*

Offline alex

  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Always Curious
    • View Profile
South Pole
« on: May 19, 2015, 10:47:37 AM »
I have one more question:

Does the South Pole exists in the flat earth theory?

If not, what about the people claiming to have been to the South Pole? Do the all deliberately lie on behalf of a great conspiracy?

*

Offline Hoppy

  • *
  • Posts: 1149
  • Posts 6892
    • View Profile
Re: South Pole
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2015, 01:05:03 PM »
I have one more question:

Does the South Pole exists in the flat earth theory?

If not, what about the people claiming to have been to the South Pole? Do the all deliberately lie on behalf of a great conspiracy?
They were either lieing or mistaken about where they were.
God is real.

*

Offline alex

  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Always Curious
    • View Profile
Re: South Pole
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2015, 01:09:45 PM »
So the South Pole does not exist in FET? It would be great if I could get a definite 'yes' or 'no' or 'unknown' from the FES community...
« Last Edit: May 22, 2015, 01:27:36 PM by alex »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12877
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: South Pole
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2015, 03:54:55 PM »
What exactly do you mean by "the South Pole"?

This should help you get started: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_(disambiguation)
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline alex

  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Always Curious
    • View Profile
Re: South Pole
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2015, 04:42:19 PM »
I am referring to the southernmost point on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole

*

Offline xasop

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6650
  • Professional computer somebody
    • View Profile
Re: South Pole
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2015, 08:46:11 AM »
I am referring to the southernmost point on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole

Then no, because south does not converge on a point in FET, at least according to the most widely accepted map of the Flat Earth. It is possible, of course, to construct a map of a Flat Earth such that there does exist such a point, and given that nobody has yet accurately mapped the Earth, it is impossible to give you a definitive answer.
when you try to mock anyone while also running the flat earth society. Lol

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12877
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: South Pole
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2015, 04:17:03 PM »
However, the place commonly believed to be the South Pole does exist. It's just that its description as "the southernmost point on Earth" is not applicable.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2015, 01:52:54 PM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2015, 04:03:48 PM »
I am referring to the southernmost point on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole

Then no, because south does not converge on a point in FET, at least according to the most widely accepted map of the Flat Earth. It is possible, of course, to construct a map of a Flat Earth such that there does exist such a point, and given that nobody has yet accurately mapped the Earth, it is impossible to give you a definitive answer.
Where is the most widely accepted map and how has it been verified?

*

Offline LuggerSailor

  • *
  • Posts: 42
  • 12 men on the Moon, 11 of them Scouts.
    • View Profile
Re: South Pole
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2015, 05:31:20 PM »
You'd think that polar explorers trying to ascertain the position of the Geographic South Pole would have noticed the sun not appearing to rotate around their position;

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090921065737AApFBeH



LuggerSailor.
Sailor and Navigator.

*

Offline Excelsior John

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Excelsior! Flat Earth
Re: South Pole
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2015, 02:07:20 AM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Viva la FES!
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham link=https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59968.msg1544396#msg1544396
Excelsior:...You are clearly a reasonable and intelligent person.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2015, 06:23:50 AM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Spellcheck please.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2015, 09:07:09 AM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2015, 09:35:29 AM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2015, 11:23:42 AM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2015, 11:48:22 AM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2015, 12:28:14 PM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2015, 01:05:08 PM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S

*

Offline Excelsior John

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • Excelsior! Flat Earth FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Excelsior! Flat Earth
Re: South Pole
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2015, 01:15:24 PM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Spellcheck please.
No low content posting plese!

According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
And just why exacley is spaceflite imposibel in the duel earth thoery? All you have do to is make a rockit ship go boom and flys into the sky! So plese tell me o wise won (sarcasim obvz)!
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
Exacley! You can take your telascope owtside and see the sattalites for shentons sake!!! The conspiracey is just a flippin mith and shows the apitame of ignorence. Even are societys fownder amitid that the photos were reel when he said "It's easy to see how a photograph like that could fool an untrained eye"!
Viva la FES!
Quote from: Yaakov ben Avraham link=https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59968.msg1544396#msg1544396
Excelsior:...You are clearly a reasonable and intelligent person.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2015, 01:46:01 PM »
According to my Dual Earth model of a flat Earth, both the North and South poles may exist as distinct points. This is not the classical Flat Earth model, it should be said, but Flat Earth theory does not inherently contradict the notion of two poles.
Exacley. The monopoler theorey is onley beleived by ignorent peopel who know nuthing abowt gealigey. Besides photos from space show that antartica doesent circel round the earth. Tis comon sense.
Photos from space are well-known to be faked. There are entire sites dedicated to showing that and sharing that knowledge (further, spaceflight is impossible under the dual earth model: providing a shared motive, no one wants to be the first space agency to admit failure).
Are you OK with the concept of satellites for broadcasting, communication and location information?
They are not satellites. Something does not need to be in space in order to transmit radio waves.
The existence of A does not prove the non-existence of B.  Satellite TV and GPS work with satellites.  Prove otherwise with verified details.  My TV dish points into the sky to the same object as a dish 500 miles away.
You're the one claiming that apparently TV and GPS can tell whether or not a signal comes from space. Quite amazing that radio predates space travel, if that's the only possible way to send a signal. You're the one claiming necessity: that needs to be proven, and given it's verifiably not true...
Also, please show a) your TV dish is pointing at the exact same object, b) that it may only receive signals if it is at a very specific angle, and c) please also give the angle that your dish and the far dish are at. After all, with no curvature, simple math gives that the object they point to will be lower down, than it would be if pointed to by two objects on a curved surface.
You should try aligning a dish. 

This is a recognised accurate alignment tool - http://www.dishpointer.com/  Show it is wrong.

Could you give the location of eg.  119W DIRECTV 7S
You haven't responded to a single point I made. Try again. Ideally, with more than assertion, and an actual explanation.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.