Photographs of the Ice Wall are extremely plentiful and common. It does nothing to help convince the RET brigade.
I also firmly disagree that photographs are empirical evidence. Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment. And, as both sides of the debate have shown time and time again, it's only good evidence until it doesn't support their stance.
Quite a strange, non-linear statement I'm not really following. Granted, it could just be me.
Let's break it down:
"Photographs of the Ice Wall are extremely plentiful and common."
Do you mean there are many images of the seemingly un-climbable, insurmountable Antarctic 'Ice Wall' that is proposed by FE lore? Or do you mean, "Yes there are many images of walls made of ice kind of everywhere around the earth at certain times of he year"?
If you mean the former, then it appears you would be putting stock into said images, of which, they don't "help convince the RET brigade", as you call it. Thereby rendering "I also firmly disagree that photographs are empirical evidence." moot. I'm not sure how you could have it both ways.
If you mean the latter, then yes, I agree, there are many walls of ice around the planet. Cool.
Lastly, "Empiricism relies on your own senses and ability to reproduce an experiment." Back to Markjo's point, essentially, the output of my own senses and an experiment may be photo evidence. If photos are
out as empirical evidence, what is in?