidence.
-
I think the impasse is that you desire all photographs to either be accepted or rejected
I explicitly told you this is not the case, and for the avoidance of doubt I am doing so again.
-
So, you have evidence that people explored beyond the known parts of Antarctica? This is revolutionary stuff.
I have evidence that the Ross Ice Shelf is not an impenetrable wall of ice which circles the earth, or part thereof.
I have presented that evidence.
What is your evidence that it is as you claim?
All you have, as far as I can see, is some quote from Ross when he first discovered it.
That quote is not in dispute, but someone discovering something and declaring it to be impassible doesn't negate or make liars of all future expeditions which have found a way to get past it.
Of course, that's not what you're saying. You're saying you think Antarctica is as described in RET. I'm sure you understand the futility of just stating that.
Again, Antarctica being a continent doesn't imply a globe earth. Your own Wiki has a nod to the bi-polar model. I understand that's not a popular model, but some FE people clearly believe it. At times Tom seems to be backing it although he's never very clear on that point.
I'm intrigued how you decide what to believe. You berated someone in this thread for applying different standards of evidence but this is what you seem to be doing here. If you believe in an ice wall which circles a flat earth then I'd ask what evidence you have for that. The evidence presented in the Wiki is done without many references, the main one being to the aforementioned quote from Ross.
My evidence is, admittedly, links to sources. I have no personal experience but, far as I know, neither do you. So on what basis are you deciding what to believe?
-
I have evidence that the Ross Ice Shelf is not an impenetrable wall of ice which circles the earth, or part thereof.
I don't recall ever claiming that the Ice Wall is impenetrable. As for things I actually did say - you don't actually appear to disagree with me. You just need to assert your belonging to a tribe.
That's fine, I've grown to expect that. But I'm not sure how to help you when you're just expressing your indignation while not disagreeing with me.
-
Here’s why I find the wiki (and image) confusing. For instance, is this a direct quote from Ross or some sort of interpretation? Either way, it should be cited, it’s not clear where it came from:
Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally.
How is this known, especially given the above, to TFES:
The Ice Wall is a natural formation, a thick mass of floating ice that is attached to land, formed from and fed by tongues of glaciers extending outward from deep within the uncharted tundra into sheltered waters. Where there are no strong currents, the ice becomes partly grounded on the sea bottom and attaches itself to rocks and islands. The wall is pushed forward into the sea by glacial pressure until its forward growth is terminated.
How is this known to TFES, seemingly stated as factual:
The weight of The Ice Walls are so enormous that they have literally pressed the land two thirds of a mile (one kilometer) into the earth. Under the massive forces of their own weight, the ice walls deform and drag themselves outward.
How is this known to TFES:
Temperatures are thought to approach absolute zero the further one explores outwards. Exploration in this type of pitch black freezing environment is impossible for any man or machine. We live on a vast plane with an unknown diameter and an unknown depth.
-
Why are you conflating things that are "thought to" with "known"?
-
Why are you conflating things that are "thought to" with "known"?
Why are you addressing only the last quote from the wiki stack presented? The middle two are presented as factual and the top one is a quote with no citation. What have you to say to those?
-
Say to what? It's talking about the formation of the ice fronts at the coast of Antarctica.
-
Say to what? It's talking about the formation of the ice fronts at the coast of Antarctica.
Which seemingly require knowledge from beyond the ice fronts. How was this knowledge gained?
"...fed by tongues of glaciers extending outward from deep within the uncharted tundra into sheltered waters. Where there are no strong currents, the ice becomes partly grounded on the sea bottom and attaches itself to rocks and islands. The wall is pushed forward into the sea by glacial pressure until its forward growth is terminated. "
"How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply."
In this case, knowledge is needed of the ground deep underneath. How is this known to FE?
"The weight of The Ice Walls are so enormous that they have literally pressed the land two thirds of a mile (one kilometer) into the earth."
-
It's not "known to FE". How glaciers and ice fronts form is "known". Extensive research has been performed on the fronts of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
-
It's not "known to FE". How glaciers and ice fronts form is "known". Extensive research has been performed on the fronts of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Knowledge of the interior of Antarctica would be required to make some of these claims. According to a remark in the wiki without citation, "Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail".
It seems implausible that we would know how the 'fronts' are formed with no present human experience beyond them. With these inconsistencies it seems dubious to even have an entry on a so-called "ice wall". I'm not sure what point it is trying to make. As it stands, it's really just saying "there are some glaciers, some that are tall."
-
I don't see why people would need to go beyond them to study them. False equivalence. People have been to the glaciers to study them.
-
I don't see why people would need to go beyond them to study them. False equivalence. People have been to the glaciers to study them.
As it stands, I would revise the wiki entry to:
"Antarctica, there are some glaciers, some that are tall, some people have been to glaciers to study them." That's about as grand of a point the wiki is making today. Otherwise, what is the intent of the entry?
-
I have evidence that the Ross Ice Shelf is not an impenetrable wall of ice which circles the earth, or part thereof.
I don't recall ever claiming that the Ice Wall is impenetrable.
You said:
it's interesting to find out that this photograph only represents a former part of the Ice Wall. I would be keen to replace it with a more recent photo of the Ross Ice Shelf proper
So, from that I infer you believe that the Ross Ice Shelf is the "Ice Wall", or part of it - which in the FE model is a wall of ice which goes around the edge of the earth. Your Wiki quotes Ross saying he couldn't get past it and goes on to say:
Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.
So it doesn't sound like you collectively believe that you can get far past it, if at all.
As for things I actually did say - you don't actually appear to disagree with me. You just need to assert your belonging to a tribe.
It's quite hard to determine whether I disagree with you as you so rarely say plainly what you do believe.
But I'm not sure how to help you when you're just expressing your indignation while not disagreeing with me.
You could help me - and help debates on here generally - by plainly stating what you actually believe and what your basis for those beliefs are.
Tom believes a load of rubbish in my opinion but he does at least say what he believes and why he believes it. It moves debate along.
As a society you place great stock in personal observations - which is fine, of course those are always desirable. But they aren't always possible, this is an example.
You've not been to Antarctica - as far as I know - and neither have I. But I have beliefs about it, those are based on various sources of information.
It would be useful to know, for the purposes of this debate, what you do actually believe about Antarctica and/or the Ice Wall and what those beliefs are based on.
-
Its funny that literally no one discusses the fact that we have, at the least, aerial studies of the lake formations under the glaciers all over the entire continent of Antarctica. So you can either address how that is possible if Antarctica is just an ice wall, or you can just say its fake.
-
Its funny that literally no one discusses the fact that we have, at the least, aerial studies of the lake formations under the glaciers all over the entire continent of Antarctica. So you can either address how that is possible if Antarctica is just an ice wall, or you can just say its fake.
You would be correct in making that appraisal.
The Piri Reis map, which I mention in my model (https://yllwchlk.blog/2019/04/06/szion/#worldmap), is striking evidence for the continent's existence, or at least what can be presumed to be Antarctica.
-
Interesting, I have never heard of the Piri Reis map. I will have to do some more research. Thanks.
-
You said:
it's interesting to find out that this photograph only represents a former part of the Ice Wall. I would be keen to replace it with a more recent photo of the Ross Ice Shelf proper
So, from that I infer you believe that the Ross Ice Shelf is the "Ice Wall", or part of it - which in the FE model is a wall of ice which goes around the edge of the earth. Your Wiki quotes Ross saying he couldn't get past it and goes on to say:
Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness.
So it doesn't sound like you collectively believe that you can get far past it, if at all.
None of this gets me any closer to understanding why you think I think the Ice Wall is "impenetrable" - especially when you try to force an equivalence between the Ice Wall and what may or may not lie beyond it. Hopefully the fact that I now told you three times that I don't believe the Ice Wall to be impenetrable will be of some help.
It's quite hard to determine whether I disagree with you as you so rarely say plainly what you do believe.
[...]
You could help me - and help debates on here generally - by plainly stating what you actually believe and what your basis for those beliefs are.
Aside from the personal tone of your message (which I'll gently remind you to avoid), I'm not sure how I could be of more help. I feel like I was quite explicit in what I'm proposing, and when QED tried putting words in my mouth, I was quite clear in my disagreement.
It sounds like you were looking for more detail, but instead of asking questions you opted for a mix of guessing and reading the words of others. I'm still happy to answer questions, but I think you'll find it easier to understand others' positions when you base your understanding only on what they said, and not what you yourself thought up.
I simply can't help you understand my position if you:
- Choose not to state what it is you don't understand.
- Fill the gaps in your understanding with your imagination and then demand that I address it.
-
I'm still happy to answer questions
Super. Here goes then
1) Do you believe there is a wall of ice encircling the earth?
2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?
3) What is your position on the people who have visited the South Pole, the permanent Scott Base which is alleged to be there and the 24 hour sun said to be observed there in their summer?
-
1) Do you believe there is a wall of ice encircling the earth?
Yes. I think this is the fourth or fifth time I'm telling you this. Let me just cut ahead a bit: Yes.
Is it sinking in yet? Is "yes" a vague word to you? If so, is there a language you're more proficient in that I could perhaps try to use?
2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?
It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.
3) What is your position on the people who have visited the South Pole, the permanent Scott Base which is alleged to be there and the 24 hour sun said to be observed there in their summer?
I can't help you with allegations someone else made. You're going to have to ask them.
-
1) Do you believe there is a wall of ice encircling the earth?
Yes. I think this is the fourth or fifth time I'm telling you this. Let me just cut ahead a bit: Yes.
Is it sinking in yet? Is "yes" a vague word to you? If so, is there a language you're more proficient in that I could perhaps try to use?
2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?
It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.
Can or has the wall of ice encircling the earth been observed from the Western, Eastern and Northern hemiplanes, or just the Southern hemiplane?
Is the wall of ice encircling the earth Antarctica or is Antarctica a continent and the ice encircling the earth is distinctly its own thing?
-
Can or has the wall of ice encircling the earth been observed from the Western, Eastern and Northern hemiplanes, or just the Southern hemiplane?
East/west should have little bearing on how far south you are. Other than this small correction: I don't know.
Is the wall of ice encircling the earth Antarctica or is Antarctica a continent and the ice encircling the earth is distinctly its own thing?
I don't understand this question, or where it's coming from. I already said (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14505.msg190271#msg190271) that Antarctica and the Ice Wall are different terms for the same thing. I maintain that questions like "Is Antarctica encircling Antarctica?" or "Are Antarctica and Antarctica distinct things?" are best left to philosophers.
-
Is the wall of ice encircling the earth Antarctica or is Antarctica a continent and the ice encircling the earth is distinctly its own thing?
I don't understand this question, or where it's coming from. I already said (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14505.msg190271#msg190271) that Antarctica and the Ice Wall are different terms for the same thing. I maintain that questions like "Is Antarctica encircling Antarctica?" or "Are Antarctica and Antarctica distinct things?" are best left to philosophers.
I was thinking about the mono-pole v Bi-Polar models. The former, Antarctica is the wall of ice encircling the earth. In the latter, Antarctica is a defined landmass unto itself and perhaps there is a separate wall of ice encircling all 7 continents.
-
Fair enough, my apologies. In that case: I don't support the bipolar model. Antarctica is the Ice Wall
-
Fair enough, my apologies. In that case: I don't support the bipolar model. Antarctica is the Ice Wall
I should have explained where I was coming from. Got it. Cool, thanks.
-
2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?
It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.
See, this is where I don't understand how your mind works.
Far as I know you haven't seen Antarctica personally. Neither have I.
So we are relying on things other people say and photographs. Which is fine. That's how we all decide what to believe about most things.
I've not been to space. I've not been to Antarctica. So my knowledge about those things relies on other people. It has to.
The things they've seen, their accounts of those things, the photo and video they've taken.
What else is there to go on unless we've witnessed things ourselves?
So your basis for belief in an ice wall which encircles the flat earth is other people's accounts of seeing it, photos of it and agreement about it's elevation (not quite clear what you mean by that but the south pole is at altitude). So far, so fine. But are you ignoring videos like this which claim to show a 24 hour sun at the south pole?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY
Or this video of people who visited the pole:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4V5PYO9wWw
Which you can through this site:
https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/
It'll cost ya, but it's not millions of dollars like trips into space are right now. Fairly wealthy people who are interested enough could do this.
I don't know what you mean by "I can't help you with allegations someone else made". Your evidence for an ice wall is "allegations someone else made". Other people saying they saw it or showing photos of it. If those are part of your basis for belief - which is fairly reasonable, as I said, we can't all pop down to the South Pole any time we feel like it - then you can't dismiss evidence like the above. Or this circumnavigation via both Poles:
http://transglobe-expedition.org/expedition/
Every launch of a satellite or person into space and every expedition across the south pole is a chance for you to examine your beliefs. The video of a 24 sun going round Antarctica isn't possible in your FE model. It's lazy to just dismiss any evidence like this and inconsistent to do so while accepting photos and people claiming to have seen the ice wall as evidence of your beliefs. You must have some opinion about these things - if these things are as claimed then your beliefs are wrong so don't you think it's worth considering?
-
I would just like to contribute a nominal point. It is not prohibitively expensive see Antarctica. You can book “cruises” that leave New Zealand and visit there. Passengers do not get to leave the ship, but they do enjoy direct sights of the beauty along the coast of the continent. Members of my extended family have done this (they are well off, but not insanely rich) and brought back gorgeous photographs (one of them is an amateur photographer, so has a nice camera). It is clearly evident to me from those photographs that there is no ice wall surrounding Antarctica.
I suppose my family could be involved in the conspiracy...I dunno, I feel at some point reason should win out here.
-
Far as I know you haven't seen Antarctica personally. Neither have I.
And I'm not sure how you got that from my statements. I can only surmise you haven't read them.
It is clearly evident to me from those photographs that there is no ice wall surrounding Antarctica.
For the avoidance of doubt, as was previously made clear to you: No one is proposing that the Ice Wall (aka Antarctica) is surrounding Antarctica (aka the Ice Wall). I'm not interested in a metaphysical discussion about whether the continent surrounds itself.
-
Peter, do you want to address the subglacial lakes that have been found using aerial and satellite radio echo sounding? Specifically, how their locations could be misconstrued and placed on a continent that is not strung out around the entire circumference of the earth, but rather that they are on a continent on the south pole? So far, I have knocked on the FE door and no one seems to be home. Everyone wants to play semantics games over something that has no bearing on reality.
-
Agreed, let’s leave that to the philosophers. From the photographs they showed fro their trip, however, there is simply no wall there. No towering ledge. Penguins were shown to be resting in the continential shore, and swimming in the water.
Thus, in absence of qualities that I associate with a wall, I am inclined to just call it Antarctica. Now, as you have previously stated, you believe them to be one and the same.
So my question becomes: do you still believe in Antarctica if it does not have the shape of a wall? And if so, why preserve the “wall” terminology? What purpose does that serve?
-
Agreed, let’s leave that to the philosophers. From the photographs they showed fro their trip, however, there is simply no wall there. No towering ledge.
Ah, you take the 19th century name far too literally. Parts of the Ice Wall (say, the Ross Ice Shelf) do resemble a wall, but the suggestion is not that the continent is some dramatic towering ledge that spans the circumference of the known Earth with no exception.
There's an aspect of convenience in naming things, and accuracy often makes way to brevity. The Round Earth Theory does not propose that the Earth is a literal sphere, much like the Flat Earth Theory does not propose a perfectly flat, smooth surface. And yet we call it Flat Earth, and your brethren will often say "the Earth is spherical"
So my question becomes: do you still believe in Antarctica if it does not have the shape of a wall? And if so, why preserve the “wall” terminology? What purpose does that serve?
Hopefully the first part of the question has been addressed above - let me know if not. As for preservation of terminology: Why do we stick to any convention? Why is the conventional flow of electric current going "the wrong way"? Why does America persist on using a different unit system from most of the world? People dislike change for various reasons: convenience, sometimes cost, sometimes it's about remaining consistent with past sources. I suppose it would be a combination of convenience and consistency. If we abandoned the name "Ice Wall" altogether, we'd have to explain it every time Rowbotham or Voliva are brought up anyway. There'd be no benefit to omitting it.
Peter, do you want to address the subglacial lakes that have been found using aerial and satellite radio echo sounding? Specifically, how their locations could be misconstrued and placed on a continent that is not strung out around the entire circumference of the earth, but rather that they are on a continent on the south pole?
Sorry, I only tend to deal with issues I experienced, and will not speculate on something I don't know much about and have no evidence for.
-
That’s a fair and reasonable justification. I do maintain that the responsibility is upon FES then to explain this convention and the non-literal historical context so it is not misinterpreted. Much like physicists bear responsibility regarding the direction of current.
-
Yes, that much is fair.
-
Far as I know you haven't seen Antarctica personally. Neither have I.
And I'm not sure how you got that from my statements. I can only surmise you haven't read them.
I asked you what your beliefs about Antarctica are based on. You said:
It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.
You didn't explicitly say you have seen it. That seems like quite the omission and would surely be part of your basis for belief had you done so.
That's how I got that from your statements. If your comment "It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane" is based on you personally having done so then I misunderstood - that statement doesn't necessarily mean that you have personally seen it. But fine. Let's say you have. The fact that Antarctica exists and is south of land-masses in the southern hemisphere is not in dispute (apart from the sphere bit). What is in dispute is that it circles the flat earth rather being the southern continent on a globe.
Unless you have explored Antarctica extensively yourself your evidence for it circling the earth is the things you list - other people's allegations, other people's photos.
Evidence you don't want to express an opinion about when it comes to evidence which shows Antarctica to be a continent.
Ironic that later in this thread you go on to say:
I only tend to deal with issues I experienced, and will not speculate on something I don't know much about and have no evidence for.
Unless you have experienced Antarctica you are speculating on something you don't know much about.
As am I of course, as I said I have not been to Antarctica or even seen it from afar. But I am at least consistent in acknowledging that quite regularly I have to form beliefs about things I have not personally witnessed or explored, as do we all.
It is logically inconsistent of you to call some evidence "hypothetical" or "other people's allegations" when it doesn't tally with your world view and accept it as evidence when it does.
For someone who regularly says you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong about the shape of the earth you don't seem to be making much effort to find out if you are.
In the AR thread ChrisTP mentioned the sailing race around Antarctica. Your response was:
how do you suppose people go about their boat race around the relatively small continent compared to what you'd think is a boat race around the entire outer edge of the earth?
That's a nice hypothetical you've got there. Have you considered asking the people who made this claim?
To which my response is: Have you considered asking them?
Here's a website about the race:
http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/
If you're open to the possibility you may be wrong is this not the sort of thing worth investigating? You can't just bat that back to RE - the existence of this race does not challenge our beliefs. It does yours. Well, it's not the existence of the race itself, more the length of it and the way ships would have to be navigating.
From that site:
A non-stop race of around 14,000 nautical miles – circumnavigating Antarctica
Does that length tally with a circumnavigation around the Ice Wall in your model? If Antarctica were an Ice Wall then with it on your right you'd be going round it in an anti-clockwise direction, if it's a continent then with it on your right you'd be going clockwise, which is what they do according to the map on that site.
You're a fairly prominent FE spokesman, is it not worth reaching out to these guys? Things like this are opportunities for you to challenge your beliefs, as is every rocket launch and every Antarctic expedition and film of 24 hour daylight in Antarctica. Are you not interested in doing that?
-
Unless you have experienced Antarctica you are speculating on something you don't know much about.
Congratulations. One day you might put two and two together. I'll be there to cheer you on.
To which my response is: Have you considered asking them?
Why would I? It's not my question.
You're a fairly prominent FE spokesman, is it not worth reaching out to these guys? Things like this are opportunities for you to challenge your beliefs, as is every rocket launch and every Antarctic expedition and film of 24 hour daylight in Antarctica. Are you not interested in doing that?
Not particularly - it wouldn't provide me with any knowledge I'm not already satisfied with. It sounds like you have something you'd like to find out (though you really struggle to put it into words), so it may be a good idea for you to do pursue. Best of luck.
-
To which my response is: Have you considered asking them?
Why would I? It's not my question.
I'm suggesting it should be your question. Why would you? Because if you are genuine in your declaration that you may be wrong in your beliefs then the way of exploring that is to engage with people whose experiences challenge those beliefs. I know you rate personal observation highly and that in general is a reasonable stance. But we can't all go to space, we can't all sail around Antarctica much less trek across it. Quite often we have to base our beliefs on other people's experience and evidence.
If you feel your FE model explains 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica and the boat race round the coast of it (again, it's the distance of that race and the direction they're going in a circle which would challenge your beliefs) then fair enough but the model as outlined in the Wiki wouldn't explain that. Or maybe I'm not understanding that model correctly. So let me ask you a couple of more direct questions:
1) Can you explain how in your FE model there could be 24 hour sunlight going around Antarctica? As in, it circles your viewpoint from Antarctica as shown in the video I posted previously.
2) Could you sail a 14,000 mile route around Antarctica in your model as this race claims to do?
-
I'm suggesting it should be your question.
Thank you for your suggestion, but I currently have more urgent priorities, and your suggestion would not provide me with any knowledge I don't already have. My counter-suggestion is that, since you seem quite interested in the subject, you should be the one pursuing it. Demanding that others prioritise your whims when you're not willing to put in any work is very unconvincing.
-
I'm suggesting it should be your question.
Thank you for your suggestion, but I currently have more urgent priorities, and your suggestion would not provide me with any knowledge I don't already have. My counter-suggestion is that, since you seem quite interested in the subject, you should be the one pursuing it. Demanding that others prioritise your whims when you're not willing to put in any work is very unconvincing.
Demanding and suggesting have very different meanings.
Are you going to answer my direct questions? You suggested earlier in the thread that you would answer direct questions if asked.
-
Demanding and suggesting have very different meanings.
Indeed - hence the utmost importance of pointing out that your "demanding that others prioritise your whims when you're not willing to put in any work is very unconvincing." To do anything else would be to allow you to blend the two words together into a meaningless wordy goop. We won't be having that :)
Are you going to answer my direct questions? You suggested earlier in the thread that you would answer direct questions if asked.
I also explained that I wouldn't be defending hypothetical fantasies. But, of course, you knew that already :)
-
Demanding and suggesting have very different meanings.
Indeed - hence the utmost importance of pointing out that your "demanding that others prioritise your whims when you're not willing to put in any work is very unconvincing."
But I didn't demand, did I? I suggested. I made that very clear. You obviously understood that because you repeated my word "suggestion" twice in your response and then randomly switched to the word "demanding" which has a very different meaning and is very clearly not what I said or meant.
Elsewhere you have called people liars for misrepresenting your posts even if they have done so unintentionally. I won't do the same to you here but you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said - it must be deliberate because I picked you up on it and you have responded by repeating your misrepresentation. I wonder why.
My gentle suggestion was and remains that engaging with people whose experiences challenge your beliefs is a useful way of validating and testing those beliefs. You have the FE profile to do so.
If you don't want to then that's fine. Puzzling, and calls into question the assertion in your Wiki that FE Theory is "hungry for truth and eager for discovery", but entirely up to you.
I also explained that I wouldn't be defending hypothetical fantasies.
Really? You spend a lot of time defending the flat earth...
But my direct questions aren't asking you to defend anything, they are just asking to clarify your FE beliefs as there are often differences between different FE models. UA and EA are not universally accepted, for example. The unipolar model seems to be most popular but there is a nod to the bipolar model in the Wiki. So it's reasonable to ask individuals where they stand on certain FE topics.
My direct questions again are:
1) Could there be 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica in your model, as in could it circle around you over the course of a day?
2) Could you sail a 14,000 mile route around Antarctica in your model as this race claims to do?
I have rephrased the first of those but it is essentially the same question.
Both are fairly simple yes/no questions although "I don't know" would be a reasonable answer to either.
I look forward to your answers.
-
But I didn't demand, did I? I suggested. I made that very clear.
Ah, but actions speak louder than words. You made your "suggestion", it was rejected... and then you made it again, and again, and then some more. That's a demand, regardless of how much the lady doth protest.
I also explained that I wouldn't be defending hypothetical fantasies.
Really? You spend a lot of time defending the flat earth...
Right. I tried politely reminding you that shitposting in the upper is a no-no. Come back in a week, hopefully with a better clarity of things that have already been explained to you at length.