[AATW]

I'm still happy to answer questions

Super. Here goes then

1) Do you believe there is a wall of ice encircling the earth?
2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?
3) What is your position on the people who have visited the South Pole, the permanent Scott Base which is alleged to be there and the 24 hour sun said to be observed there in their summer?

[Pete Svarrior]

1) Do you believe there is a wall of ice encircling the earth?

Yes. I think this is the fourth or fifth time I'm telling you this. Let me just cut ahead a bit: Yes.

Is it sinking in yet? Is "yes" a vague word to you? If so, is there a language you're more proficient in that I could perhaps try to use?

2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?

It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.

3) What is your position on the people who have visited the South Pole, the permanent Scott Base which is alleged to be there and the 24 hour sun said to be observed there in their summer?

I can't help you with allegations someone else made. You're going to have to ask them.

[stack]

1) Do you believe there is a wall of ice encircling the earth?

Yes. I think this is the fourth or fifth time I'm telling you this. Let me just cut ahead a bit: Yes.

Is it sinking in yet? Is "yes" a vague word to you? If so, is there a language you're more proficient in that I could perhaps try to use?

2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?

It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.

Can or has the wall of ice encircling the earth been observed from the Western, Eastern and Northern hemiplanes, or just the Southern hemiplane?
Is the wall of ice encircling the earth Antarctica or is Antarctica a continent and the ice encircling the earth is distinctly its own thing?

[Pete Svarrior]

Can or has the wall of ice encircling the earth been observed from the Western, Eastern and Northern hemiplanes, or just the Southern hemiplane?

East/west should have little bearing on how far south you are. Other than this small correction: I don't know.

Is the wall of ice encircling the earth Antarctica or is Antarctica a continent and the ice encircling the earth is distinctly its own thing?

I don't understand this question, or where it's coming from. I already said that Antarctica and the Ice Wall are different terms for the same thing. I maintain that questions like "Is Antarctica encircling Antarctica?" or "Are Antarctica and Antarctica distinct things?" are best left to philosophers.

[stack]

Is the wall of ice encircling the earth Antarctica or is Antarctica a continent and the ice encircling the earth is distinctly its own thing?

I don't understand this question, or where it's coming from. I already said that Antarctica and the Ice Wall are different terms for the same thing. I maintain that questions like "Is Antarctica encircling Antarctica?" or "Are Antarctica and Antarctica distinct things?" are best left to philosophers.

I was thinking about the mono-pole v Bi-Polar models. The former, Antarctica is the wall of ice encircling the earth. In the latter, Antarctica is a defined landmass unto itself and perhaps there is a separate wall of ice encircling all 7 continents.

[Pete Svarrior]

Fair enough, my apologies. In that case: I don't support the bipolar model. Antarctica is the Ice Wall

[stack]

Fair enough, my apologies. In that case: I don't support the bipolar model. Antarctica is the Ice Wall

I should have explained where I was coming from. Got it. Cool, thanks.

[AATW]

2) If yes, what is your basis/evidence for that belief?

It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.

See, this is where I don't understand how your mind works.

Far as I know you haven't seen Antarctica personally. Neither have I.
So we are relying on things other people say and photographs. Which is fine. That's how we all decide what to believe about most things.
I've not been to space. I've not been to Antarctica. So my knowledge about those things relies on other people. It has to.
The things they've seen, their accounts of those things, the photo and video they've taken.
What else is there to go on unless we've witnessed things ourselves?

So your basis for belief in an ice wall which encircles the flat earth is other people's accounts of seeing it, photos of it and agreement about it's elevation (not quite clear what you mean by that but the south pole is at altitude). So far, so fine. But are you ignoring videos like this which claim to show a 24 hour sun at the south pole?:



Or this video of people who visited the pole:



Which you can through this site:

https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/

It'll cost ya, but it's not millions of dollars like trips into space are right now. Fairly wealthy people who are interested enough could do this.

I don't know what you mean by "I can't help you with allegations someone else made". Your evidence for an ice wall is "allegations someone else made". Other people saying they saw it or showing photos of it. If those are part of your basis for belief - which is fairly reasonable, as I said, we can't all pop down to the South Pole any time we feel like it - then you can't dismiss evidence like the above. Or this circumnavigation via both Poles:

http://transglobe-expedition.org/expedition/

Every launch of a satellite or person into space and every expedition across the south pole is a chance for you to examine your beliefs. The video of a 24 sun going round Antarctica isn't possible in your FE model. It's lazy to just dismiss any evidence like this and inconsistent to do so while accepting photos and people claiming to have seen the ice wall as evidence of your beliefs. You must have some opinion about these things - if these things are as claimed then your beliefs are wrong so don't you think it's worth considering?

[QED]

I would just like to contribute a nominal point. It is not prohibitively expensive see Antarctica. You can book “cruises” that leave New Zealand and visit there. Passengers do not get to leave the ship, but they do enjoy direct sights of the beauty along the coast of the continent. Members of my extended family have done this (they are well off, but not insanely rich) and brought back gorgeous photographs (one of them is an amateur photographer, so has a nice camera). It is clearly evident to me from those photographs that there is no ice wall surrounding Antarctica.

I suppose my family could be involved in the conspiracy...I dunno, I feel at some point reason should win out here.

[Pete Svarrior]

Far as I know you haven't seen Antarctica personally. Neither have I.

And I'm not sure how you got that from my statements. I can only surmise you haven't read them.

It is clearly evident to me from those photographs that there is no ice wall surrounding Antarctica.

For the avoidance of doubt, as was previously made clear to you: No one is proposing that the Ice Wall (aka Antarctica) is surrounding Antarctica (aka the Ice Wall). I'm not interested in a metaphysical discussion about whether the continent surrounds itself.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

Peter, do you want to address the subglacial lakes that have been found using aerial and satellite radio echo sounding? Specifically, how their locations could be misconstrued and placed on a continent that is not strung out around the entire circumference of the earth, but rather that they are on a continent on the south pole? So far, I have knocked on the FE door and no one seems to be home. Everyone wants to play semantics games over something that has no bearing on reality.

[QED]

Agreed, let’s leave that to the philosophers. From the photographs they showed fro their trip, however, there is simply no wall there. No towering ledge. Penguins were shown to be resting in the continential shore, and swimming in the water.

Thus, in absence of qualities that I associate with a wall, I am inclined to just call it Antarctica. Now, as you have previously stated, you believe them to be one and the same.

So my question becomes: do you still believe in Antarctica if it does not have the shape of a wall? And if so, why preserve the “wall” terminology? What purpose does that serve?

[Pete Svarrior]

Agreed, let’s leave that to the philosophers. From the photographs they showed fro their trip, however, there is simply no wall there. No towering ledge.

Ah, you take the 19th century name far too literally. Parts of the Ice Wall (say, the Ross Ice Shelf) do resemble a wall, but the suggestion is not that the continent is some dramatic towering ledge that spans the circumference of the known Earth with no exception.

There's an aspect of convenience in naming things, and accuracy often makes way to brevity. The Round Earth Theory does not propose that the Earth is a literal sphere, much like the Flat Earth Theory does not propose a perfectly flat, smooth surface. And yet we call it Flat Earth, and your brethren will often say "the Earth is spherical"

So my question becomes: do you still believe in Antarctica if it does not have the shape of a wall? And if so, why preserve the “wall” terminology? What purpose does that serve?

Hopefully the first part of the question has been addressed above - let me know if not. As for preservation of terminology: Why do we stick to any convention? Why is the conventional flow of electric current going "the wrong way"? Why does America persist on using a different unit system from most of the world? People dislike change for various reasons: convenience, sometimes cost, sometimes it's about remaining consistent with past sources. I suppose it would be a combination of convenience and consistency. If we abandoned the name "Ice Wall" altogether, we'd have to explain it every time Rowbotham or Voliva are brought up anyway. There'd be no benefit to omitting it.

Peter, do you want to address the subglacial lakes that have been found using aerial and satellite radio echo sounding? Specifically, how their locations could be misconstrued and placed on a continent that is not strung out around the entire circumference of the earth, but rather that they are on a continent on the south pole?

Sorry, I only tend to deal with issues I experienced, and will not speculate on something I don't know much about and have no evidence for.

[QED]

That’s a fair and reasonable justification. I do maintain that the responsibility is upon FES then to explain this convention and the non-literal historical context so it is not misinterpreted. Much like physicists bear responsibility regarding the direction of current.

[Pete Svarrior]

Yes, that much is fair.

[AATW]

Far as I know you haven't seen Antarctica personally. Neither have I.

And I'm not sure how you got that from my statements. I can only surmise you haven't read them.

I asked you what your beliefs about Antarctica are based on. You said:

It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane. That, combined with an abundance of photographic visual aids, and a general consensus of its elevation regardless of which camp you're in.

You didn't explicitly say you have seen it. That seems like quite the omission and would surely be part of your basis for belief had you done so.
That's how I got that from your statements. If your comment "It's quite easy to see from the southern hemiplane" is based on you personally having done so then I misunderstood - that statement doesn't necessarily mean that you have personally seen it. But fine. Let's say you have. The fact that Antarctica exists and is south of land-masses in the southern hemisphere is not in dispute (apart from the sphere bit). What is in dispute is that it circles the flat earth rather being the southern continent on a globe.

Unless you have explored Antarctica extensively yourself your evidence for it circling the earth is the things you list - other people's allegations, other people's photos.
Evidence you don't want to express an opinion about when it comes to evidence which shows Antarctica to be a continent.

Ironic that later in this thread you go on to say:

I only tend to deal with issues I experienced, and will not speculate on something I don't know much about and have no evidence for.

Unless you have experienced Antarctica you are speculating on something you don't know much about.
As am I of course, as I said I have not been to Antarctica or even seen it from afar. But I am at least consistent in acknowledging that quite regularly I have to form beliefs about things I have not personally witnessed or explored, as do we all.

It is logically inconsistent of you to call some evidence "hypothetical" or "other people's allegations" when it doesn't tally with your world view and accept it as evidence when it does.
For someone who regularly says you are open to the possibility that you may be wrong about the shape of the earth you don't seem to be making much effort to find out if you are.
In the AR thread ChrisTP mentioned the sailing race around Antarctica. Your response was:

how do you suppose people go about their boat race around the relatively small continent compared to what you'd think is a boat race around the entire outer edge of the earth?

That's a nice hypothetical you've got there. Have you considered asking the people who made this claim?

To which my response is: Have you considered asking them?
Here's a website about the race:

http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/

If you're open to the possibility you may be wrong is this not the sort of thing worth investigating? You can't just bat that back to RE - the existence of this race does not challenge our beliefs. It does yours. Well, it's not the existence of the race itself, more the length of it and the way ships would have to be navigating.
From that site:

A non-stop race of around 14,000 nautical miles – circumnavigating Antarctica

Does that length tally with a circumnavigation around the Ice Wall in your model? If Antarctica were an Ice Wall then with it on your right you'd be going round it in an anti-clockwise direction, if it's a continent then with it on your right you'd be going clockwise, which is what they do according to the map on that site.

You're a fairly prominent FE spokesman, is it not worth reaching out to these guys? Things like this are opportunities for you to challenge your beliefs, as is every rocket launch and every Antarctic expedition and film of 24 hour daylight in Antarctica. Are you not interested in doing that?

[Pete Svarrior]

Unless you have experienced Antarctica you are speculating on something you don't know much about.

Congratulations. One day you might put two and two together. I'll be there to cheer you on.

To which my response is: Have you considered asking them?

Why would I? It's not my question.

You're a fairly prominent FE spokesman, is it not worth reaching out to these guys? Things like this are opportunities for you to challenge your beliefs, as is every rocket launch and every Antarctic expedition and film of 24 hour daylight in Antarctica. Are you not interested in doing that?

Not particularly - it wouldn't provide me with any knowledge I'm not already satisfied with. It sounds like you have something you'd like to find out (though you really struggle to put it into words), so it may be a good idea for you to do pursue. Best of luck.

[AATW]

To which my response is: Have you considered asking them?

Why would I? It's not my question.

I'm suggesting it should be your question. Why would you? Because if you are genuine in your declaration that you may be wrong in your beliefs then the way of exploring that is to engage with people whose experiences challenge those beliefs. I know you rate personal observation highly and that in general is a reasonable stance. But we can't all go to space, we can't all sail around Antarctica much less trek across it. Quite often we have to base our beliefs on other people's experience and evidence.

If you feel your FE model explains 24 hour sunlight in Antarctica and the boat race round the coast of it (again, it's the distance of that race and the direction they're going in a circle which would challenge your beliefs) then fair enough but the model as outlined in the Wiki wouldn't explain that. Or maybe I'm not understanding that model correctly. So let me ask you a couple of more direct questions:

1) Can you explain how in your FE model there could be 24 hour sunlight going around Antarctica? As in, it circles your viewpoint from Antarctica as shown in the video I posted previously.
2) Could you sail a 14,000 mile route around Antarctica in your model as this race claims to do?

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm suggesting it should be your question.

Thank you for your suggestion, but I currently have more urgent priorities, and your suggestion would not provide me with any knowledge I don't already have. My counter-suggestion is that, since you seem quite interested in the subject, you should be the one pursuing it. Demanding that others prioritise your whims when you're not willing to put in any work is very unconvincing.

[AATW]

I'm suggesting it should be your question.

Thank you for your suggestion, but I currently have more urgent priorities, and your suggestion would not provide me with any knowledge I don't already have. My counter-suggestion is that, since you seem quite interested in the subject, you should be the one pursuing it. Demanding that others prioritise your whims when you're not willing to put in any work is very unconvincing.

Demanding and suggesting have very different meanings.
Are you going to answer my direct questions? You suggested earlier in the thread that you would answer direct questions if asked.