Its a lonely place waking up
NASA's laughable trip to the moon {in order to give evidence of a globe}, when they now declare that they don't have the technology anymore to get to the moon.
Its a lonely place waking up
Have you ever considered that you are not, in actual fact, "waking up" ... ?
the more I research into the things I think are not adding up, the more it confirms my opinion.
What does this 'research' entail?
We can have long debates about NASA and their authenticity, but I doubt we would reach the same conclusion. I don't believe they have ever been in outer space. Not the way they claim to have. They may have been high up in the sky ... but not into space. (in my opinion).
It would be interesting to find out which countries signed the Antarctic Treaty and which countries have space agencies. Also interesting that soon after the Treaty, nuclear bombs where fired straight up into the air in what was called "Operation Fish Bowl" and "Operation Dominic" in 1962 ... shortly before "landing on the moon" in 1969.
It would be interesting to find out which countries signed the Antarctic Treaty and which countries have space agencies. Also interesting that soon after the Treaty, nuclear bombs where fired straight up into the air in what was called "Operation Fish Bowl" and "Operation Dominic" in 1962 ... shortly before "landing on the moon" in 1969.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and USSR. These ones, from what I read. At least at the time of the start.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-explained/
To date there are 9 countries that have orbital launch capability. These are Russia, the United States, France, Japan, China, India, Israel, Iran and North Korea
https://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/how-much-of-the-universe-does-the-milky-way-block-us-seeing/
Thats a massive schedule list ... but it doesn't really prove anything. Have rockets been viewed going all the way up into space? Does their trajectory form an arc and plunge into the sea?
It would be interesting to find out which countries signed the Antarctic Treaty and which countries have space agencies. Also interesting that soon after the Treaty, nuclear bombs where fired straight up into the air in what was called "Operation Fish Bowl" and "Operation Dominic" in 1962 ... shortly before "landing on the moon" in 1969.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and USSR. These ones, from what I read. At least at the time of the start.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-explained/
To date there are 9 countries that have orbital launch capability. These are Russia, the United States, France, Japan, China, India, Israel, Iran and North Korea
https://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/how-much-of-the-universe-does-the-milky-way-block-us-seeing/
Good work! Yeah that was at the start ... I'm trying myself to find a definitive list of who is on that treaty now lol
Thats a massive schedule list ... but it doesn't really prove anything. Have rockets been viewed going all the way up into space? Does their trajectory form an arc and plunge into the sea?
Yes they have.
Have you seen the falcon heavy live stream?
It would be interesting to find out which countries signed the Antarctic Treaty and which countries have space agencies. Also interesting that soon after the Treaty, nuclear bombs where fired straight up into the air in what was called "Operation Fish Bowl" and "Operation Dominic" in 1962 ... shortly before "landing on the moon" in 1969.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and USSR. These ones, from what I read. At least at the time of the start.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-explained/
To date there are 9 countries that have orbital launch capability. These are Russia, the United States, France, Japan, China, India, Israel, Iran and North Korea
https://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/how-much-of-the-universe-does-the-milky-way-block-us-seeing/
Good work! Yeah that was at the start ... I'm trying myself to find a definitive list of who is on that treaty now lol
But only 6 of those countries (Might I remind you, all of them global superpowers) match each other, and at the start of the treaty, only the U.S and Russia had (from what I've been reading) launch capabilities (I.E NASA and S.S.P (Soviet Space Program)).
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.
It would be interesting to find out which countries signed the Antarctic Treaty and which countries have space agencies. Also interesting that soon after the Treaty, nuclear bombs where fired straight up into the air in what was called "Operation Fish Bowl" and "Operation Dominic" in 1962 ... shortly before "landing on the moon" in 1969.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States and USSR. These ones, from what I read. At least at the time of the start.
https://www.bas.ac.uk/about/antarctica/the-antarctic-treaty/the-antarctic-treaty-explained/
To date there are 9 countries that have orbital launch capability. These are Russia, the United States, France, Japan, China, India, Israel, Iran and North Korea
https://www.spaceanswers.com/astronomy/how-much-of-the-universe-does-the-milky-way-block-us-seeing/
Good work! Yeah that was at the start ... I'm trying myself to find a definitive list of who is on that treaty now lol
But only 6 of those countries (Might I remind you, all of them global superpowers) match each other, and at the start of the treaty, only the U.S and Russia had (from what I've been reading) launch capabilities (I.E NASA and S.S.P (Soviet Space Program)).
from nti.org
Decision-Making
Currently, 48 nations have agreed to the Antarctic Treaty, but only 29 control the decision making process. These 29 are the “Consultative Parties” mentioned above, and they include the original 12 signatories. Only the Consultative Parties have votes at the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM), and every decision requires a consensus. However, nations who conduct scientific research on the continent can apply to become Consultative Parties.
In 2015, the 29 Consultative Parties were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and United States.
The 24 Non-Consultative Parties were Austria, Belarus, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Kazakhstan, the Democratic Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Monaco, Mongolia, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, Turkey, and Venezuela.
Seems like a lot of countries agreeing on this shit!
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.
Because anything can be faked
Yeah like these massive countries come together because they give a shit about the environment. Where's the Rainforest Treaty?
Yeah like these massive countries come together because they give a shit about the environment. Where's the Rainforest Treaty?
So they have a place for specifically scientific research, where literally no body lives. Ta-da.
Thats a massive schedule list ... but it doesn't really prove anything. Have rockets been viewed going all the way up into space?
Yes.
Does their trajectory form an arc and plunge into the sea?
I try and discuss obvious flaws in the official story and try and discuss new evidence that has been in front of our eyes the whole time, but I get that sideways glance from everyone I know and that patronising smirk of "d'aww, you are so special aren't you Gav".
Its a lonely place waking up ::)
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.
Because anything can be faked
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.
Because anything can be faked
No, it cannot.
Look on YouTube, and you can find amateur video from folks in California who saw for themselves the final burn of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy / Tesla, that which took it out of Earth orbit and out toward Mars. How would anyone fake this?
Other amateur observers tracked it once it had left, and imaged it with their telescopes once it had passed the Moon. Again, how would you fake this such that at least two independent observers came out with imagery of it?
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica
Follow links to find the research done at each individual station. Take your time. If you're back here in 10 minutes saying it's all fake, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered.
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
It's not like they're all doing the exact same thing! They're not toddlers! Please, please explain to me how your magical ice wall makes more sense than this?!
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
It's not like they're all doing the exact same thing! They're not toddlers! Please, please explain to me how your magical ice wall makes more sense than this?!
hahaha thats a massive assumption that I believe in a magical ice wall
Assuming everyone was involved. Our amateurs are all faked, but yours are like god send. Great job following the stupidity of the Flat Earth stereotype.
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica
Follow links to find the research done at each individual station. Take your time. If you're back here in 10 minutes saying it's all fake, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered.
Wikipedia man? Really? Do you think wikipedia is an infallible source of information?
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
It's not like they're all doing the exact same thing! They're not toddlers! Please, please explain to me how your magical ice wall makes more sense than this?!
hahaha thats a massive assumption that I believe in a magical ice wall
Not really, ever heard of like...every Flat Earther saying there is an ice wall that no one has seen because...government?
Assuming everyone was involved. Our amateurs are all faked, but yours are like god send. Great job following the stupidity of the Flat Earth stereotype.
What amateurs am I putting forward? You have become really accusatory out of nowhere ... I've not said that anything is fact ... I've just questioned the authenticity of it all.
No, because it actually makes sense. Where else would they get a chance to do research in the way that Antarctica provides?
Christ! Thats the longest research project ever surely! What the hell have they been doing for 59 years!??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_stations_in_Antarctica
Follow links to find the research done at each individual station. Take your time. If you're back here in 10 minutes saying it's all fake, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered.
Wikipedia man? Really? Do you think wikipedia is an infallible source of information?
Then look it up yourself!
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.
Because anything can be faked
No, it cannot.
Look on YouTube, and you can find amateur video from folks in California who saw for themselves the final burn of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy / Tesla, that which took it out of Earth orbit and out toward Mars. How would anyone fake this?
Other amateur observers tracked it once it had left, and imaged it with their telescopes once it had passed the Moon. Again, how would you fake this such that at least two independent observers came out with imagery of it?
Who are these "amateurs"? You sure these people are legit and not involved?
Who are these "amateurs"? You sure these people are legit and not involved?
Assuming everyone was involved. Our amateurs are all faked, but yours are like god send. Great job following the stupidity of the Flat Earth stereotype.
What amateurs am I putting forward? You have become really accusatory out of nowhere ... I've not said that anything is fact ... I've just questioned the authenticity of it all.
Yours, referring to a group of people in the 2nd person. As in the Flat Earth society "proving" the Earth was flat with "amateur videos"
Assuming everyone was involved. Our amateurs are all faked, but yours are like god send. Great job following the stupidity of the Flat Earth stereotype.
What amateurs am I putting forward? You have become really accusatory out of nowhere ... I've not said that anything is fact ... I've just questioned the authenticity of it all.
Yours, referring to a group of people in the 2nd person. As in the Flat Earth society "proving" the Earth was flat with "amateur videos"
What are you even on about right now? I never said you are claiming I said? ;D
Wikipedia man? Really? Do you think wikipedia is an infallible source of information?
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.
Because anything can be faked
No, it cannot.
Look on YouTube, and you can find amateur video from folks in California who saw for themselves the final burn of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy / Tesla, that which took it out of Earth orbit and out toward Mars. How would anyone fake this?
Other amateur observers tracked it once it had left, and imaged it with their telescopes once it had passed the Moon. Again, how would you fake this such that at least two independent observers came out with imagery of it?
Who are these "amateurs"? You sure these people are legit and not involved?
You're starting to enter conspiracy theory territory now. You'll need to continue making outlandish claims with no evidence to support your assertion that space travel is fake instead of simply accepting that something has gone into space.
Consider this: why would SpaceX feel the need to put on such an extravagant show? What monetary gain did they receive from this and future related projects? They can't funnel tax payer money like NASA since they are a private entity.
So what do they get out of all this?
Wikipedia man? Really? Do you think wikipedia is an infallible source of information?
If you think any of the information in that specific page is false, then correct it with verifiable sources for your correction, and see if your correction lasts.
I suspect you have no verifiable sources, AND, as I suspected you would, you're casting doubt on a page with 42 separate references to external verification within a few minutes of me posting it. You haven't even bothered to look at it, beyond skimming the title, have you?
Gav, look at this. I mean, really, LOOK at the whole of it, and tell us what you think is going on;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHIbOAKltoQ
Look into SpaceEx, Tesla was a company on its arse, until out of nowhere they get a couple of billion contract ... me thinks they are being propt up as an "independent" "private" company ... seeing as NASA's credibility is a bit shifty these days ... I don't trust Elon ... creating Paypal dont make you a scientist! ::)
Not actually reading things, and denying them at face value without actually paying attention. Almost sounds like...oh wow, an idiot.
No, I haven't got time to read it yet ... I'm not an android sir ;-)
Not actually reading things, and denying them at face value without actually paying attention. Almost sounds like...oh wow, an idiot.
Thanks for that ... so you understand completely whats going on in that video? You can corroborate all the data you see there? Sorry didn't know you were a genius
Why are you bringing up a film? Makes zero logical sense.
Because anything can be faked
No, it cannot.
Look on YouTube, and you can find amateur video from folks in California who saw for themselves the final burn of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy / Tesla, that which took it out of Earth orbit and out toward Mars. How would anyone fake this?
Other amateur observers tracked it once it had left, and imaged it with their telescopes once it had passed the Moon. Again, how would you fake this such that at least two independent observers came out with imagery of it?
Who are these "amateurs"? You sure these people are legit and not involved?
You're starting to enter conspiracy theory territory now. You'll need to continue making outlandish claims with no evidence to support your assertion that space travel is fake instead of simply accepting that something has gone into space.
Consider this: why would SpaceX feel the need to put on such an extravagant show? What monetary gain did they receive from this and future related projects? They can't funnel tax payer money like NASA since they are a private entity.
So what do they get out of all this?
Look into SpaceEx, Tesla was a company on its arse, until out of nowhere they get a couple of billion contract ... me thinks they are being propt up as an "independent" "private" company ... seeing as NASA's credibility is a bit shifty these days ... I don't trust Elon ... creating Paypal dont make you a scientist! ::)
No, I haven't got time to read it yet ... I'm not an android sir ;-)
So you're decrying it without actually reading it, is that it?
Gav, look at this. I mean, really, LOOK at the whole of it, and tell us what you think is going on;
VID LINK
a lot of numbers are changing and an telescopey type thing is turning left and right .... Oh I'm convinced! ;D
Gav, look at this. I mean, really, LOOK at the whole of it, and tell us what you think is going on;
VID LINK
a lot of numbers are changing and an telescopey type thing is turning left and right .... Oh I'm convinced! ;D
You're not even looking at stuff before you dispute it.
I posted it at 01:21:14 PM, it lasts 2m43s and you posted at 01:23:43 PM, 2m29s later - you haven't even watched the whole thing...
I never claimed NASA bought SpaceEx ... just I think Elon might be being propped up as some kind of cool independent iron man rich guy type of person as NASA's credibility has taken a bit of a nose dive...
Just saying wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information in my opinion
I looked at the video bud ... but it doesn't tell me anything ... it could be a clever looking load of data which is tracking imaginary satellites .... couldn't it?
I never claimed NASA bought SpaceEx ... just I think Elon might be being propped up as some kind of cool independent iron man rich guy type of person as NASA's credibility has taken a bit of a nose dive...
You said you believe SpaceX was being propped up as "independent" and "private" implying they are neither. If they aren't private then what are they?
I never claimed NASA bought SpaceEx ... just I think Elon might be being propped up as some kind of cool independent iron man rich guy type of person as NASA's credibility has taken a bit of a nose dive...
You said you believe SpaceX was being propped up as "independent" and "private" implying they are neither. If they aren't private then what are they?
I never claimed NASA bought SpaceEx ... just I think Elon might be being propped up as some kind of cool independent iron man rich guy type of person as NASA's credibility has taken a bit of a nose dive...
You said you believe SpaceX was being propped up as "independent" and "private" implying they are neither. If they aren't private then what are they?
You clearly still haven't read my article.
"Pushing the globe"? You mean wanting to go somewhere we know exists and we know we can get to. He's not pushing the globe, he's trying to go to a new planet, no one has ever set foot on, that's amazing if you ask me.
Okay, let’s just have a look at this from your original premiss “Ok so ... this seems plausible to me that ... there is an agenda to make people feel insignificant and to carry on about their about their busy lives not questioning anything and being good wage slaves.”
Before, back in the day when the Earth was flat for everybody, did they feel different, more special? And if they did, (due to presumably, a deity) How did this make them more open to questioning their surroundings?
With religious teaching there is the attendant concepts of Apostasy and heresy, whereby if you reject your teaching or interpret them differently from the norm you are subject to “interrogation”. Often in the past (and in some religions now), one or both would lead to excommunication for the questioner or death.
Now scientists can get pretty pissy if their pet project is superseded, but the only time I can remember that they died for their investigations per-se was at the hands of religion, so where does your impression that science is anti-questioning come from, as the converse is true.
The Royal Society's (one of the earliest dedicated science institution) motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. The very essence of enquiry.
As for feeling insignificant, well I can’t help you much there, if you need a tyrannical father figure making constant demands to have any sense of self-worth then you are made in a different way to me, the universe is vast and to all intents and purpose, timeless, but without me it would seem empty.
So mars does not exist? We do know, we've know for thousands of years, ancient civilizations know this.
Okay, let’s just have a look at this from your original premiss “Ok so ... this seems plausible to me that ... there is an agenda to make people feel insignificant and to carry on about their about their busy lives not questioning anything and being good wage slaves.”
Before, back in the day when the Earth was flat for everybody, did they feel different, more special? And if they did, (due to presumably, a deity) How did this make them more open to questioning their surroundings?
With religious teaching there is the attendant concepts of Apostasy and heresy, whereby if you reject your teaching or interpret them differently from the norm you are subject to “interrogation”. Often in the past (and in some religions now), one or both would lead to excommunication for the questioner or death.
Now scientists can get pretty pissy if their pet project is superseded, but the only time I can remember that they died for their investigations per-se was at the hands of religion, so where does your impression that science is anti-questioning come from, as the converse is true.
The Royal Society's (one of the earliest dedicated science institution) motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. The very essence of enquiry.
As for feeling insignificant, well I can’t help you much there, if you need a tyrannical father figure making constant demands to have any sense of self-worth then you are made in a different way to me, the universe is vast and to all intents and purpose, timeless, but without me it would seem empty.
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
Faith does not imply religion.
I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?
Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?
This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.
Egyptians knew the stars better than we do. 1500 years ago we learned the Earth was round. These still haven't been disproved. Why?
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
You might want to actually read that article.
Egyptians knew the stars better than we do. 1500 years ago we learned the Earth was round. These still haven't been disproved. Why?
you are basing that entire sentence on hearsay
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
You might want to actually read that article.
I have ... and I predict that he will get paid
Egyptians knew the stars better than we do. 1500 years ago we learned the Earth was round. These still haven't been disproved. Why?
you are basing that entire sentence on hearsay
You're the heretic! We're basing our learning off thousands of years of knowledge!
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
You might want to actually read that article.
I have ... and I predict that he will get paid
Hm...yeah he will, be why and by who is very important.
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
You might want to actually read that article.
I have ... and I predict that he will get paid
Hm...yeah he will, be why and by who is very important.
My sentiments exactly ;-) ... back pocket pay packet coming up for Musky Pants
I'm an atheist, religion is ignorance.
I'm an atheist, religion is ignorance.
Saying that there isn't a god is ignorant if you don't know. I'm agnostic.
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
You might want to actually read that article.
I have ... and I predict that he will get paid
Hm...yeah he will, be why and by who is very important.
My sentiments exactly ;-) ... back pocket pay packet coming up for Musky Pants
You really are ignorant. He's getting paid by the people who own part of his company, so THEY can make a profit out of it also. Woahhh
I'm an atheist, religion is ignorance.
Saying that there isn't a god is ignorant if you don't know. I'm agnostic.
Is ignorant? where is the proof that there is a god?
I'm an atheist, religion is ignorance.
Saying that there isn't a god is ignorant if you don't know. I'm agnostic.
Is ignorant? where is the proof that there is a god?
Where's the proof there isn't?
I'm an atheist, religion is ignorance.
Saying that there isn't a god is ignorant if you don't know. I'm agnostic.
Is ignorant? where is the proof that there is a god?
Where's the proof there isn't?
Rape, murder, school shootings, genocide. Where is your god now?
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
Faith does not imply religion.
I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?
Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?
This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.
The paycheck analogy is just stupid, really really stupid.
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
You might want to actually read that article.
I have ... and I predict that he will get paid
Hm...yeah he will, be why and by who is very important.
My sentiments exactly ;-) ... back pocket pay packet coming up for Musky Pants
You really are ignorant. He's getting paid by the people who own part of his company, so THEY can make a profit out of it also. Woahhh
Love using the word ignorant dont you. Does it make you feel smart ... I hear your voice in a squeaky Michael Jackson voice when you say it. haha
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
Faith does not imply religion.
I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?
Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?
This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.
The paycheck analogy is just stupid, really really stupid.
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
How so? According to your post above if you have faith in something then it's basically a religion. Are you saying that's not what you meant?
There's a difference between blind faith and faith. What you are describing is blind faith.
I'm an atheist, religion is ignorance.
Saying that there isn't a god is ignorant if you don't know. I'm agnostic.
Is ignorant? where is the proof that there is a god?
Where's the proof there isn't?
Rape, murder, school shootings, genocide. Where is your god now?
hang on a minute ... do you recall that I said I don't know if there is a god or not? When did he/she become "my" god hahaha
Continued: Theories based on what we have observed for a long time, we might be wrong, but it's scientifically sound.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ... things were "known" in the past
btw old Musky pants is about to get paid!
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/tesla-shareholders-vote-on-elon-musks-2-point-6-billion-dollar-pay-package.html
You might want to actually read that article.
I have ... and I predict that he will get paid
Hm...yeah he will, be why and by who is very important.
My sentiments exactly ;-) ... back pocket pay packet coming up for Musky Pants
You really are ignorant. He's getting paid by the people who own part of his company, so THEY can make a profit out of it also. Woahhh
Love using the word ignorant dont you. Does it make you feel smart ... I hear your voice in a squeaky Michael Jackson voice when you say it. haha
So offensive. It really is a great word, but I can use others. Dolt, Addlepate, Arrogant.
I like what you did there. It's actually hard to get angry at someone who turns the snowflake joke against you...
I like what you did there. It's actually hard to get angry at someone who turns the snowflake joke against you...
Its a bit pointless getting angry. We're only shooting the shit here.
I don't have blind faith, I have seen Mars, I have seen the Moon, I have experienced a round Earth. These are my truths.
I don't have blind faith, I have seen Mars, I have seen the Moon, I have experienced a round Earth. These are my truths.
How have you experienced a round earth? What did Mars look like to you?
So mars does not exist? We do know, we've know for thousands of years, ancient civilizations know this.
They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
Faith does not imply religion.
I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?
Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?
This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.
The paycheck analogy is just stupid, really really stupid.
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
How so? According to your post above if you have faith in something then it's basically a religion. Are you saying that's not what you meant?
There's a difference between blind faith and faith. What you are describing is blind faith.
Exactly its blind faith to believe in what you are told about space from people 'smarter" than you, but not blind faith to expect a paycheck that you have experienced every month. What's difficult to understand about that?
I don't have blind faith, I have seen Mars, I have seen the Moon, I have experienced a round Earth. These are my truths.
How have you experienced a round earth? What did Mars look like to you?
Mars what exactly how they show it, with the naked eye, it's just a bright red dot, but if you use a telescope, it's kinda well...like they show in the "CGI" mars. Ships coming over the horizon, flights, school.
Science has been proven wrong continuously throughout history ...
I don't have blind faith, I have seen Mars, I have seen the Moon, I have experienced a round Earth. These are my truths.
How have you experienced a round earth? What did Mars look like to you?
Mars what exactly how they show it, with the naked eye, it's just a bright red dot, but if you use a telescope, it's kinda well...like they show in the "CGI" mars. Ships coming over the horizon, flights, school.
I will definitely have to invest in a telescope ... only what I've watched from peoples footage from a Nikon Coolpix p900 are pulsing lights ... but yeah, need to verify that for myself. The ships over the horizon thing I've seen explained really well human perspective, if you use a zoom lens, the ship that supposedly disappeared comes back into view. And school .... straight up indoctrination.
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
Faith does not imply religion.
I have faith my next paycheck will come the same time it always does. Does this mean I worship my job?They are lights in the sky? Has anyone ever seen mars apart from CGI graphics?
Have you ever seen any of your internal working organs? Your brain?
This line of thinking makes no sense. You assume because you have not seen it, it cannot exist.
The paycheck analogy is just stupid, really really stupid.
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
How so? According to your post above if you have faith in something then it's basically a religion. Are you saying that's not what you meant?
There's a difference between blind faith and faith. What you are describing is blind faith.
Exactly its blind faith to believe in what you are told about space from people 'smarter" than you, but not blind faith to expect a paycheck that you have experienced every month. What's difficult to understand about that?
That's not what I'm referencing. I'm talking about your claim that science is a religion because it takes faith. Just because you have faith in something does not make it a religion, hence my paycheck analogy. You're confusing that point with space travel which is another discussion.
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
You have experience of receiving a paycheck ... over and over and over again, its not blind faith to expect it to come again. When you have never experienced something yourself, like space travel ... you have to have faith to believe it. I dont know how to say that any simpler....
The problem I see with science these days is that it has become Scientism ... another form of religion ... we don't know shit about the cosmos ... mathematical equations that seemingly intelligent scientists use are based on the premise of a theory ... after all maths is a language that can be flexibly written.
We have faith in science, like religious people have faith in religion.
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
If the geiger counter is reading off the scale, I move away. I can't see the radioactivity, but I'm certainly not going to wander through Chernobyl just to see for myself if I get radiation sickness or leukemia.
If the science tells me the water is stagnant, and laden with E-coli or Cholera, I see no reason to test it for myself.
I can't see the pollen, but know when I'm struck by hay fever.
I've never seen Tokyo, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, or Moscow. Should that lead me to conclude they don't exist?
Faith? Or acceptance of common knowledge?
where is the proof that there is a god?
Where's the proof there isn't?
where is the proof that there is a god?
Where's the proof there isn't?
Spiders. Especially the ones in Australia.
Road accidents.
The recent plane crash somewhere in Southern America, in which half a dozen priests died
The fact that church steeples have LIGHTNING CONDUCTORS. No faith there, huh?
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
If the geiger counter is reading off the scale, I move away. I can't see the radioactivity, but I'm certainly not going to wander through Chernobyl just to see for myself if I get radiation sickness or leukemia.
If the science tells me the water is stagnant, and laden with E-coli or Cholera, I see no reason to test it for myself.
I can't see the pollen, but know when I'm struck by hay fever.
I've never seen Tokyo, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, or Moscow. Should that lead me to conclude they don't exist?
Faith? Or acceptance of common knowledge?
Man those are weak comparisons, what you proposed are easily experienced and testable.
So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it? That my friend, is faith.
If the geiger counter is reading off the scale, I move away. I can't see the radioactivity, but I'm certainly not going to wander through Chernobyl just to see for myself if I get radiation sickness or leukemia.
If the science tells me the water is stagnant, and laden with E-coli or Cholera, I see no reason to test it for myself.
I can't see the pollen, but know when I'm struck by hay fever.
I've never seen Tokyo, Toronto, Rio de Janeiro, or Moscow. Should that lead me to conclude they don't exist?
Faith? Or acceptance of common knowledge?
Man those are weak comparisons, what you proposed are easily experienced and testable.
Not so much moving the goalposts, as getting them to uproot themselves and run around the pitch.
Your original query was not for things which are "easily experienced and testable", but "So if even if you haven't seen something ... you believe it?"
You sound like a person who (and I don’t mean to sound offensive) hasn’t taken an interest in what science is up to since you left school, perhaps saw a few articles in a popular paper, but then stumbled across Eric Dubious and his Ilk.
Science is nothing like faith. That you sit there on a computer able to talk around the world didn’t come from prayer, and it won’t be the likes of Duboy that have fashioned a vaccine against Ebola that is being currently employed in the DR Congo. I suggest instead of following snake charmers you look towards perhaps less charismatic but more truthful sources of information and for gods sake cultivate a little discernment.
Gav, do you have any evidence to support your side? We've given you sources and evidence which you conveniently rejected for no reason other than you refuse to believe it. But how about you? Do you have any tested, credible, verifiable evidence that hasn't been proven wrong? And not proven wrong by "oh I think this is how it should be" or "oh I don't think it is real because that's what my gut says," no. Proven wrong through experimentation, logic, math, etc.
Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.
Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.
Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???
Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.
Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???
But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?
I am sure he means 'constant acceleration'.Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.
Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???
But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?
Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others. But, because things are denser than air they fall, if things are less dense than air, like helium, they rise.
Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.
Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???
But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?
Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others. But, because things are denser than air they fall, if things are less dense than air, like helium, they rise.
Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.
Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???
But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?
Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others.
Gravity and Evolution, both testable. Great argument. I can show you how to test both of them.
Yeah, would love to know how to do this! .... Lets have it???
But first, so I'm not clumping you with other Flat Earthers, what is your explanation of why things are pulled towards the center of the Earth at a constant speed?
Not sure what you mean by constant speed, because some things fall faster than others.
Not in a vacuum, they don't. From which we conclude that air resistance holds larger and lighter objects back, whilst heavier and smaller ones outrun them.
Vacuums happen because there is no air pressure, which forms a vacuum. Air pressure happens because of Gravity. And please explain constant acceleration on Earth.
Vacuums happen because there is no air pressure, which forms a vacuum. Air pressure happens because of Gravity. And please explain constant acceleration on Earth.
Haha, oh wow, bringing up something that most normal people (RE as you call them) think was not the best way to bring about that.
Haha, oh wow, bringing up something that most normal people (RE as you call them) think was not the best way to bring about that.
I dont call anyone anything, thats what you've been doing
Haha, oh wow, bringing up something that most normal people (RE as you call them) think was not the best way to bring about that.
I dont call anyone anything, thats what you've been doing
You dodged the question. Explain constant acceleration
The acceleration of objects downward is the effect of gravity, not gravity itself. The cause is the attraction between two masses. You are a small object, the earth is a very massive object. So you are attracted to one another, and the earth proves this by pulling you downwards.Vacuums happen because there is no air pressure, which forms a vacuum. Air pressure happens because of Gravity. And please explain constant acceleration on Earth.
But you are answering all your questions saying ... because of gravity ... just because you say the word gravity doesn't prove gravity
We have an explanation. We have our proof. And until you give us proof that disproves us, you are wrong. That's just how science works.
The acceleration of objects downward is the effect of gravity, not gravity itself. The cause is the attraction between two masses. You are a small object, the earth is a very massive object. So you are attracted to one another, and the earth proves this by pulling you downwards.Vacuums happen because there is no air pressure, which forms a vacuum. Air pressure happens because of Gravity. And please explain constant acceleration on Earth.
But you are answering all your questions saying ... because of gravity ... just because you say the word gravity doesn't prove gravity
The proof that the Earth is not special, and all objects are attracted to one another, you will find in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment. No one is trying to fool you or mislead you.
Yeah, gravity. Things have a constant acceleration, because gravity pulls them down at that rate. Feathers, don't fall as fast as other objects, because they are pushed against by air pressure. These are my proofs, Newton new this, everybody who has ever been to school has learned this. We have proof, you have nothing. I guess, is not proof.
Really? That's because the bowling ball, doesn't have enough mass to create a strong enough gravitational pull to do something like that. The Earth, is absalutely massive compaired to a bowling ball, and it only pulls objects towards it at 9.8m per second squared.
Because they can over come this force, it really isn't that hard to do...
Take a cup of water, start driving, stay at a constant speed. Does the water fall out
The fact is, the water doesn't spill. And yeah, because the motion would keep changing, do you know nothing?
I'll be back.
The fact is, the water doesn't spill. And yeah, because the motion would keep changing, do you know nothing?
but if I had a cup in my hand full of water and I was spinning around at a thousand miles an hour ... there would be vomit flying in all directions
The fact is, the water doesn't spill. And yeah, because the motion would keep changing, do you know nothing?
but if I had a cup in my hand full of water and I was spinning around at a thousand miles an hour ... there would be vomit flying in all directions
That cup, is being pulled down, and so is the water. If the cup had the gravity of the earth then it would stay in.
What I'm trying to say is that if you don't have an explanation of why something happens and we do, what makes more sense?That's a fallacy. Your explanation could still be completely invalid.
What I'm trying to say is that if you don't have an explanation of why something happens and we do, what makes more sense?
Atleast I have one, not saying "Well if I was to guess"
Even if I am wrong, you have zero proof that I am.
The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
I gave you my proof, now please present yours. Oh wait, there is none.
Take a cup of water, start driving, stay at a constant speed. Does the water fall out
Hahaha it would if I was doing donuts! And we supposedly live on a sphere, not in a cup... so yeah if the water was around the outside of the cup, I'd be soaking!
The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
I gave you my proof, now please present yours. Oh wait, there is none.
What do you want me to prove? If you are asking me to prove gravity, I can't, no-one can.
Take a cup of water, start driving, stay at a constant speed. Does the water fall out
Hahaha it would if I was doing donuts! And we supposedly live on a sphere, not in a cup... so yeah if the water was around the outside of the cup, I'd be soaking!
So does this prove gravity? Or Centripetal Force?
Does it though?
https://youtu.be/V9pvG_ZSnCc
Yes you can. All you need is the funding, and a legitimate scientific reason to be going there. This is the entire purpose of the Antarctica treaty. Just because you can't fulfill one or both of the requirements, doesn't mean it can't be done.The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
I gave you my proof, now please present yours. Oh wait, there is none.
What do you want me to prove? If you are asking me to prove gravity, I can't, no-one can.
Everyone can, go look up how to prove gravity.
Yes you can. All you need is the funding, and a legitimate scientific reason to be going there. This is the entire purpose of the Antarctica treaty. Just because you can't fulfill one or both of the requirements, doesn't mean it can't be done.The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
In the Antarctic TreatyYes you can. All you need is the funding, and a legitimate scientific reason to be going there. This is the entire purpose of the Antarctica treaty. Just because you can't fulfill one or both of the requirements, doesn't mean it can't be done.The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
Where does it say this?
In the Antarctic TreatyYes you can. All you need is the funding, and a legitimate scientific reason to be going there. This is the entire purpose of the Antarctica treaty. Just because you can't fulfill one or both of the requirements, doesn't mean it can't be done.The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
Where does it say this?
Take a cup of water, start driving, stay at a constant speed. Does the water fall out
Hahaha it would if I was doing donuts! And we supposedly live on a sphere, not in a cup... so yeah if the water was around the outside of the cup, I'd be soaking!
So does this prove gravity? Or Centripetal Force?
Does it though?
https://youtu.be/V9pvG_ZSnCc
"Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that end … shall continue" Meaning if you have a reason, you can freely go there.
Take a cup of water, start driving, stay at a constant speed. Does the water fall out
Hahaha it would if I was doing donuts! And we supposedly live on a sphere, not in a cup... so yeah if the water was around the outside of the cup, I'd be soaking!
So does this prove gravity? Or Centripetal Force?
Does it though?
https://youtu.be/V9pvG_ZSnCc
No but that wasn't the point.
You're claiming water would fly out of control in a cup spinning rapidly in circles. Based on this video what are thoughts now? Have you done any experiments to verify your claim?
I haven't so that's why I'm asking.
https://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/south_shetland_islands.php
Yep, loads of places, though not cheap.https://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/south_shetland_islands.php
Nice specific areas you can visit.
Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)
Why not go yourself?Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)
Very informative video Tom cheers
Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Why not go yourself?Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)
Very informative video Tom cheers
Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
I listened. So what?Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Its bookmarked at the right point ... you only have to listen for a minute or two
I listened. So what?Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Its bookmarked at the right point ... you only have to listen for a minute or two
The link isn't bookmarked anywhere. I listened to the first 5 minutes and he's already made 2 errors, and has yet to present any evidence. Just sum it up, post an actual link to where he give evidence, or post his 'evidence' yourself please.Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Its bookmarked at the right point ... you only have to listen for a minute or two
The link isn't bookmarked anywhere. I listened to the first 5 minutes and he's already made 2 errors, and has yet to present any evidence. Just sum it up, post an actual link to where he give evidence, or post his 'evidence' yourself please.Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Its bookmarked at the right point ... you only have to listen for a minute or two
You basically just linked me to the rest of the video again. He's just making more untrue claims through much of the next few minutes. Guess I'll watch it later, but so far have yet to see anything that either A) I didn't know already or B) Stops this hypothetical expedition from occurring.The link isn't bookmarked anywhere. I listened to the first 5 minutes and he's already made 2 errors, and has yet to present any evidence. Just sum it up, post an actual link to where he give evidence, or post his 'evidence' yourself please.Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Its bookmarked at the right point ... you only have to listen for a minute or two
https://youtu.be/NPbhHpeHTiE?t=945
basically from here on out it explains thoroughly how it is made impossible through the pretence of environment protection.
You basically just linked me to the rest of the video again. He's just making more untrue claims through much of the next few minutes. Guess I'll watch it later, but so far have yet to see anything that either A) I didn't know already or B) Stops this hypothetical expedition from occurring.The link isn't bookmarked anywhere. I listened to the first 5 minutes and he's already made 2 errors, and has yet to present any evidence. Just sum it up, post an actual link to where he give evidence, or post his 'evidence' yourself please.Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Its bookmarked at the right point ... you only have to listen for a minute or two
https://youtu.be/NPbhHpeHTiE?t=945
basically from here on out it explains thoroughly how it is made impossible through the pretence of environment protection.
Ok I'm convinced.
The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
The dude has clearly done zero research into the matter of what's actually occurred, vs what he wants to present to help support his view. In 2005 and again in 2010 six wheeled vehicles were used to cross Antarctica via the geographic South Pole. http://www.transantarcticexpedition.com/You basically just linked me to the rest of the video again. He's just making more untrue claims through much of the next few minutes. Guess I'll watch it later, but so far have yet to see anything that either A) I didn't know already or B) Stops this hypothetical expedition from occurring.The link isn't bookmarked anywhere. I listened to the first 5 minutes and he's already made 2 errors, and has yet to present any evidence. Just sum it up, post an actual link to where he give evidence, or post his 'evidence' yourself please.Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)Cliff notes? Sorry, not watching a 30 min video right now, especially if it boils down to "Antarctica is cold and inhospitable, making going here difficult" because, well duh. Again, with the proper funding, and reasons within the bounds of the treaty, you're free to go there. The fact that the former might be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn't change this fact.
Its bookmarked at the right point ... you only have to listen for a minute or two
https://youtu.be/NPbhHpeHTiE?t=945
basically from here on out it explains thoroughly how it is made impossible through the pretence of environment protection.
From what I saw and my point of view it appears that there are claims to allow expedition, but once you go through all the bureaucracy and red tape it would cost you millions at even taking a chance of being permitted ... which given all the restrictions, its cleverly made impossible.
The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
That's not true. You can do whatever you want, it's just really dangerous.
This guy died living out his dream:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151109-south-pole-antarctic-explorers-shackleton-expedition/
All you have to do is promise to be ecologically responsible and pay for potential rescue.
Start here, you fill out this form and tell them what you want to do, their job is to make sure you don't kill yourself.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/expedition_planning_questionnaire/
The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
That's not true. You can do whatever you want, it's just really dangerous.
This guy died living out his dream:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151109-south-pole-antarctic-explorers-shackleton-expedition/
All you have to do is promise to be ecologically responsible and pay for potential rescue.
Start here, you fill out this form and tell them what you want to do, their job is to make sure you don't kill yourself.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/expedition_planning_questionnaire/
Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)
Very informative video Tom cheers
Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)
Very informative video Tom cheers
https://youtu.be/NPbhHpeHTiE?t=949
That's a 30 minute video and you replied 4 minutes after Tom posted. I watched the first 7 minutes of it and it's all just conspiracy theories. Can you please point to a specific part of the video, or some text reference to explain why this is impossible? I don't have time to dig through 30 minutes of ranting about "fake" moon landings.
I've shown that you can contact an independent company to help you plan and execute an antarctic expedition, and I've shown you one person who died doing a solo antarctic expedition of his own design just a few years ago.
You can go wherever you want to in antarctica, you just need the money to be prepared for the very dangerous conditions.
Again, this link gives a pretty thorough depiction of the practicality of mounting a mission to Antarctica: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPbhHpeHTiE)
Very informative video Tom cheers
its 15:50 into the video if the url link isn't working properly
That's a 30 minute video and you replied 4 minutes after Tom posted. I watched the first 7 minutes of it and it's all just conspiracy theories. Can you please point to a specific part of the video, or some text reference to explain why this is impossible? I don't have time to dig through 30 minutes of ranting about "fake" moon landings.
I've shown that you can contact an independent company to help you plan and execute an antarctic expedition, and I've shown you one person who died doing a solo antarctic expedition of his own design just a few years ago.
You can go wherever you want to in antarctica, you just need the money to be prepared for the very dangerous conditions.
... vacuums don't prove gravity. In the real world environment this doesn't happen
So because the earth is massive and clings gigantic oceans to it, how come birds can fly freely against this magic force?
Because they can over come this force, it really isn't that hard to do...
So if a tiny bird can over come this force, how come the oceans don't fling off the surface, if the earth is spinning at a 1000 miles an hour?
In the real world, atmospheric pressure is higher at sea level than, say, at the summit of Mount Everest. Any mountaineer will tell you that you need breathing apparatus at this altitude.
Why?
Gravity holds most of the air toward its centre, and this leads to higher air pressure the nearer you get to the centre of the Earth; also higher water pressure; and greater pressure within land masses.
He was referencing information from official websites and what he laid out made perfect sense that it is literally impossible ... there was nothing untrue about it
Thanks for linking to the middle of the video where he starts to explain things.
15:53: "You can't use motorized vehicles." Not true, you can use motorized vehicles as long as you aren't disturbing wildlife, and there's about zero wildlife in interior Antarctica.
Here's a recent snowmobile expedition - it didn't succeed, but due to weather and equipment failure. They had permission, they just failed. Or are you saying the government controls the weather too?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5YNaiusyrQ
They were planning on like a 4000km trip.
16:33 "You can't use sled dogs". This is true! The claim is that they might spread viruses to seals. But it doesn't matter, because you can use snowmobiles or other motorized transport, see above.
17:04 "Don't damage plants" - no problem, if you're on snow there are no plants. See above lists of expeditions that have happened.
Are there any other points? If you could summarize them as I have done it's easier to respond to than trudging through a 30 minute video full of conspiracy theories.
As you said, he DIED when attempting his crossing. Not sure that it is a great example to show us that we should follow in his footsteps.
His points boiled down to either A) It's very expensive to make an Antarctic expedition. Which, duh much? If you've paid any attention to those who have done it, or thought about it at all this is obvious. Or B) Attempting to show it's impossible to do it. Which the long list of expeditions POST TREATY clearly prove is untrue.The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
That's not true. You can do whatever you want, it's just really dangerous.
This guy died living out his dream:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151109-south-pole-antarctic-explorers-shackleton-expedition/
All you have to do is promise to be ecologically responsible and pay for potential rescue.
Start here, you fill out this form and tell them what you want to do, their job is to make sure you don't kill yourself.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/expedition_planning_questionnaire/
He was referencing information from official websites and what he laid out made perfect sense that it is literally impossible ... there was nothing untrue about it
Gav, do you have any evidence to support your side? We've given you sources and evidence which you conveniently rejected for no reason other than you refuse to believe it. But how about you? Do you have any tested, credible, verifiable evidence that hasn't been proven wrong? And not proven wrong by "oh I think this is how it should be" or "oh I don't think it is real because that's what my gut says," no. Proven wrong through experimentation, logic, math, etc.
what specific evidence are you after? What evidence do you want me to produce? What I've been shown in this thread is not evidence that proves anything?
His points boiled down to either A) It's very expensive to make an Antarctic expedition. Which, duh much? If you've paid any attention to those who have done it, or thought about it at all this is obvious. Or B) Attempting to show it's impossible to do it. Which the long list of expeditions POST TREATY clearly prove is untrue.The fact that there was an Antarctic Treaty signed by 50 countries as soon as Admiral Byrd discovered something in Antarctica, now no-one can do an independent exploration there.
You know you can pay money and go there, right?
https://www.adventureconsultants.com/expeditions/antarctica/south-pole-all-the-way/book-now
You can't perform independent exploration ... you are chauffeured like a child by the government
That's not true. You can do whatever you want, it's just really dangerous.
This guy died living out his dream:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151109-south-pole-antarctic-explorers-shackleton-expedition/
All you have to do is promise to be ecologically responsible and pay for potential rescue.
Start here, you fill out this form and tell them what you want to do, their job is to make sure you don't kill yourself.
https://antarctic-logistics.com/expedition_planning_questionnaire/
He was referencing information from official websites and what he laid out made perfect sense that it is literally impossible ... there was nothing untrue about it
Sorry, but he's cobbled together a case based entirely on the desire to make one for the end result he already wants/anticipates ignoring all evidence to the contrary. See my post earlier that you skipped over for evidence of trips debunking most of his claims (besides the sled dog and costs bits).
Have you seen the film "Gravity"?
Been a good discussion FairPlay ... raised loads of interesting questions for me to go off and research.
I done piss all work today though ... gonna pay for that shit tomorrow!
Also, it appears he was just crossing a peninsula over 913 miles, not a 6,000 mile round trip:
(http://www.daretoreach.ca/wp-content/uploads/Henry-Worsley-e1453766487343.jpg)
Also, it appears he was just crossing a peninsula over 913 miles, not a 6,000 mile round trip:
(http://www.daretoreach.ca/wp-content/uploads/Henry-Worsley-e1453766487343.jpg)
So you agree that he actually completed those 913 miles, by the route shown?
If the map is roughly to scale, where were you expecting him to go to complete 6000 miles? If he completed 913, then it looks to be about 1500 miles top to bottom at the widest part.
I got the 913 mile figure for his trip from the top right of that CNN illustration.But the map is wrong any way, since there is no 'South Pole'. We have to tear the map in the centre, then stretch it out until it turns into the 'wall of ice'.
I don't agree with that at all. He died along the way.
I got the 913 mile figure for his trip from the top right of that CNN illustration. The map may not be to scale; or it depends on how you travel cross it. If you type in "diameter of Antarctica" in google it says 5500 km, or 3417 miles.
Does it really matter? We've proved you are able to go to Antarctica, albeit an expensive way. What's the problem? We've never seen the ice wall, but we have seen Antarctica. We've won this debate, it doesn't make sense to continue it.
I got the 913 mile figure for his trip from the top right of that CNN illustration. The map may not be to scale; or it depends on how you travel cross it. If you type in "diameter of Antarctica" in google it says 5500 km, or 3417 miles.
The compass doesn't work in Antarctica, not even a dip compass. The magnetic field lines are vertical there. On a Round Earth, when you are at the "South Pole" you then need to go North to get back to the coast.
Yeah, so?
In fact, most of these images show that after staying at McMurdo South Pole station for a while they made a different angle back to the coast. They did not travel in a straight line, and the maps show that.
Yeah, so?
Without a compass, how did he travel North after reaching the South Pole?
Either: They used markers built by previous explorers who were able to get back to the coast, landmarks, or they used the sun as a guide back Northwards to the coast.
The compass doesn't work in Antarctica, not even a dip compass. The magnetic field lines are vertical there. On a Round Earth, when you are at the "South Pole" you then need to go North to get back to the coast.
Yeah, so?
In fact, most of these images show that after staying at McMurdo South Pole station for a while they made a different angle back to the coast. They did not travel in a straight line, and the maps show that.
Yeah, so?
Without a compass, how did he travel North after reaching the South Pole?
Either: They used markers built by previous explorers who were able to get back to the coast, landmarks, or they used the sun as a guide back Northwards to the coast.
Again, so what?
So it's not a definite proof that, on a Monopole model Flat Earth, that they ventured out into the infinite plane.
Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.
The video spun a tale and concluded it was impossible. We've provided multiple sources showing not only is it possible to go there, but many of his claims were false. Why should any of the rest be taken at face value?Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.
Really? The video we saw seemed to imply that Antarctica is very highly regulated and there was a ton of paperwork and government approvals, to the point where they approve where you go and the path you travel through.
The compass doesn't work in Antarctica, not even a dip compass. The magnetic field lines are vertical there. On a Round Earth, when you are at the "South Pole" you then need to go North to get back to the coast. In fact, most of these images show that after staying at McMurdo South Pole station for a while they made a different angle back to the coast. They did not travel in a straight line, and the maps show that.When we're you last in Antarctica to gather this information that "The compass doesn't work in Antarctica, not even a dip compass. The magnetic field lines are vertical there"?
Without a compass, how did he travel North after reaching the South Pole?
Either: They used markers built by previous explorers who were able to get back to the coast, landmarks, or they used the sun as a guide back Northwards to the coast.
And a bit on Amundsen.The magnetic field lines might be vertical right over the south magnetic pole, but not everywhere in Antarctica.Yes, the field lines are vertical everywhere in Antarctica. There is only a strip of land where the compass even works.
When you are in Antarctica the magnetic compass needle attempts to align with the field lines and points down into the ground of its tray.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Had you given actual figures you would have found that, while the inclination is very high and declinations very variable the magnetic is still a valuable navigation tool over much of Antarctica.
You really should take a look at : http://www.usap.gov/travelAndDeployment/documents/FieldManual-Chapt21AntarcticNavigation.pdf (http://www.usap.gov/travelAndDeployment/documents/FieldManual-Chapt21AntarcticNavigation.pdf), where it says:Quote21.2 Magnetic Compasses
Magnetic compasses must be modified for use in polar latitudes by reweighting the needle. As the compass gets closer to the South Pole, the south-seeking end of the needle is pulled downward toward the earth and will drag on its enclosure unless the proper nonmagnetic counterweight (copper wire) is added to the northseeking
end.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Field parties may elect to travel by using a Grid North system (see the “Grid North” section), versus a magnetic or truenorth system.
from: GOLF 1-8-2 Antarctica Expedition 2006/2007, Compass Confusion. (https://earthref.org/ERESE/projects/GOLF182/reports/report-compass-confusion.htm)
The following is from McMurdo Station, which is an extreme case, being relative close to the South Magnetic Pole.QuoteDeclination
South magnetic pole -64.5°N, 137.8°E Our location at the station -77.8°N, 166.6°E Declination at McMurdo About 144 degrees Inclination at McMurdo About -81 degrees
Declination is the angle between true north and the magnetic north at any given point on the globe. . . . . . . . Here at McMurdo Station, we are located north of the geographic pole, but south of the magnetic pole! Our compass needles (before being corrected for the 144 degree declination) point to the south!
Inclination
Magnetic field lines near the equator point more or less horizontal, but by definition, magnetic field lines at the South Pole point vertical up (and vertical down at the North Pole). . . . . . . . . . . if we were to use that same compass in Antarctica, the north end of the compass needle becomes pinned up against the glass faceplate! This vertical component of the magnetic field is known as 'inclination'. Thankfully, the Berg Field Center at McMurdo Station supplies us with compasses that are specially weighted to offset this effect, that equates about -81 degrees.
Location of McMurdo Station
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roald Amundsen's expedition was the first to visit the South Pole at 90°S.
He used magnetic compasses and sun sightings, using sextants, for navigation and verified the final location with very careful sun sightings.(http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.jpg)Best read up on it yourself in Amundsen's original South Pole Station (http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/igy1/polesurvey1.html). Here is a little bit from it:
TAKING AN OBSERVATION AT THE POLEQuote from: Amundsen's original South Pole StationRoald Amundsen arrived in the general vicinity of Pole on the afternoon of 14 December 1911, traveling from grid south (he was using the local time of Framheim, which would have been approximately GMT-11; some accounts, including Amundsen's original field notes, use time on the west side of the Date Line which Scott was using, this would make the date 15 December). When their sledge meters indicated they should be at the right place, they stopped at the location marked "Sledge" on the map at right (from The South Pole) to determine their position more accurately from sun shots.
Then Robert Scott's expedition got to the South Pole just a few days later - what a way to spend Christmas in 1911!
Of course, as we all know he and his expedition on the way home.
So it's not a definite proof that, on a Monopole model Flat Earth, that they ventured out into the infinite plane.
Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.
Really? The video we saw seemed to imply that Antarctica is very highly regulated and there was a ton of paperwork and government approvals, to the point where they approve where you go and the path you travel through.
Even of he had a compass or a gyroscopic compass, if you are at what you think to be the South Pole on a Round Earth, you know that have to go North to go back to the coast.
We see from the diagrams of these explorers that they didn't continue in a straight line after reaching the pole. They turned in an angle. Show me an expedition where they continued in a straight line.
If your goal is to cross Austrailia, why woukd you change your angle mid journey?
Even of he had a compass or a gyroscopic compass, if you are at what you think to be the South Pole on a Round Earth, you know that have to go North to go back to the coast.What the others said. The map shows why. The highway has to cross a large ice with nasty crevasses. Then you have a detour to cross the Transarctic Mountains. Australia by contrast is pretty flat and presumably safe in the middle apart from boomerangs.
We see from the diagrams of these explorers that they didn't continue in a straight line after reaching the pole. They turned in an angle. Show me an expedition where they continued in a straight line.
If your goal is to cross Austrailia, why woukd you change your angle mid journey?
Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.
Really? The video we saw seemed to imply that Antarctica is very highly regulated and there was a ton of paperwork and government approvals, to the point where they approve where you go and the path you travel through.
So you're agreeing that people can go there, IF they complete the paperwork and get their route approved?
I believe his argument was that it's IMpossible to go there. Which he claims multiple times in fact. "... which given all the restrictions, its cleverly made impossible." "basically from here on out it explains thoroughly how it is made impossible through the pretence of environment protection." But to understand how difficult or not it was, one would probably want to attempt to talk to or interview some of the many people who have done it.Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.
Really? The video we saw seemed to imply that Antarctica is very highly regulated and there was a ton of paperwork and government approvals, to the point where they approve where you go and the path you travel through.
So you're agreeing that people can go there, IF they complete the paperwork and get their route approved?
Yes. I think that was the thread creator was arguing too with his mention of "hmm, only a few sections are open for tourists?"
His argument that is was possible for people to go there. The government just highly regulates it.
I believe his argument was that it's IMpossible to go there. Which he claims multiple times in fact. "... which given all the restrictions, its cleverly made impossible." "basically from here on out it explains thoroughly how it is made impossible through the pretence of environment protection." But to understand how difficult or not it was, one would probably want to attempt to talk to or interview some of the many people who have done it.Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.
Really? The video we saw seemed to imply that Antarctica is very highly regulated and there was a ton of paperwork and government approvals, to the point where they approve where you go and the path you travel through.
So you're agreeing that people can go there, IF they complete the paperwork and get their route approved?
Yes. I think that was the thread creator was arguing too with his mention of "hmm, only a few sections are open for tourists?"
His argument that is was possible for people to go there. The government just highly regulates it.
I mean, we've got the 'pirate ship' that took people there unsanctioned multiple times. If you want to get pedantic, sure. But it's not 'impossible' to go to Antarctica. I imagine the bureaucratic difficulties are less than the monetary ones though. But again, the only way to actually know would be to ask people who've gone, not hypothesize.I believe his argument was that it's IMpossible to go there. Which he claims multiple times in fact. "... which given all the restrictions, its cleverly made impossible." "basically from here on out it explains thoroughly how it is made impossible through the pretence of environment protection." But to understand how difficult or not it was, one would probably want to attempt to talk to or interview some of the many people who have done it.Doesn't matter - what matters is that YOU CAN GO TO ANTARCTICA AND GO OVER ANY ROUTE YOU WANT, you just have to be able to pay, and you better be in good shape and know your way around survival equipment.
Really? The video we saw seemed to imply that Antarctica is very highly regulated and there was a ton of paperwork and government approvals, to the point where they approve where you go and the path you travel through.
So you're agreeing that people can go there, IF they complete the paperwork and get their route approved?
Yes. I think that was the thread creator was arguing too with his mention of "hmm, only a few sections are open for tourists?"
His argument that is was possible for people to go there. The government just highly regulates it.
Well yes, it's impossible to just "go there" like people always ask us to "just go to Antarctica."
What do you think the government will do when they see you flying your plane on radar approaching restricted airspace? It's not just an open place.
Tons of paperwork and approvals are necessary, which was the point.
Talk to Jon Johanson, who flew over the South Pole without permission.
Seems quite conclusive in a couple of ways. Firstly: You can fly over the continent apparently relatively easily without being stopped. Secondly: Doing so you're pretty much on your own, and will not receive help from 'the locals' due to government regulations. As we say in IT "A lack of planning on your end, does not constitute an emergency on mine."Talk to Jon Johanson, who flew over the South Pole without permission.
From what I read about it suggests that he managed to make it to a base in Antarctica, perhaps after doing his research on other flight paths that have been claimed to it, and then when he landed they refused to give or sell him fuel to further his journey or return home. After being held hostage for a while he was offered a flight to New Zealand (https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/1071086202326.html?from=storyrhs).
Not particularly conclusive. In fact, we see that the scientists there aren't so nice and welcoming as commonly believed.
From what I read about it suggests that he managed to make it to a base in Antarctica, perhaps after doing his research on other flight paths that have been claimed to it, and then when he landed they refused to give or sell him fuel to further his journey or return home. After being held hostage for a while he was offered a flight to New Zealand.
Not particularly conclusive. In fact, we see that the scientists there aren't so nice and welcoming as commonly believed.
Australian adventurer Jon Johanson has become the first person to fly solo over the South Pole in a fixed-wing aircraft but has received an icy reception after an emergency landing in the Antarctic.
Johanson had planned to fly from New Zealand, over the South Pole, and on to Argentina, but dangerous headwinds after he flew over the pole Monday forced him to turn back and make an emergency landing at the United States' McMurdo Antarctic base.
Now he doesn't have enough fuel to fly back to New Zealand, and officials at the U.S. base and New Zealand's nearby Scott base are refusing to give or sell him the fuel to fly out.
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/americas/12/09/antarctica.cold.shoulder.reut/
The US Antarctic base did not welcome his unscheduled landing, and initially refused to let him use its facilities. They later let him sleep in the fuel shed. But Mr Johanson said he had "no complaints at all with what happened down there".
Because of their policies on private expeditions to Antarctica, neither the Americans nor the New Zealanders at nearby Scott Base would sell him fuel, although both offered him alternative air travel back to New Zealand.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3539644
How about the two maps above where the planes disappear off into space and reappear on the other side of the disk??? ;D
Why is everyone making a sharp turn when immediately hitting the South Pole? Especially in a plane flying over it?
Why shouldn't they? Is there some rule that says the only valid journey is one resembling a roman road?
Makes one wonder.
We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.
Even of he had a compass or a gyroscopic compass, if you are at what you think to be the South Pole on a Round Earth, you know that have to go North to go back to the coast.
We see from the diagrams of these explorers that they didn't continue in a straight line after reaching the pole. They turned in an angle. Show me an expedition where they continued in a straight line.
If your goal is to cross Austrailia, why would you change your angle mid journey?
Talk to Jon Johanson, who flew over the South Pole without permission.
From what I read about it suggests that he managed to make it to a base in Antarctica, perhaps after doing his research on other flight paths that have been claimed to it, and then when he landed they refused to give or sell him fuel to further his journey or return home. After being held hostage for a while he was offered a flight to New Zealand (https://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/11/1071086202326.html?from=storyrhs).
Not particularly conclusive. In fact, we see that the scientists there aren't so nice and welcoming as commonly believed.
We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.
If you don't know whether they are or not, maybe it might be a good idea to establish this before publishing the map.
Who is this 'we' you always use?We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.
If you don't know whether they are or not, maybe it might be a good idea to establish this before publishing the map.
We've said the same thing from day one. The message just gets lost in translation.
...
But we do know that space is fake and that the Earth isn't a globe.
Put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
Put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
You are severely mischaractarising many points.
...but not all of them?
About half your list is a troll on your part.
Put yourself in my shoes. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
You are severely mischaractarising many points.
...but not all of them?
About half your list is a troll on your part.
So by implication, the other half is not?
However, the higher you rise in education level in a STEM field the more you realize how truly little we know about anything. The idea that much of our knowledge is based on assumptions is not ridiculous at all.What is your level of education in STEM subjects? I mean, no offence but I've seen you claim that spectroscopy is looking at light and thinking "ooh, that looks a bit red" and you spent a full 2 days misunderstanding a simple experiment with a boat and a laser.
However, the higher you rise in education level in a STEM field the more you realize how truly little we know about anything. The idea that much of our knowledge is based on assumptions is not ridiculous at all.What is your level of education in STEM subjects? I mean, no offence but I've seen you claim that spectroscopy is looking at light and thinking "ooh, that looks a bit red" and you spent a full 2 days misunderstanding a simple experiment with a boat and a laser.
We all make assumptions about pretty much everything all the time. When I turn the tap (faucet, for you lot) on I assume that water will come out and that it has been filtered such that it's safe to drink. I don't test it every time. I don't get into my car and do a full engine check every time before I drive anywhere (not that I'd know how to).
So yes, I am assuming that the people who say they have been to space are telling the truth - because the idea that every single one is lying seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that the photos and video from space are real - because the idea that that many countries are all lying about it and all producing fake content seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that the world has been mapped accurately - because the idea that airlines and cruise lines get around so reliably otherwise seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that my satellite dish is pointing at a satellite - I have experience of what happens when the signal is blocked so it's definitely pointing at something, I am assuming that it is a satellite rather than some unknown technology which can hover something in a stationary position for years on end, the idea that Sky are lying to me for no good reason or being lied to themselves seems ridiculous.
I am assuming that perspective works how I understand it to and not how one Victorian dude claimed it does, especially since the dude's ideas have not been widely accepted. The idea that I can be on a hill looking out to sea and see the sun sinking slowly below the horizon when it is in fact hundreds or maybe thousands of miles above the earth seems ridiculous.
and so on...
So yes, I haven't done lots of research into whether the earth is really a globe because I have no reason to doubt it, any more than despite having never been to Australia I have no reason to doubt it exists. Yes, it's technically possible that everyone I've met from there is lying, that maps have been created with it on as part of some conspiracy, that photos and video from there is all faked. Is that all possible? I guess, by the strictest definition of the word. But is it plausible? Not to me.
I am highly educated and I've spent my entire life in STEM. I do value my privacy, however. I will reveal more at some point.All you've really done is there is repeat that you don't really understand what spectroscopy is and why its results can be trusted.
Red Shift and Blue Shift in Astronomy is questionable because we are assuming that an observed star can't be red for another reason. There are no controlled experiments with the stars on that concept. When I apply some slight scrutiny to the subject and ask for some studies on the decisiveness of that because I could not find any, it is complained that I am "demanding excessive evidence." ::)
Per the boat thing, I had no idea what specific argument you trying to make.You were the one making the argument, claiming that the results of the experiment didn't take into account the viewer height.
If you are not interested in learning about the world or debating your side and showing how we know certain things, then what are you doing here?
WhichHow about the two maps above where the planes disappear off into space and reappear on the other side of the disk??? ;D
We only put out that map as an example for visualization purposes. The actual intricacies of the earth may be different.
Layout of the ContinentsSurely by this stage someone has sorted out which is might be, if it is either of those and not from JRowe's "Dual Earth Theory". or even sandokhan's "correct, bi-polar map":
There are several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica, as well as the overall layout of the continents.
Many believe that Antarctica is the Ice Wall encountered by Sir James Clark Ross, whereas some believe that Antarctica is simply a 'rim continent' surrounding the known Earth and that the term Ice Wall is misleading. Others believe that Antarctica is an isolated and distinct continent and that though an Ice Wall exists, it is not Antarctica. The latter model generally assumes that the geography of the Earth is quite different to that outlined in the conventional model.
Below are images of the two Flat Earth geographic models, which convey the different concepts of Antarctica within Flat Earth Theory:From: Layout of the Continents (https://wiki.tfes.org/Layout_of_the_Continents)
Ice Wall model:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)As a distinct continent:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
The northern circumpolar map, for some unknown reason still used by the FESs, is incorrect, useless in fact.
Here is the correct, bi-polar map, which I brought to the FES for the first time (like so many other things):
(http://web.archive.org/web/20061224004927/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)
Surely by this stage someone has sorted out which is might be, if it is either of those and not from JRowe's "Dual Earth Theory". or even sandokhan's "correct, bi-polar map"
QuoteSurely by this stage someone has sorted out which is might be, if it is either of those and not from JRowe's "Dual Earth Theory". or even sandokhan's "correct, bi-polar map"
It gets increasingly complicated the more one looks into it.
- Planes don't fly in straight paths to their destinations and only fly on certain routes for legal or territorial reasons
- Planes use jet streams as standard practice
- A stop is defined as one which picks up and drops off passengers. Non-stop in the travel industry may not always necessarily mean non-stop. (a bus that makes 29 stops and stops for fuel at some point still advertises its route as 29 stops, not 30)
- Distances are calculated based on the Lat-Long system that uses spherical coordinates
- There are many possible layouts of the continents
- It is not that unheard of for planes to arrive an hour late or an hour early (plenty of testimonials)
- There is not a good source of raw logs (not calculated or estimated) from the aircraft
- There is no such thing as a plane odometer (airspeed is not used in navigation and is surprisingly useless, only used to tell the pilot how fast air is moving over the wing)
- There are not routes between every airport on earth
- There is no guarantee that flight estimates are based on anything more than times from previously completed flights
Your numbers don't make sense. Look at the one over the 5hr mark. It correlates with about 4000 miles.Look at the units.
A plane on an international flight travels about 550mph.
5hrs x 550 = 2750 miles
So your evidence is showing something contrary to the earth model you are arguing for.
Look at the units.
Look at the units.
I edited my post with a source. Even on the high end range of my quote it doesn't equate to 4000 miles.
It is pretty small for me on mobile. If it is supposed to say km, that doesn't make much sense either with kmh. Look at the first point with 2000 miles.
High range jet kmh: 2000 / 900 = 2.2
Low range jet kmh: 2000 / 750 = 2.6
Yet the point is about 3+ hours. Hundreds of km unaccounted for?
Looks to be a point that edby is wrong then and other things do need to be taken into account.
Your numbers don't make sense. Look at the one over the 5hr mark. It correlates with about 4000 miles.Well. That's embarrassing...
https://www.quora.com/How-fast-do-aeroplanes-fly
"Commercial jet aircraft cruise at about 400 – 500 knots (460 – 575 mph / 740 – 930 kph)"
Lets use 550 mph for example:
5hrs x 550 = 2750 miles
So your evidence is showing something contrary to the earth model you are arguing for.
Looks to be a point that edby is wrong then and other things do need to be taken into account.There is certainly more than simple time proportion to distance relationship.
The equation can be rearranged into time(hrs) = 0.72 + distance(km)/871, rounding the numbers a bit.Which is in fact clearly visible in the chart above. If the line is continued backwards, it intersects the x axis (time) at about 45 minutes.
Tom, the whole point is the close correlation across the graph, not the individual speed of one data point....Let's not forget that. The standard FE objection is that we don't know about distances, unless we rely on satellite information, which is faked. OK, but we do know about flight times. To avoid the usual handwaving about jet streams, stopoffs, random unexplained changes of direction etc, we draw the graph above, which shows the correlation is pretty strong.
If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.Yes, standard longitude/latitude then work out great circle distance using spherical globe assumption.
How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate miles from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?
That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.Still waiting for your opinion of the WGS-84 model.
How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?
That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.
That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.No, the airline does.
Actually I think Tom's problem is the y-axis. This distance depends on spherical assumptions, and I suspect he thinks the logic is somehow circular.That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.No, the airline does.
And they know how long their flights take.
Planes fly at a fairly standard cruising speed and that graph demonstrates that, time and distance largely correlate.
It's almost like they know how far they're flying and how fast and they have a map which works.
If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.
How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?
That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.