[celogan]

Is it True that there is a planned expedition to Prove the Ice Ring by going to "Antarctica"? Will the "Drive the Parameter" all the way around?

[Science Supporter]

Is it True that there is a planned expedition to Prove the Ice Ring by going to "Antarctica"? Will the "Drive the Parameter" all the way around?

Yes. They plan to start in 2020, until then, I can't wait.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2019/03/16/flat-earth-supporters-now-plan-an-antarctica-expedition-to-the-edge-of-the-world/

[QED]

Is it True that there is a planned expedition to Prove the Ice Ring by going to "Antarctica"? Will the "Drive the Parameter" all the way around?

Yes. They plan to start in 2020, until then, I can't wait.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2019/03/16/flat-earth-supporters-now-plan-an-antarctica-expedition-to-the-edge-of-the-world/

I’m casting my vote for a complete live stream of the whole thing.

Wait. What’s the point in circumnavigating the perimeter? Won’t they end up at their starting position in both a FE and RE scenario?

Why don’t they go into the continent?

[Science Supporter]

Is it True that there is a planned expedition to Prove the Ice Ring by going to "Antarctica"? Will the "Drive the Parameter" all the way around?

Yes. They plan to start in 2020, until then, I can't wait.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2019/03/16/flat-earth-supporters-now-plan-an-antarctica-expedition-to-the-edge-of-the-world/

Da heck. I remember hearing about this, so I just googled "flat earthers going to edge expedition" I didn't even read the site I sourced lol. Another site says they ARE going to go to the "edge" so honestly I don't know.

I’m casting my vote for a complete live stream of the whole thing.

Wait. What’s the point in circumnavigating the perimeter? Won’t they end up at their starting position in both a FE and RE scenario?

Why don’t they go into the continent?

[markjo]

Is it True that there is a planned expedition to Prove the Ice Ring by going to "Antarctica"? Will the "Drive the Parameter" all the way around?

Yes. They plan to start in 2020, until then, I can't wait.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2019/03/16/flat-earth-supporters-now-plan-an-antarctica-expedition-to-the-edge-of-the-world/

I’m casting my vote for a complete live stream of the whole thing.

Wait. What’s the point in circumnavigating the perimeter? Won’t they end up at their starting position in both a FE and RE scenario?

Ideally, yes.  However FET and RET predict vastly different distances around the circumference.

Why don’t they go into the continent?

Probably a combination of exceedingly harsh conditions and international government regulations.
https://iaato.org/documents/10157/13325/Visitor+Guidelines+%28English%29.pdf

Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic

All visits to Antarctica should be conducted in accordance with the Antarctic Treaty, its Protocol on Environmental Protection, and relevant Measures and Resolutions adopted at Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM). Visits may only occur after prior approval by the relevant national authority.
 
These Guidelines provide general advice for visiting any location, with the aim of ensuring visits do not have adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment, or on its scientific and aesthetic values. ATCM Site Guidelines for Visitors provide additional site-­‐specific advice for some locations.

[Pete Svarrior]

Is it True that there is a planned expedition to Prove the Ice Ring by going to "Antarctica"?

No, it is not. This is a case of bad journalists misrepresenting FEIC's cruise, which is purely recreational and is not going to Antarctica.

Luckily, not all journalists are idiots, and some actually spoke to the organisers instead of making things up: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/travel/2019/03/reports-of-flat-earth-cruise-to-antarctica-is-blatantly-false-conference-founder-says.html

Yes. They plan to start in 2020, until then, I can't wait.

Please refrain from spreading fake news that you haven't bothered researching. You've done everyone in this thread a terrible disservice.

[Science Supporter]

I don't understand why flat earthers choose not to do this. It would be the easiest proof we aren't on a globe. All they have to do is follow some regulations and they can prove to everyone the "TRUTH"!

[stack]

I don't understand why flat earthers choose not to do this. It would be the easiest proof we aren't on a globe. All they have to do is follow some regulations and they can prove to everyone the "TRUTH"!

Which part(s) would be the easiest? Circumnavigate it by sea? Many have done it. There are even some sailing drones doing it now (Why, I do not know, https://www.saildrone.com/antarctica). But you have to get there, get yourself passage on some vessel going the way you want to go. You could do what a couple of guys did a couple of months ago and race across it. Maybe get a job at your country's station there and steal a sno-cat and drive around the interior. Many more options I'm sure, but all of which seem at a minimum cost/time prohibitive.

And rest assured, even if some prominent FEr's did such a thing and come back and say, "Yep, there is no Antarctic ice wall," one or more of a few things would happen in the FE community:

A) Perhaps lean more toward a bi-polar model than the more popular FE AE ice wall model
B) Akin to A, the ice wall isn't Antarctica, it's further
C) Those claiming to have gone there are shills and lying and part of the conspiracy
D) Doesn't matter unless I see it for myself

Pretty simple really.

[Pete Svarrior]

I don't understand why flat earthers choose not to do this. It would be the easiest proof we aren't on a globe. All they have to do is follow some regulations and they can prove to everyone the "TRUTH"!

Have you actually familiarised yourself with the "some regulations" you're so dismissive of here, or has my request that you read/think before writing fallen on deaf ears? If the former, you probably ought to elaborate on your thoughts.

even if some prominent FEr's did such a thing and come back and say, "Yep, there is no Antarctic ice wall," [...]

Given that the Ice Wall can be plainly seen from far away and countless photos and accounts are already available, this seems rather unlikely. The abundance of evidence that your side of the debate pretends not to exist is likely why we don't see a need to go there again. If pointing this out n times didn't work on the RET zealots, the n+1th time is unlikely to help.

[rodriados]

I don't understand why flat earthers choose not to do this. It would be the easiest proof we aren't on a globe. All they have to do is follow some regulations and they can prove to everyone the "TRUTH"!

Have you actually familiarised yourself with the "some regulations" you're so dismissive of here, or has my request that you read/think before writing fallen on deaf ears? If the former, you probably ought to elaborate on your thoughts.

even if some prominent FEr's did such a thing and come back and say, "Yep, there is no Antarctic ice wall," [...]

Given that the Ice Wall can be plainly seen from far away and countless photos and accounts are already available, this seems rather unlikely. The abundance of evidence that your side of the debate pretends not to exist is likely why we don't see a need to go there again. If pointing this out n times didn't work on the RET zealots, the n+1th time is unlikely to help.

Oh, you mean that photo of a giant iceberg taken a decade ago that has been debunked thousands of times? I thought you were the one here against fake news. Plus, how can you prove these photos are not CGI?

[Pete Svarrior]

Oh, you mean that photo of a giant iceberg taken a decade ago that has been debunked thousands of times?

No.

Plus, how can you prove these photos are not CGI?

I can't, and I have no interest in doing so. But that doesn't exactly help your compatriot's case for this task being worthwhile, does it? If anything, you just corroborated my point that RE'ers are beyond reform on this issue.

[stack]

Oh, you mean that photo of a giant iceberg taken a decade ago that has been debunked thousands of times?

No.

Plus, how can you prove these photos are not CGI?

I can't, and I have no interest in doing so. But that doesn't exactly help your compatriot's case for this task being worthwhile, does it? If anything, you just corroborated my point that RE'ers are beyond reform on this issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The most prevalent FE model is the AE with Antarctica as an ice ring/wall around the known, more grassy, continents. The wiki is careful to partially skirt and at the same time address that model. Though it is punctuated with a video that makes it seem like there must be something hiding there.

All of which perpetuates the confusion around the ice wall concept. Probably why you get 1000 questions about it per year.

[Pete Svarrior]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The most prevalent FE model is the AE with Antarctica as an ice ring/wall around the known, more grassy, continents. The wiki is careful to partially skirt and at the same time address that model. Though it is punctuated with a video that makes it seem like there must be something hiding there.

And I'm not sure what you mean by your comment.

The question was: "How can I prove that existing Ice Wall photographs are not CGI?"
My answer is: "I can't, and I have no interest in doing so."
Supporting comment: "It's funny that a RE'er surmised that a hypothetical, not-yet-chosen photo, would be deemed CGI. It shows why going to Antarctica to take photos would be a waste of time insofar that convincing the RET zealots goes."

I'm not sure how your post above links up with any of this at all. I'm particularly surprised by your comment on the Globebusters video. It sounds like you want us to be the gatekeepers and arbiters of truth. We will not be doing that.

All of which perpetuates the confusion around the ice wall concept. Probably why you get 1000 questions about it per year.

Let's face it: The vast majority of questions we get come from people who are barely literate, and who read a "Flat Earth 100% pwnz0red xDDDD" article somewhere on the Internet. They're not asking questions, they're just here to be righteously indignant. There would be no confusion whatsoever if they simply engaged with the literature with a little bit of integrity.

[stack]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The most prevalent FE model is the AE with Antarctica as an ice ring/wall around the known, more grassy, continents. The wiki is careful to partially skirt and at the same time address that model. Though it is punctuated with a video that makes it seem like there must be something hiding there.

And I'm not sure what you mean by your comment.

The question was: "How can I prove that existing Ice Wall photographs are not CGI?"
My answer is: "I can't, and I have no interest in doing so."
Supporting comment: "It's funny that a RE'er surmised that a hypothetical, not-yet-chosen photo, would be deemed CGI. It shows why going to Antarctica to take photos would be a waste of time insofar that convincing the RET zealots goes."

I'm not sure how your post above links up with any of this at all. I'm particularly surprised by your comment on the Globebusters video. It sounds like you want us to be the gatekeepers and arbiters of truth. We will not be doing that.

Yes, I would agree, the wiki is by no means a gatekeeper nor arbiter of truth.

All of which perpetuates the confusion around the ice wall concept. Probably why you get 1000 questions about it per year.

Let's face it: The vast majority of questions we get come from people who are barely literate, and who read a "Flat Earth 100% pwnz0red xDDDD" article somewhere on the Internet. They're not asking questions, they're just here to be righteously indignant. There would be no confusion whatsoever if they simply engaged with the literature with a little bit of integrity.

Even engaging with the literature with the utmost of integrity doesn't necessarily breed a lack of confusion when the claims are misleading, vague or unfounded.

[rodriados]

Supporting comment: "It's funny that a RE'er surmised that a hypothetical, not-yet-chosen photo, would be deemed CGI. It shows why going to Antarctica to take photos would be a waste of time insofar that convincing the RET zealots goes."

Isn't it exactly what Flat-Earthers do? We show them all evidences, proofs, measurements, experiments, instruments, photographs and they label it all as fake, inaccurate or CGI.

Let's face it: The vast majority of questions we get come from people who are barely literate, and who read a "Flat Earth 100% pwnz0red xDDDD" article somewhere on the Internet. They're not asking questions, they're just here to be righteously indignant. There would be no confusion whatsoever if they simply engaged with the literature with a little bit of integrity.

Whenever someone asks questions about phenomena we see on daily life, as I did in this forum before, all one gets as answer is "please read the wiki". After reading it, anyone with a reasonable understanding will realize that there are several inconsistencies and flawed theories in the wiki. If then one decides to ask a question in here, all s/he will get as a response is that there are a plethora of different Flat-Earth models, leaving their questions ultimately unanswered. You can't blame people for being curious about a radical claim, such as saying the knowledge they had about the world they live in is blatantly wrong, without being questioned about.