In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.
So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?
I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.
Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.
In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.
So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?
I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.
Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.
Hopefully, some flat earther will fill you in on the details, but this is what I have read .:
There seem to be differences of opinion amongst flat earthers.
Some say it is a wall of ice 150 feet high. The circumference would have to be about 80,000 miles.
Some say there is land of an infinite distance beyond the ice wall.
Some say it is guarded by NASA agents. But since this is of recently, no information who guarded it before NASA.
Some say there was no need to guard it until recently.
No one has seen it except Rowbotham, who described it in his "Earth Not A Globe." Nor has it been photographed.
The ice ring seems to be based on the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, which some say is a flat earth map, with Antarctica shown as a ring due to the extreme distortion south of the equator.
The Bipolar Projection is even more distorted. It shows Antarctica as a continent. There is no ice ring shown. The oceans are held in because the water at the edge is frozen because they are so far from the warming rays of the sun.
Some say there is no flat earth map.
Some say there has been work on a flat earth map, but it has never been completed.
These are just a few of the things I have read. Maybe an expert from the FES will offer corrections or additions.
I am posting this in the hope of prompting them to do so.
In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.
So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?
I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.
Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.
Hopefully, some flat earther will fill you in on the details, but this is what I have read .:
There seem to be differences of opinion amongst flat earthers.
Some say it is a wall of ice 150 feet high. The circumference would have to be about 80,000 miles.
Some say there is land of an infinite distance beyond the ice wall.
Some say it is guarded by NASA agents. But since this is of recently, no information who guarded it before NASA.
Some say there was no need to guard it until recently.
No one has seen it except Rowbotham, who described it in his "Earth Not A Globe." Nor has it been photographed.
The ice ring seems to be based on the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, which some say is a flat earth map, with Antarctica shown as a ring due to the extreme distortion south of the equator.
The Bipolar Projection is even more distorted. It shows Antarctica as a continent. There is no ice ring shown. The oceans are held in because the water at the edge is frozen because they are so far from the warming rays of the sun.
Some say there is no flat earth map.
Some say there has been work on a flat earth map, but it has never been completed.
These are just a few of the things I have read. Maybe an expert from the FES will offer corrections or additions.
I am posting this in the hope of prompting them to do so.
Quite the list of disparate theories. Of particular interest is Rowbotham and his apparent witnessing of the wall. He wasn't stopped by guards?
But everyone afterwards would be.
Hmm.
Anyone care to elucidate?
In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.
So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?
I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.
Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.
Hopefully, some flat earther will fill you in on the details, but this is what I have read .:
There seem to be differences of opinion amongst flat earthers.
Some say it is a wall of ice 150 feet high. The circumference would have to be about 80,000 miles.
Some say there is land of an infinite distance beyond the ice wall.
Some say it is guarded by NASA agents. But since this is of recently, no information who guarded it before NASA.
Some say there was no need to guard it until recently.
No one has seen it except Rowbotham, who described it in his "Earth Not A Globe." Nor has it been photographed.
The ice ring seems to be based on the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, which some say is a flat earth map, with Antarctica shown as a ring due to the extreme distortion south of the equator.
The Bipolar Projection is even more distorted. It shows Antarctica as a continent. There is no ice ring shown. The oceans are held in because the water at the edge is frozen because they are so far from the warming rays of the sun.
Some say there is no flat earth map.
Some say there has been work on a flat earth map, but it has never been completed.
These are just a few of the things I have read. Maybe an expert from the FES will offer corrections or additions.
I am posting this in the hope of prompting them to do so.
Quite the list of disparate theories. Of particular interest is Rowbotham and his apparent witnessing of the wall. He wasn't stopped by guards?
But everyone afterwards would be.
Hmm.
Anyone care to elucidate?
Good question. I haven't read any explanation for that. Maybe there just weren't any guards in Rowbotham's time ?
Rowbotham also said something like, "Beyond the wall is a land which stretches out to infinity, of darkness, howling winds and frigid temperatures." Maybe not his exact words, but something like that.
I am also wondering how he could see to infinity if it was so dark and cold with the howling winds ?
I probably should have stayed out of this. FES doesn't like for outsiders to speak for them.
FES...A little help, please ?
In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.
So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?
I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.
Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.
Hopefully, some flat earther will fill you in on the details, but this is what I have read .:
There seem to be differences of opinion amongst flat earthers.
Some say it is a wall of ice 150 feet high. The circumference would have to be about 80,000 miles.
Some say there is land of an infinite distance beyond the ice wall.
Some say it is guarded by NASA agents. But since this is of recently, no information who guarded it before NASA.
Some say there was no need to guard it until recently.
No one has seen it except Rowbotham, who described it in his "Earth Not A Globe." Nor has it been photographed.
The ice ring seems to be based on the Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection, which some say is a flat earth map, with Antarctica shown as a ring due to the extreme distortion south of the equator.
The Bipolar Projection is even more distorted. It shows Antarctica as a continent. There is no ice ring shown. The oceans are held in because the water at the edge is frozen because they are so far from the warming rays of the sun.
Some say there is no flat earth map.
Some say there has been work on a flat earth map, but it has never been completed.
These are just a few of the things I have read. Maybe an expert from the FES will offer corrections or additions.
I am posting this in the hope of prompting them to do so.
Quite the list of disparate theories. Of particular interest is Rowbotham and his apparent witnessing of the wall. He wasn't stopped by guards?
But everyone afterwards would be.
Hmm.
Anyone care to elucidate?
Good question. I haven't read any explanation for that. Maybe there just weren't any guards in Rowbotham's time ?
Rowbotham also said something like, "Beyond the wall is a land which stretches out to infinity, of darkness, howling winds and frigid temperatures." Maybe not his exact words, but something like that.
I am also wondering how he could see to infinity if it was so dark and cold with the howling winds ?
I probably should have stayed out of this. FES doesn't like for outsiders to speak for them.
FES...A little help, please ?
Beyond the wall? I thought that wasn't possible.
And as I said before, the Knights of the Flat Earth are suspiciously absent outside the "no scientists allowed" zone.
They fear what they don't understand.
And as such, their cause dies in darkness against the onslaught of reason.
In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.I hate it when I try to cross the Ice Wall then get assassinated by the UN SS Death Squad.
So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?
I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.
Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.
And I've been thinking all along that it was NASA ? .....Those old evil, satanic, satan worshipping pagan devils ?In the Flat Earth theory, the world is ringed by a giant wall of ice. It cannot be traversed and anyone who approaches it is met by resistance from a conspiratorial border patrol.I hate it when I try to cross the Ice Wall then get assassinated by the UN SS Death Squad.
So what are the dimensions of this ice wall that surrounds the disc?
Has anyone circumnavigated it?
If not, how has its coastline been drawn on Flat Earth maps?
Also if not, how do we know it is contiguous around the entire circumference?
I'd love to talk to someone who has actually seen it too.
Stay scientific - government conspiracies aside, if one is going to assert it is there then it must have been observed somehow.
There's a huge hole in the theory leaking over here, guys. Somebody come plug it or your story really won't hold water anymore!
I asked this question on another thread. :
Just what and where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
I asked this question on another thread. :
Just what and where is the horizon on a flat earth ?
Hi there. Please refrain from off topic posting. You're stilling spamming the same thing. This is the only warning I'll give you, next one is a month ban.
I would just like to get an answer. That's all.
There's a huge hole in the theory leaking over here, guys. Somebody come plug it or your story really won't hold water anymore!
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
Watch, he'll ban me without responding to the question.
Watch, he'll ban me without responding to the question.
I probably would. There is an appropriate place to address issues with moderation, and there's a reason it's against the rules to do so within the middle of a thread. Although if your only issue is that he didn't contribute to the discussion it's far from a valid concern. As a moderator it's his duty to moderate appropriately whether he has something relevant to contribute to a thread or not.
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
Where is it?
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
Where is it?
I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ, wiki, and searching the forum. It's obvious you don't have a grasp on the concept, yet you don't mind displaying your ignorance and complaining about it.
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
Where is it?
I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ, wiki, and searching the forum. It's obvious you don't have a grasp on the concept, yet you don't mind displaying your ignorance and complaining about it.
The first sign that the wiki, the FAQ or the other boards don't stand up to scrutiny, the Flat Earth proponents respond with "well I don't believe what it says there anyway"
You can't have it both ways.
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
The Horizon, as brought up by gecko, is in fact perfectly in line with this - With no horizon, the wall should be clearly visible in clear condiitons from the outer latitudes. The atmosphere's transparency or lack thereof would mean the horizon would fade out to nothing before we could ever observe a meeting point between earth and sky. Since this is not the case, the wall should be visible on the horizon.
Where is it?
I was on topic until you guys rolled around - The Wall is an unsubstantiated theory that has no observable evidence that any Flat Earth theorist can put forward.
Where is it?
I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ, wiki, and searching the forum. It's obvious you don't have a grasp on the concept, yet you don't mind displaying your ignorance and complaining about it.
The first sign that the wiki, the FAQ or the other boards don't stand up to scrutiny, the Flat Earth proponents respond with "well I don't believe what it says there anyway"
You can't have it both ways.
I believe that junker instructed you to those sources to get a better a grasp on the basic concepts, so that you can better debate with us, not to believe it.
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.
An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.
An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
Except for the coastline segments that have no ice.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/soils-and-landscapes/antarctic-soils
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.
An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
And the fact that the bipolar model necessitates the sun taking a figure 8 path to fit observed fact is... an inconvenience?
It still doesn't explain why it is unobservable from, well, anywhere. At all.
Or is that because of the guards?
So what is the norm?Except for the coastline segments that have no ice.
http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/science/soils-and-landscapes/antarctic-soils
It says in the very first sentence of the link that those types of coast are not the norm.
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.
An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
And the fact that the bipolar model necessitates the sun taking a figure 8 path to fit observed fact is... an inconvenience?
It still doesn't explain why it is unobservable from, well, anywhere. At all.
Or is that because of the guards?
I find the figure 8 path to be very convenient. The figure 8 shape is also seen in the sun'a analemma.
So what is the norm?
The analemma is measured over the course of a whole year - the figure 8 needed to explain the bipolar model is traced over a single day.
The two have exactly nothing to do with each other.
So what is the norm?
Read the wiki article (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall) I linked. There is a source at the bottom which shows that there are walls of ice which comprise 95% of encounters of the Antarctic coast by frequency.QuoteThe analemma is measured over the course of a whole year - the figure 8 needed to explain the bipolar model is traced over a single day.
The two have exactly nothing to do with each other.
That is not correct, it wouldn't make figure 8's every day under that model. In the Bi-Polar model the sun makes North-South and South-North movements between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. It would be circling the Northern Hemiplane for part of the year when it is warm in the North and cold in the South, and then it would switch gears and circle the Southern Hemiplane for the remainder of the year when it is cold in the North and warm in the South. The figure 8 takes place over the course of the year, just like in the sun's analemma.
So let me get this straight - the sun circles the northern like for one half of the year, describing circles in the sky over a localised point away from the southern countries.
It then, like clockwork, shifts to a similar track around the southern pole, describing the same circles in the opposite direction, going west to east in the sky.
Of course, it could keep going in the same direction, but that would mean that half way through the day, it would stop in the sky and go retrograde at the equinox, signalling the shift from summer to winter in the north and vice versa in the south.
It would also mean that the sun would never be overhead in the northern latitudes in southern summer - and this would happen abruptly one day when the sun just "changed gears"
The subsequent ellipses drawn in the southern sky would make it draw little, flat rings, never reaching the eastern or western points at higher latitudes or, in the northwestern or northeastern latitudes, these circles would be in the eastern or western sky respectively.
I... I don't even. I just can't. If it weren't so painful it would be funny.
Do you read your posts aloud before sending them? You probably should. A pen and paper might help too so you can draw some diagrams of the ridiculous claims made by your models.
The motion of the sun is the single greatest hole in the Flat Earth theory and your attempts to plug it are only making it exponentially larger with every post.
Incidentally, those walls of ice encountered at the Antarctic coast are the Antarctic fucking coast, not some unsubstantiated ice wall that has never been measured, circumnavigated or even witnessed. As soon as someone has been around the whole thing and confirmed that it is the contiguous ring of ice, then as far as the rest of the world is concerned it is complete fantasy.
Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.
Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.
And brought back nothing in the way of actual proof, didn't go all the way around or try and go over it.
On top of that, not a single record exists of a pilot, navigator or even an amateur or proponent of the ice wall theory ever going there after this initial claim.
There. Is. No. Proof.
If there is, submit it.
Photography, ice samples, a single even vaguely accurate map of what it actually looks like instead of a polar projection of the Antarctic coast wrapped around a circle.
No single modern explorer with the wonders of technology given to us has ever substantiated the Ice Wall theory, no matter which side of the debate they are on.
It is fantasy.
Who said that no one has ever been to the Antarctic coast to encounter or witness it? I'm pretty sure our wiki says that the first person who went to Antarctica saw and reported on it.
And brought back nothing in the way of actual proof, didn't go all the way around or try and go over it.
On top of that, not a single record exists of a pilot, navigator or even an amateur or proponent of the ice wall theory ever going there after this initial claim.
There. Is. No. Proof.
If there is, submit it.
Photography, ice samples, a single even vaguely accurate map of what it actually looks like instead of a polar projection of the Antarctic coast wrapped around a circle.
No single modern explorer with the wonders of technology given to us has ever substantiated the Ice Wall theory, no matter which side of the debate they are on.
It is fantasy.
You're calling British naval officer and Round Earth believer, Sir James Clark Ross, a liar now? :-\
Lol this is what you started a thread over? Really Novarus?
There is a 150 foot wall of ice at the coast of Antarcitca in the Round Earth model, too. In the Monopole model the disagreement is merely on the size and shape of Antarcia. In the Bi-Polar model there is no such disagreement.
An article on the Ice Wall: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Ice_Wall
Why, because you lost your binky?
No, I'm calling the claim of Sir Ross (1800-1862) of an ice wall a baseless and absurd - considering the fact that he made said claim nearly 200 years ago, I'd expect the the following leaps in exploration and technology should be given somewhat more credence.
Where is the proof, Tom? Remember that thing that I said before you deflected the direct question and leapt on the one thing you could defend?
Where. Is. Your. Proof?
Lol this is what you started a thread over? Really Novarus?
Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.
So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.
Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.
So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.
You're right, facts totally have an expiration date. Obviously you don't trust Newton at all, given that his works are several centuries old. And it won't be too long before we can throw Relativity completely out the window too on the same basis!
Flat Earth Theorists have a great wall. Its a beautiful wall. Nobody does walls better than Flat Earth, believe me. It protects the Southern border and they made the penguins pay for it.
Lackey, if you're going to use the "have you seen it yourself?" tactic, it usually works better if the argument you're trying to refute isn't also asking for direct, observational proof - preferably proof that isn't a century and a half old.
So bring something to the table or go back to your corner.
You're right, facts totally have an expiration date. Obviously you don't trust Newton at all, given that his works are several centuries old. And it won't be too long before we can throw Relativity completely out the window too on the same basis!
Newton had years of research and a corpus of work to support his theories, not to mention most of the history of physics and mathematics to build on.
Since then, Newton's theories have been tried, tested and amended as our experience grows. This doesn't change the fact that his laws of motion still hold, just that they are the foundation on which we build newer and better theories.
In the same way, explorers and even tourists have been to and around Antarctica, observed it from space and seen the fact there is no wall - just a shelf of ice that makes part of the coast of a continent. Ross have us a primary observation upon which we built an image of what is really going on in the world. Thats how science works.
When a theory is outdated, it is discarded in the face of new evidence that proposes a new theory, as you say. Perhaps we can use it's original concepts to build a new theory, but if the evidence demands a new perspective then we interpret and go from there.
So if we're going to discard the theory that there is no ice wall, we will need evidence that there is one, right?
Where is it?
Flat Earth Theorists have a great wall. Its a beautiful wall. Nobody does walls better than Flat Earth, believe me. It protects the Southern border and they made the penguins pay for it.
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.
Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.
Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.
Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.
Once again, the burdening proof lies o the ones proposing an opposing theory to whatbis considered the established facts.
As has been stated, Antarctica is visible from countless satellite photos, has been reported by thousands of explorers and tourists, and is even incorporated into some flat earth theories like the bipolar map.
The Ice Wall, on the other hand, has no direct proof of any kind whatsoever.
It is you, dear junker, that should feel free to provide something - anything, really - that defends your standpoint.
Otherwise, it would seem that it is your posts that are low in content.
There are satellite pictures and measurements that prove the shape of the earth.There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.
Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.
Once again, the burdening proof lies o the ones proposing an opposing theory to whatbis considered the established facts.
As has been stated, Antarctica is visible from countless satellite photos, has been reported by thousands of explorers and tourists, and is even incorporated into some flat earth theories like the bipolar map.
The Ice Wall, on the other hand, has no direct proof of any kind whatsoever.
It is you, dear junker, that should feel free to provide something - anything, really - that defends your standpoint.
Otherwise, it would seem that it is your posts that are low in content.
I don't think you understand how burden of proof works, friend. The burden rests with the person making the claim. I know that is a tough concept for round earthers to grasp. All I did was ask someone claiming evidence exists to provide that evidence. I'm really not sure what's hard to understand about that, but I'm sure if you work on it, it'll make sense eventually.
Also, you aren't a moderator. So please stop trying to moderate. If you have an issue, there is a report button. I won't give you anymore warnings about it.
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.
Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.
Once again, the burdening proof lies o the ones proposing an opposing theory to whatbis considered the established facts.
As has been stated, Antarctica is visible from countless satellite photos, has been reported by thousands of explorers and tourists, and is even incorporated into some flat earth theories like the bipolar map.
The Ice Wall, on the other hand, has no direct proof of any kind whatsoever.
It is you, dear junker, that should feel free to provide something - anything, really - that defends your standpoint.
Otherwise, it would seem that it is your posts that are low in content.
I don't think you understand how burden of proof works, friend. The burden rests with the person making the claim. I know that is a tough concept for round earthers to grasp. All I did was ask someone claiming evidence exists to provide that evidence. I'm really not sure what's hard to understand about that, but I'm sure if you work on it, it'll make sense eventually.
Also, you aren't a moderator. So please stop trying to moderate. If you have an issue, there is a report button. I won't give you anymore warnings about it.
I have supplied my evidence for Antarctica, Dear Junker.
Now where's the evidence for The Wall ?
Sorry.....I suppose The National Geographic Society is as much a part of The Conspiracy as anyone ?
There is absolutely neither any evidence nor any proof the former ; but absolutely positive and much evidence and proof of the latter.
Feel free to provide that evidence anytime now.
Once again, the burdening proof lies o the ones proposing an opposing theory to whatbis considered the established facts.
As has been stated, Antarctica is visible from countless satellite photos, has been reported by thousands of explorers and tourists, and is even incorporated into some flat earth theories like the bipolar map.
The Ice Wall, on the other hand, has no direct proof of any kind whatsoever.
It is you, dear junker, that should feel free to provide something - anything, really - that defends your standpoint.
Otherwise, it would seem that it is your posts that are low in content.
I don't think you understand how burden of proof works, friend. The burden rests with the person making the claim. I know that is a tough concept for round earthers to grasp. All I did was ask someone claiming evidence exists to provide that evidence. I'm really not sure what's hard to understand about that, but I'm sure if you work on it, it'll make sense eventually.
Also, you aren't a moderator. So please stop trying to moderate. If you have an issue, there is a report button. I won't give you anymore warnings about it.
How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?
Picture of the Ice Wall:
(https://media1.britannica.com/eb-media/44/123244-004-C679A7AE.jpg)
Looks like a freaking Ice Wall to me.
(http://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/travel/photos/000/698/69871.jpg) | (http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/files/2012/10/penguins-on-ice.jpg) | (http://adventureblog.nationalgeographic.com/files/2008/12/6a00e55031d3a3883401053692ee82970c.jpeg) |
| (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/photos/000/470/47085.ngsversion.1422035460242.adapt.590.1.jpg) Antarctic Bite Men eat lunch in a tent on January 7, 1911—not long after the Terra Nova landed at Cape Evans in Antarctica. Scott chose to build the expedition hut at Cape Evans because the location provided easy access to the Ross Ice Shelf—a France-size piece of ice that would make up the first section of the South Pole trek. |
Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread. Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof. Look at the equinox thread thread that I started. TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox. He required data from every place on the earth. He disregarded link after link that showed my claim.How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?
Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic? Try better.
Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread. Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof. Look at the equinox thread thread that I started. TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox. He required data from every place on the earth. He disregarded link after link that showed my claim.How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?
Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic? Try better.
If there is an ice wall that encompasses the entire globe I would like proof of the milage and photo evidence. I would like to see a surveyors coordinates and plots. If you can't provide that then you are all spreading lies upon lies.
You all can't demand a standard from others that you are unwilling to hold yourselves to.
As far as I can see, rabinoz, "half" is a very generous fraction to express the amount of story lackey, or any other flat proponent for that matter, actually has.Agreed, but I was using "half" and figuratively as in "Txxxxxxxxx, always seems to tell half truths", but I was being slightly more generous.
Place of the Conspiracy in FETNow the existence of an Ice-Wall all around the earth seems to be part of Flat Earth Theory.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
Please make sure to check out these resources to ensure that your time at tfes.org is enjoyable and productive.
1. The Rules
2. The FAQ
3. The Wiki
Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread. Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof. Look at the equinox thread thread that I started. TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox. He required data from every place on the earth. He disregarded link after link that showed my claim.How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?
Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic? Try better.
If there is an ice wall that encompasses the entire globe I would like proof of the milage and photo evidence. I would like to see a surveyors coordinates and plots. If you can't provide that then you are all spreading lies upon lies.
You all can't demand a standard from others that you are unwilling to hold yourselves to.
Here is a picture of a beach:
(http://www.beaches.com/assets/img/home/rst-btc.jpg)
That picture does not prove that the beach is 78,500 miles long.
How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?
The Ross Ice Shelf is a known feature of Antarctica and is 370 miles long, which is not quite enough to encircle the entire earth as depicted on the flat earth map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ice_Shelf But it is long enough for someone to take pictures of it like you have shared.
Roundy, I hear that kind of tactic from FE people in almost every thread. Any point made by RE and some FEer demands complete proof. Look at the equinox thread thread that I started. TomB, demanded that I prove that nearly entire earth experiences 12 hours of sun equinox. He required data from every place on the earth. He disregarded link after link that showed my claim.How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?
Do you really think that pointing out that he didn't do something that would be completely impossible to do is a solid debate tactic? Try better.
If there is an ice wall that encompasses the entire globe I would like proof of the milage and photo evidence. I would like to see a surveyors coordinates and plots. If you can't provide that then you are all spreading lies upon lies.
You all can't demand a standard from others that you are unwilling to hold yourselves to.
If we could confine things to what's happening in this thread and the people commenting in this thread, it would be swell. Whatever Tom demanded of you in another thread is irrelevant. Is Tom even in this thread anywhere? You are free to stop taking Tom seriously if he really makes a demand of you that doesn't make sense; it is your prerogative; we fucking all do from time to time. Similarly, if you are going to demand something that is blatantly impossible, why shouldn't we conclude that you've stopped taking the subject seriously? What kind of response is that supposed to engender? Ridicule for making such a dumb request is the only thing that makes sense. If you want to give up on the debate that's fine, believe it or not you can do so without conceding that you are wrong, that's also your prerogative.
But if you and your cohort are going to demand something so dumb, a response like the one I just gave you is the only one you can reasonably expect.
Here is a picture of a beach:
(http://www.beaches.com/assets/img/home/rst-btc.jpg)
That picture does not prove that the beach is 78,500 miles long.
How do your pictures prove that there is a 78,500 mile long ice wall surrounding the entire earth?
The Ross Ice Shelf is a known feature of Antarctica and is 370 miles long, which is not quite enough to encircle the entire earth as depicted on the flat earth map:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Ice_Shelf But it is long enough for someone to take pictures of it like you have shared.
Of course it does not, but are you claiming there are not 75,000 miles of beach on the Earth?
How could you possibly gather a photograph of such a thing being earthbound?