[The CuriousOne]

So, I just read your article on eclipse and circumnavigation. I won't comment on an eclipse because I can't prove this from the earth. I would have to take you into orbit to prove that and it's not an economical or efficient way to prove. What strikes me odd is that you only site as poof if the north pole is in the center and you travel east or west and arrive at the same place. The curious one in me is why you never state the obvious and explain multi directions. Like north or south travel? Another subject I haven't found yet (will admit I haven't dug enough on your site yet) is does the earth rotate or does the sun rotate around the earth?

[TimeWillTell]

Has there been any proof of North South Circumnavigation yet ? Whether on a boat or a plane ?

Circumnavigation based on my research has always been going West or going East.

[The CuriousOne]

If there's a point north that also means there's a point south. This is according to this sites article on circumnavigation that true north is in the middle of flat earth. So, if there are directions at any point around us we can travel those directions at any point in time/space. The theory of circumnavigation will have to include all directions not just the east/west sited on this article. If, true north is in the center of the top flat earth that means that true south is at the bottom center of the flat earth. You should easily be able to circumnavigate the whole flat earth and see the bottom/south of the flat earth. This would easily prove the flat earth theory correct or incorrect.

[TimeWillTell]

Well based on the theory, everything points towards true north. So if you're circumnavigating it'll only be east or west not north or south. To go south and keep going south you wouldn't be able to circumnavigate the Earth using that method since you'll be going in a straight line away from the true north position

[juner]

There is an "edit" feature, please use it instead of spamming posts.

[LuggerSailor]

Has there been any proof of North South Circumnavigation yet ? Whether on a boat or a plane ?

Circumnavigation based on my research has always been going West or going East.

Your research is sadly lacking;

The first surface circumnavigation via both the geographical Poles was achieved by Sir Ranulph Fiennes and Charles Burton (both UK) of the British Trans-Globe Expedition. They travelled south from Greenwich, London, UK on 2 September 1979, crossed the South Pole on 15 December 1980, the North Pole on 10 April 1982, and returned to Greenwich on 29 August 1982 after a 56,000 km (35,000 mile) journey.

[The CuriousOne]

So let's take out a direction such as N, S, E, or W. Let's just call it traveling over the edge and under the top of the flat earth traversing the entire bottom half of the flat earth and coming across the other side of the flat earth until you reach the same point as to which you started on the top half half of the flat earth. We can argue semantics all day long whether this is called circumnavigation or not or if you can only circumnavigate east or west. This will hopefully clear that up for you now. SO please tell me why you can't travel around the flat earth that way.   

[TimeWillTell]

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

[Curious Squirrel]

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

[TimeWillTell]

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

[Curious Squirrel]

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

Then word your posts better. I highlighted the relevant text, which without further context showing you're meaning something different, implies you're claiming the treaty as well happened right after his 'discovery' (flight to the pole) which happened in 1929. 30 years before the Antarctic treaty. I gave no misinformation. I suggest you ensure your posts are clearer in the future.

If that's the only thing you find issue with in my reply though, I don't see that Byrd presents a case for you.

[TimeWillTell]

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

Then word your posts better. I highlighted the relevant text, which without further context showing you're meaning something different, implies you're claiming the treaty as well happened right after his 'discovery' (flight to the pole) which happened in 1929. 30 years before the Antarctic treaty. I gave no misinformation. I suggest you ensure your posts are clearer in the future.

If that's the only thing you find issue with in my reply though, I don't see that Byrd presents a case for you.

LOL . At no point did Byrd or anyone associated with the expedition talk about Eastern Antarctica as being the land they reached. And he specifically mentions going to the South Pole then flying past it in his video. Sounds like your information is incorrect but keep up the good work.

[Curious Squirrel]

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

Then word your posts better. I highlighted the relevant text, which without further context showing you're meaning something different, implies you're claiming the treaty as well happened right after his 'discovery' (flight to the pole) which happened in 1929. 30 years before the Antarctic treaty. I gave no misinformation. I suggest you ensure your posts are clearer in the future.

If that's the only thing you find issue with in my reply though, I don't see that Byrd presents a case for you.

LOL . At no point did Byrd or anyone associated with the expedition talk about Eastern Antarctica as being the land they reached. And he specifically mentions going to the South Pole then flying past it in his video. Sounds like your information is incorrect but keep up the good work.

That would be because it wasn't called East Antarctica at the time. Which is why I said it's 'what we now call' it. Please learn to parse the language if you're going to attempt to call others out on it. The remark about coming back the way they came was towards you wondering why they didn't reach Australia or something. They never left Antarctica...unless you're presuming the 'South Pole' is the continent, and not the physical location that is the pole. Which would be silly.

[TimeWillTell]

So let me ask you this, how come when Admiral Byrd flew past the South Pole he said he kept going and came to a 'new' land that no one has ever seen before ? Shouldn't he have come up the other side and continued up towards Africa or South America or Australia ?

How come they increased all expeditions to Antarctica after that and started the Antarctic treaty right after Admiral Byrd's discovery ?

Firstly, Byrd did not fly 'past' the South Pole exactly. He flew to it and then back again, during which he might have indeed ended up 'past' it, but the intent was always to return the way they came. Which they did.
Secondly, he called it an 'unexplored' land on the other side of the Pole from Little America (the base they launched from). Which, at that time, the area was. That being what we now call East Antarctica. An area that is indeed 'Bigger than the United States' as he described it.

I don't know about you, but I would struggle to call approx. 30 years to be 'right after' his flight. Sounds like a strawman in an attempt to make it sound more conspiratorial.

30 years you say? So the second Antarctic expedition was 30 years after his first ? Stop with the misinformation

The treaty came years later I agree, but my post clearly said they increased all expeditions (you can read the rest)

Then word your posts better. I highlighted the relevant text, which without further context showing you're meaning something different, implies you're claiming the treaty as well happened right after his 'discovery' (flight to the pole) which happened in 1929. 30 years before the Antarctic treaty. I gave no misinformation. I suggest you ensure your posts are clearer in the future.

If that's the only thing you find issue with in my reply though, I don't see that Byrd presents a case for you.

LOL . At no point did Byrd or anyone associated with the expedition talk about Eastern Antarctica as being the land they reached. And he specifically mentions going to the South Pole then flying past it in his video. Sounds like your information is incorrect but keep up the good work.

That would be because it wasn't called East Antarctica at the time. Which is why I said it's 'what we now call' it. Please learn to parse the language if you're going to attempt to call others out on it. The remark about coming back the way they came was towards you wondering why they didn't reach Australia or something. They never left Antarctica...unless you're presuming the 'South Pole' is the continent, and not the physical location that is the pole. Which would be silly.

Now you're trying to sound smarter than you really are but that's okay you're allowed because hey after all, this is the internet.

Regardless, your claim that the land he found was just another part of Antarctica has no merit to it but you presuming things might make you sound smarter and therefore feel like you're correct. Keep it up pal, you my friend definitely know your stuff

[The CuriousOne]

@TimeWillTell you still didn't answer my question you used conjecture to try and get the conversation in another direction. So again please tell me why you can't travel over the edge of the earth and underneath it?

[Curious Squirrel]

Now you're trying to sound smarter than you really are but that's okay you're allowed because hey after all, this is the internet.

Regardless, your claim that the land he found was just another part of Antarctica has no merit to it but you presuming things might make you sound smarter and therefore feel like you're correct. Keep it up pal, you my friend definitely know your stuff

Care to elaborate on how you think it has no merit? I have yet to see you put forth anything to support this claim, other than your own. The information supporting that it was is his words (land beyond the pole, the pole being a single, physical location) as well as that area not yet being explored at that time. Easy information to locate. Both point to the very simple answer that he was simply speaking of the other half of the continent. No mysterious conspiracy needed.

[The CuriousOne]

You still have not answered!!!

@TimeWillTell you still didn't answer my question you used conjecture to try and get the conversation in another direction. So again please tell me why you can't travel over the edge of the earth and underneath it?