Questions for Flat Earthers

[ViaCrucis]

That may be--I have enough trouble keeping up with my own arguments and probably miss other discussions more than I see them.

But is there no room for divine inspiration or discernment through observation in your philosophy? Have you never had a revelation, not taught to you by any other person, that allowed you to figure out something or understand something or know something without being taught?

I mean somebody--probably numerous somebodies--without being taught, had to figure out that the Earth is round and therefore challenge, at least in his/their mind, that his/their concept of a flat Earth was flawed.

Such thinking didn't arrive from a vacuum. The ancient Greeks with knowledge of Egypt, Persia, and the Phoenicians, along with their many colonies and sailing exploits around the Mediteranean had numerous accounts and also experience of such phenomena as that certain stars which could be seen in one place could not be seen at another. From these they could see and observe, and could intuit that perhaps the earth was round. And eventually Eratosthenes made his famous experiments which demonstrated the sphericity of the earth demonstrating what had been assumed for centuries based on the knowledge, information, and observations of many different people from across a vast swath of geographic territory.

We are, literally, the heirs of over six thousand years of knowledge accumulated by civilizations and cultures from across the globe. From when humans began to gather in cities and agrarian communities 8-10 thousand years ago to the birth of writing in Sumer, and so on and so on.

So I don't think discovery happens in a vacuum, it happens within the context of the long history of our species bumbling around in the dark. Where I see the Divine in this is that it is God who is the author of this fantastic creation, and has by His grace granted us with an intellect and a curiosity to understand and appreciate it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Oldmantook]

I assume you mean his words in this interview?

I think his statement (1:39-1:52) was probably accurate - "......on the other side of the South Pole from middle America." If you arrive at the South Pole from one side of Antarctica you can keep going (back north) on the other side which may not have been explored at that time. There's no reason to think he was talking about a flat earth.

I suspect that is not the case as one would normally expect him to speak in plain English. The most direct and expedient route to get to the S. Pole would be to travel south directly from the N. American continent. The "other side" had already been explored on a round earth model as it is surrounded by ocean and other continents. However Byrd referred to a land larger than America which no one has seen. What could that be as all the continents (we know of) had already been explored at the time of Byrd's expedition?

 

[Oldmantook]

The problem here, as I pointed out in a previous post, is that you are misquoting Byrd. He never made the claim you think he did. I verified the evidence for his supposed claim, then presented it for others to do the same. Perhaps you should examine the evidence yourself then come back and tell us what he really said in the interview.

On the contrary, I quoted Byrd verbatim. It is your interpretation of what he said which differs from mine which is a entirely different matter altogether.

 

[Oldmantook]

It's not. You can go on holiday there.

If you had thoroughly read my posts, you would have been aware that I already noted the fact that tourists can take guided tours of certain parts of Antarctica. However, the rest of the continent is forbidden to everyone except scientists/researchers - otherwise known as the Antarctica Treaty System established in 1961.

 

[dad]

Ah so you were engaging in more formal debate and competently arguing the opposing side. A good indication of somebody who has seriously considered both arguments and chose the one most plausible or compelling. A very good ability to have, by the way.

Actually I do think the people of the Bible thought of the Earth as flat because they didn't give the whole concept of geography a whole lot of thought. "To the ends of the Earth" was just a metaphor for as far and wide as God's creation extended. And they described their experience in terms that they knew and understood. Just as I don't think of New York City as curved away from Los Angeles, which it is, but think of traveling from one to the other as pretty much a straight line.

And of course they knew nothing of astrophysics so the physical shape of the sun and moon didn't concern them and they could not distinguish the visible planets from the stars.

We'll have to disagree on whether we think the ancients thought the earth was flat I guess.

 

[dad]

How can Jerusalem be the centre of the Earth if the Earth is a sphere?

Easy. We count only at the surface. We also look at what God says. It is also the center of all prophesy. It was where Abraham sacrificed. It was where Jesus died. It is where He will return.

 

[dad]

Not knowing something doesn't make one a moron. Of course how you could possibly know this about Adam I have no idea.

God Personally made Adam, and Adam talked with God. No moron was he.

I was born and raised in a society where I was taught, from a very young age, about basic things, like that the sun is a star,

It isn't. Sorry you were misled.

or rather that stars are just suns but much further away, and that the earth is round. But that knowledge was taught to me, I didn't know it intuitively.

That is not knowledge.

Here are some things I did believe as a kid because I didn't know any better until I learned otherwise:

I thought my home town was its own country. There was my home town, America, and China, those were the three countries that existed on earth. Then I learned that my home town wasn't its own country, it was a small town in one state out of fifty states that make up the United States.

Well, then, I intuited, America is on the top of the earth! Best country is on top right? Well, nope. Also, I learned that Japanese people aren't Chinese when I was a small tyke and asked a Japanese lady who knew my parents when she came from China. There's more countries than just America and China?! And Americans can look different too?!

Once there was this gorgeous sunset, and I was awestruck by it, the way the light shimmered gold glowing on top of the clouds--it was heaven! I could see heaven! It was right there!

Not me this time, but when I was in Kindergarten we were coloring pictures, I chose to color the person in my picture with a brown crayon, all the other kids laughed at me, "People aren't brown!" they said. Mrs. Howe had to explain to a room of five year olds that not all human beings can be depicted using the peach colored crayon.

Because I didn't know any better until I learned.

So, yes, people believe all kinds of things when they don't know otherwise. They will fill in the gaps with other things in order to satisfy questions. Why does the sun go across the sky? Ah, the night dragon chases the sun and consumes it over the horizon and then it is reborn in the morning. I need rain to water my crops so my family and village can survive, the masterful forces which rule the clouds must not be angered--after all, people have minds and can choose to be kind or mean, why wouldn't this be true of the sky itself?

But maybe I'm the strange one. Maybe you just came out of the womb knowing everything.

-CryptoLutheran

I try to include Scripture in my knowledge. That started long after I exited the womb. Nowhere does it say the sun is a star.

Having studied some of the reasons astronomy claims stars are as far as they are, I learned they don't know what they are talking about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Such thinking didn't arrive from a vacuum. The ancient Greeks with knowledge of Egypt, Persia, and the Phoenicians, along with their many colonies and sailing exploits around the Mediteranean had numerous accounts and also experience of such phenomena as that certain stars which could be seen in one place could not be seen at another. From these they could see and observe, and could intuit that perhaps the earth was round. And eventually Eratosthenes made his famous experiments which demonstrated the sphericity of the earth demonstrating what had been assumed for centuries based on the knowledge, information, and observations of many different people from across a vast swath of geographic territory.

We are, literally, the heirs of over six thousand years of knowledge accumulated by civilizations and cultures from across the globe. From when humans began to gather in cities and agrarian communities 8-10 thousand years ago to the birth of writing in Sumer, and so on and so on.

So I don't think discovery happens in a vacuum, it happens within the context of the long history of our species bumbling around in the dark. Where I see the Divine in this is that it is God who is the author of this fantastic creation, and has by His grace granted us with an intellect and a curiosity to understand and appreciate it.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree that it did not occur in a vacuum. But somebody was the first to utilize his God given gift of discernment, logic, and reason to figure something out and then risk being ridiculed, scorned, punished, and/or branded a lunatic, heretic, or worse when he shared his thoughts about it.

I have been accused and ridiculed for suggesting that a way to achieve warp speeds exists; we just haven't advanced technologically enough yet to see it. Certainly any extra terrestrial species that has visited us already knows how to do that.

Some of the most simple science that we all take for granted would have been deemed ludicrous and impossible by people thousands of years ago.

I think God has not yet shown us more than a teensy fraction of all that there is to know.

 

[Oldmantook]

It's funny you should say this because this is what I was going to say you were more or less doing (though I must admit I had to lookup the word priori)

You had assumed, based on what you read in the Bible that the Earth is flat and that the Bible is not subject to error. When you are shown evidence that there is an error, you reject the evidence. I recognize that an infallible creator inspired the writers of the Bible and because of that, I understand why you feel have no reason to doubt any of it's information. Now one Major thing we differ on is the nature of that information or "data" as it were.......I believe the information about the sun rising and falling above the flat circular Earth, with a water covered dome over it, and so on as depicted in the Bible is or was at least, a hypothesis, at best, a supposition. I say that with all due respect.

I am not trying to imply that the all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of life is fallible. Especially if that belief is a integral matter of your world view. For the sake of my own faith, I am willing to concede that point. I do however surmise that the human beings entrusted with communicating the will of that creator and the history of creation are fallible men and therefore portions must be verified in order to determine which portions are factual and which portions are metaphorical, instructional, the scientific knowledge that was indicative of that time and so on.

We can't use primarily Biblical data to verify the scientific knowledge in the Bible. As we know, this method does not work if you are trying to independently verify empirical data. A statement from the interview of an explorer could possibly verify some data if it was not proven false by other even more reliable verifiable data.

Which brings me to your rejection of NASA satellite data.


From the NASA website: "There are many satellites currently in geosynchronous orbits. The weather satellite pictures (GIF, 60k) we see on the news come from these satellites."
NASA - Geosynchronous Satellites


Also from the NASA website "NASA also uses geosynchronous satellites to send communications and data back and forth between spacecraft, such as the Space Shuttle and the Hubble Space Telescope, and control centers on Earth."

This quote would seem to indicate that the space program has even traveled beyond geosynchronous orbit.

In a further orbit than that, NASA has launched a satellite to a Lagrange point which is approximately 1.5 million km above Earth. It orbits the sun with the "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), used for studying the nature of the universe by mapping background microwave radiation."

Also according to the NASA website "Since the 1960s, NASA has developed polar-orbiting operational environmental satellites for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)." These satellites orbit the Earth north to south instead of around the equator and record weather data across the entire globe.

In 1956 the site of the United States Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station was founded by your man Richard E. Byrd. The year round residents of the station has performed numerous topographic surveys of the area surrounding the South Pole over the past 60 years, mapping out the accessible portions of Antarctica in great detail on the ground thus proving it is one land mass and not a separate land "beyond the South Pole" other than what we have now discovered

You stated NASA has made some conflicting and false statements about their satellite data. I have provided a statement made by NASA indicating that they have indeed achieved geosynchronous orbit around the Earth with a link to their website. While you have not provided any contrary information showing NASA is falsifying or posting contradictory information. With that said, I would like to also put forward an article about a rocket recently sent to outer space from India as the NY Times article reports "NEW DELHI — India’s space agency launched a flock of 104 satellites into space over the course of 18 minutes on Wednesday, nearly tripling the previous record for single-day satellite launches and establishing India as a key player in a growing commercial market for space-based surveillance and communication."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/asia/india-satellites-rocket.html?_r=0

Just one of dozens of companies that send satellites to outer space every year for GPS navigation, weather and communication. The company Virgin Galactic is even taking reservations for people that want to experience outer space Virgin Galactic, the world's first commercial spaceline
Not only those companies but the governments of numerous countries confirm satellite launces and data transmissions, Russia, Israel, Turkey, China, Korea, and the UK to name a small fraction of space capable countries with the USA and India having sent rovers even to Mars.

So I am not basing my agreement with the spherical Earth on one or two first hand accounts with no verification. Everything I am saying has been proven by astronomy, by satellite photographs and and various sensors, by topographic survey, nautical navigation, and manned flight to outer space. First hand accounts of people traversing the globe on sea and air on a daily basis consistently have proven a spherical Earth for hundreds of yrars.

If you are to follow the evidence, it only leads to a spherical Earth. Flat Earth has a couple first hand accounts from people who could not see the Earth in it's entirety. It just can't stand up to the mountain of evidence against it. If we are going to engage in an honest discussion, it must be acknowledged that belief in a flat Earth is based on Faith and not evidence/data.

Again, what empirical evidence do you have that can dispute the mountain of verifiable information of a spherical Earth? If you stick to the Biblical argument and Admiral Byrd's out of context quote, tell me how you have verified the eyewitness account without using faith?

Faith is a wonderful thing and I am not attacking faith. I understand that when something is believed in by faith, for the faithful, it is just as acceptable a truth as verifiable fact. However, our language does distinguish between faith and fact. I invite you to do the same.

God Bless You and Your Faith

"When you are shown evidence that there is an error, you reject the evidence."
That would be an inaccurate statement as I don't reject the evidence. I examine BOTH sides of the evidence and then determine if it lines up with Scripture. If it lines up with Scripture great - no problem. If it doesn't line up with Scripture then my interpretation of said scriptures is problematic and requires my reevaluation.

So....regarding the data in terms of satellites. I already cited that NASA claims to have satellites in geosynchronous orbit. However NASA has also stated that they have not gone beyond low earth orbit. These two claims are incompatible; a discrepancy which you have not addressed. Your reference to the NY Times article is a non-issue as the satellites that were launched are known as Dove satellites which have a sun synchronous low earth orbit. I don't doubt that there are satellites in low earth orbit. I do doubt however that we have satellites in geosynchronous orbit because a cursory search on the internet will reveal promotional videos/materials, interviews with NASA officials/spokesmen/astronauts who themselves state that we have not traveled beyond low earth orbit. I suggest you perform this cursory and simple research which reveals this contradiction. Your reference to Virgin Galactic is also irrelevant since they will launch in low earth orbit only and not beyond this. You have urged me to examine the evidence which I have done and there are definite contradictions. I respectfully suggest you do the same.

It's funny you should say this because this is what I was going to say you were more or less doing (though I must admit I had to lookup the word priori)

You had assumed, based on what you read in the Bible that the Earth is flat and that the Bible is not subject to error. When you are shown evidence that there is an error, you reject the evidence. I recognize that an infallible creator inspired the writers of the Bible and because of that, I understand why you feel have no reason to doubt any of it's information. Now one Major thing we differ on is the nature of that information or "data" as it were.......I believe the information about the sun rising and falling above the flat circular Earth, with a water covered dome over it, and so on as depicted in the Bible is or was at least, a hypothesis, at best, a supposition. I say that with all due respect.

I am not trying to imply that the all powerful, all knowing creator and sustainer of life is fallible. Especially if that belief is a integral matter of your world view. For the sake of my own faith, I am willing to concede that point. I do however surmise that the human beings entrusted with communicating the will of that creator and the history of creation are fallible men and therefore portions must be verified in order to determine which portions are factual and which portions are metaphorical, instructional, the scientific knowledge that was indicative of that time and so on.

We can't use primarily Biblical data to verify the scientific knowledge in the Bible. As we know, this method does not work if you are trying to independently verify empirical data. A statement from the interview of an explorer could possibly verify some data if it was not proven false by other even more reliable verifiable data.

Which brings me to your rejection of NASA satellite data.


From the NASA website: "There are many satellites currently in geosynchronous orbits. The weather satellite pictures (GIF, 60k) we see on the news come from these satellites."
NASA - Geosynchronous Satellites


Also from the NASA website "NASA also uses geosynchronous satellites to send communications and data back and forth between spacecraft, such as the Space Shuttle and the Hubble Space Telescope, and control centers on Earth."

This quote would seem to indicate that the space program has even traveled beyond geosynchronous orbit.

In a further orbit than that, NASA has launched a satellite to a Lagrange point which is approximately 1.5 million km above Earth. It orbits the sun with the "Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), used for studying the nature of the universe by mapping background microwave radiation."

Also according to the NASA website "Since the 1960s, NASA has developed polar-orbiting operational environmental satellites for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)." These satellites orbit the Earth north to south instead of around the equator and record weather data across the entire globe.

In 1956 the site of the United States Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station was founded by your man Richard E. Byrd. The year round residents of the station has performed numerous topographic surveys of the area surrounding the South Pole over the past 60 years, mapping out the accessible portions of Antarctica in great detail on the ground thus proving it is one land mass and not a separate land "beyond the South Pole" other than what we have now discovered

You stated NASA has made some conflicting and false statements about their satellite data. I have provided a statement made by NASA indicating that they have indeed achieved geosynchronous orbit around the Earth with a link to their website. While you have not provided any contrary information showing NASA is falsifying or posting contradictory information. With that said, I would like to also put forward an article about a rocket recently sent to outer space from India as the NY Times article reports "NEW DELHI — India’s space agency launched a flock of 104 satellites into space over the course of 18 minutes on Wednesday, nearly tripling the previous record for single-day satellite launches and establishing India as a key player in a growing commercial market for space-based surveillance and communication."
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/asia/india-satellites-rocket.html?_r=0

Just one of dozens of companies that send satellites to outer space every year for GPS navigation, weather and communication. The company Virgin Galactic is even taking reservations for people that want to experience outer space Virgin Galactic, the world's first commercial spaceline
Not only those companies but the governments of numerous countries confirm satellite launces and data transmissions, Russia, Israel, Turkey, China, Korea, and the UK to name a small fraction of space capable countries with the USA and India having sent rovers even to Mars.

So I am not basing my agreement with the spherical Earth on one or two first hand accounts with no verification. Everything I am saying has been proven by astronomy, by satellite photographs and and various sensors, by topographic survey, nautical navigation, and manned flight to outer space. First hand accounts of people traversing the globe on sea and air on a daily basis consistently have proven a spherical Earth for hundreds of yrars.

If you are to follow the evidence, it only leads to a spherical Earth. Flat Earth has a couple first hand accounts from people who could not see the Earth in it's entirety. It just can't stand up to the mountain of evidence against it. If we are going to engage in an honest discussion, it must be acknowledged that belief in a flat Earth is based on Faith and not evidence/data.

Again, what empirical evidence do you have that can dispute the mountain of verifiable information of a spherical Earth? If you stick to the Biblical argument and Admiral Byrd's out of context quote, tell me how you have verified the eyewitness account without using faith?

Faith is a wonderful thing and I am not attacking faith. I understand that when something is believed in by faith, for the faithful, it is just as acceptable a truth as verifiable fact. However, our language does distinguish between faith and fact. I invite you to do the same.

God Bless You and Your Faith

"When you are shown evidence that there is an error, you reject the evidence."
That misrepresents my position. If there is evidence that counters my belief, I'm more than willing to examine it and if it proves to be true then I'm obligated to reinterpret my interpretation of the scriptures. Scripture is infallible; I'm not and subject to error therefore my interpretation must be wrong. However, having said that, you have not shown me any evidence which calls me to question my belief. I do not question the existence of satellites in low earth orbit. I do however question the existence of geosynchronous satellites based on the fact that NASA has stated that they have not gone beyond low earth orbit. It is impossible to reach geosynchronous orbit if one is limited to low earth orbit. If you bother to do a simple internet search you will easily find promotional materials/video of NASA officials/ spokesmen/astronauts who state that NASA has not gone beyond low earth orbit. It appears to me that you have not comprehended the difference between the different orbiting altitudes as the India launch you referenced refers to the launch of a category of small satellites known as Dove satellites which operate in low earth orbit. Likewise your reference to Virgin Galactic will operate their vehicles in low earth orbit only. When NASA claims that they have satellites in geosynchronous orbit, how can that be if they are also on record as stating that they have not gone beyond low earth orbit. These are two contradicting statements and you need to somehow account for this discrepancy. You have urged me to examine the evidence which I think I've done and I find a contradiction. I respectfully encourage you to do the same.

 

[Strathos]

If you had thoroughly read my posts, you would have been aware that I already noted the fact that tourists can take guided tours of certain parts of Antarctica. However, the rest of the continent is forbidden to everyone except scientists/researchers - otherwise known as the Antarctica Treaty System established in 1961.

Yet commercial flights go right over the center of the continent...

 

[Bungle_Bear]

On the contrary, I quoted Byrd verbatim. It is your interpretation of what he said which differs from mine which is a entirely different matter altogether.

Yet in deliberately refusing to quote the entire sentence you chose to misrepresent what he actually said. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of dishonesty.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I suspect that is not the case as one would normally expect him to speak in plain English. The most direct and expedient route to get to the S. Pole would be to travel south directly from the N. American continent. The "other side" had already been explored on a round earth model as it is surrounded by ocean and other continents.

Exploring the edges of a continent is not the same as exploring the interior

However Byrd referred to a land larger than America which no one has seen. What could that be as all the continents (we know of) had already been explored at the time of Byrd's expedition?

Why don't you try researching the history of Antarctic exploration? Byrd was entirely correct in saying there was a large area of Antarctica that nobody had seen before. His expeditions were some of the first to explore the interior of the continent.

 

[morse86]

Yet in deliberately refusing to quote the entire sentence you chose to misrepresent what he actually said. It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of dishonesty.

Why don't you watch Byrd's interview? He claims there are unlimited quantities of resources in Antarctica. He was one of the most decorated heros in past times. Are you saying that he is lying?

After he reported his findings, all nations signed a treaty forbidding anyone from exploring there. They give "guided tours" on the edges, but no one has explored deep beyond the ice ridges.

There is overwhelming evidence for a non-globe earth. No one can prove the shape of the earth. The globe "sciences" also works for the "non-globe" earth.

The only left "laughable proof" of a globe is the NASA's CGI videos and paid public tax payer funded actor astronauts.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why don't you watch Byrd's interview?

I have watched it. I'm not convinced you have, though.

He claims there are unlimited quantities of resources in Antarctica.

At what point does he make that claim?

He was one of the most decorated heros in past times.

Is that somehow relevant?

Are you saying that he is lying?

I'm saying he's telling the truth. Others (including you) are misrepresenting what he says.

After he reported his findings, all nations signed a treaty forbidding anyone from exploring there.

Really? Which treaty was that?

There is overwhelming evidence for a non-globe earth.

Yet you are unable to present a single piece of it.....

 

[morse86]

Are you trolling???

Here it is:

Goto 4:26 minute mark

Here the unlimited resources:

Goto 5:40 minute mark.

Why don't you listen and learn something?

NASA and public tax payer funded non-independent parrot rent-a-scientist $cientists state Antarctica has no natural resources like coal, gold etc.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Are you trolling???

Here it is:
<snip>
Goto 4:26 minute mark

The bit where he says there's an untouched reservoir? That's not unlimited. Maybe your next effort will be better....

Here the unlimited resources:
<snip>
Goto 5:40 minute mark.

Enough coal to supply the whole world for quite a while? That's not unlimited.

Why don't you listen and learn something?

It turns out that at no point does he say there are unlimited resources. Are you sure it's me who lacks comprehension?

 

[ViaCrucis]

NASA and public tax payer funded non-independent parrot rent-a-scientist $cientists state Antarctica has no natural resources like coal, gold etc.

They do?

Antarctica Fact File, What is it like in Antarctica, Antarctic environment 2

What natural resources does Antarctica have? - A-Level Geography - Marked by Teachers.com

BBC - KS3 Bitesize Geography - Antarctica : Revision, Page 5

http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/PCAS_Syndicate_Reports/GCAS_6_Resources.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/place/Antarctica/Economic-resources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantarctic_Mountains#Geology

It's almost as though a simple Google search brings up a myriad of results talking about the known coal reserves in Antarctica Byrd mentions in the video. Almost as though there is no cover up at all, and that such a thing exists only in the imaginations of those who themselves conspire to perpetuate a completely stupid conspiracy theory.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[morse86]

That's a figure of speech. It means unlimited.

But let's pretend he means "quite a while" literally. Why is there a treaty signed by all nations to prevent anyone from exploring there? (guided tours that show you the edge is not exploring)

In the flat earth map projection, Antarctica encompasses the land in a circle.

I'm not fooled by your arguments.

 

[morse86]

They do?

Antarctica Fact File, What is it like in Antarctica, Antarctic environment 2

What natural resources does Antarctica have? - A-Level Geography - Marked by Teachers.com

BBC - KS3 Bitesize Geography - Antarctica : Revision, Page 5

http://www.anta.canterbury.ac.nz/documents/PCAS_Syndicate_Reports/GCAS_6_Resources.pdf

Antarctica - Economic resources | continent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transantarctic_Mountains#Geology

It's almost as though a simple Google search brings up a myriad of results talking about the known coal reserves in Antarctica Byrd mentions in the video. Almost as though there is no cover up at all, and that such a thing exists only in the imaginations of those who themselves conspire to perpetuate a completely stupid conspiracy theory.

-CryptoLutheran

Ahh Wikipedia articles. The best way to rewrite history and have the masses believe. You can literally go back and rewrite history, no one will be the wiser.

No one will point it out though, don't want to lose their tax payer funding to keep the charade going.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But let's pretend he means "quite a while" literally. Why is there a treaty signed by all nations to prevent anyone from exploring there? (guided tours that show you the edge is not exploring)

I say there is no such treaty. If you are so sure there is one please support that claim.

My guess is you're thinking of this treaty but have no real understanding of what it says.