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?