Questions for Flat Earthers

[morse86]

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.

No private individual can explore there other than the $$$ tax payer funded few companies setup to provide "guided tours" there to keep the fakery going.

'Viking' won't pay fine

You need insurance and "preparedness" license fees (millions and millions and millions of dollars):

He was found to have lacked permission and failed to meet strict demands for insurance and preparedness for environmental consequences when he set sail from New Zealand.

That guy tried to go there and they arrested him because he didn't have the multi million dollar insurance required to "explore" there.

Nice try.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No private individual can explore there other than the $$$ tax payer funded few companies setup to provide "guided tours" there to keep the fakery going.

'Viking' won't pay fine

You need insurance and "preparedness" license fees (millions and millions and millions of dollars):


That guy tried to go there and they arrested him because he didn't have the multi million dollar insurance required to "explore" there.

Nice try.

Sorry, I can't see any link to a non-exploration treaty in that post. Could you please highlight where I missed it?

 

[morse86]

Sorry, I can't see any link to a non-exploration treaty in that post. Could you please highlight where I missed it?

Do you realize that it takes millions and millions and millions of dollars to get the insurance required and apply for the proper permits? What part of this do you not understand?

No average person can do it. The average person has to take the "guided" tours.

They put double speak in the treaty, anyone can explore...just pay us a billion dollars first.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Do you realize that it takes millions and millions and millions of dollars to get the insurance required and apply for the proper permits? What part of this do you not understand?

What I don't understand is how this claim

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

Is equivalent to

No average person can do it. The average person has to take the "guided" tours.

Then we have this unsupported nonsense:

They put double speak in the treaty, anyone can explore...just pay us a billion dollars first.

As a tourist you can fly to the South Pole for about $50,000.

Suggest you just stop now.

 

[morse86]

Why don't you do some research? Instead of stating utter nonsense.

Antarctica Flight - Review of Antarctica Flights, Cheltenham, Australia - TripAdvisor

Here's someone that bought the $50,000 ticket from that fake company and posted a review that contradicts your utter nonsense:

The best thing as the view over the ice for 4 hours, other passengers were all so friendly and you had plenty of time to get great photos, even if you weren't next to a window.

All they got to see was the edge of the ice caps from a plane window for $50,000.

You CANNOT explore Antarctica. What don't you understand? Can you do some basic research before posting nonsense?

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why don't you do some research? Instead of stating utter nonsense.

Antarctica Flight - Review of Antarctica Flights, Cheltenham, Australia - TripAdvisor

Here's someone that bought the $50,000 ticket from that fake company and posted a review that contradicts your utter nonsense:



All they got to see was the edge of the ice caps from a plane window for $50,000.

Oh, you are priceless. That review is for a flight from an entirely different company (chartered Qantas 747 rather than ANI dedicated aircraft) with an entirely different purpose (12 hour flight from Australia to the edge of Antarctica to look out of the window compared to 6-7 day expedition from Chile, with accommodation on Antarctica and including a flight landing at South Pole) and a far lower cost (most expensive seat $7,500 rather than $50,000)

You CANNOT explore Antarctica. What don't you understand? Can you do some basic research before posting nonsense?

What I don't understand is why you are still arguing.

 

[morse86]

Oh, you are priceless. That review is for a flight from an entirely different company (chartered Qantas 747 rather than ANI dedicated aircraft) with an entirely different purpose (12 hour flight from Australia to the edge of Antarctica to look out of the window compared to 6-7 day expedition from Chile, with accommodation on Antarctica and including a flight landing at South Pole) and a far lower cost (most expensive seat $7,500 rather than $50,000)


What I don't understand is why you are still arguing.

From the rubbish site that you posted:

Fly to the South Pole, where all 360 lines of longitude meet and in a few steps you can walk around the world.

Can you find a single review for this rubbish company that said they explored deep into Antarctica other than the few "camp sites"? It's probably vaporware or $$$ tax payer funded.

Here's the rubbish "edge of the ice caps" activities:

• Airport transfers in Punta Arenas, Chile
• Round trip flight to Antarctica from Punta Arenas
• Round trip flight to South Pole from Union Glacier, Antarctica
• Meals and tented accommodation in Antarctica
• Antarctic guides and lecturer
• Celebration dinner and Certificate of Achievement
• Checked luggage up to 55 lb (25 kg)

Can you tell me where they explore beyond the ice caps? Where they go 100s of miles past the ice caps? On other non antarctic tours, they do 100s of miles. Why not this one?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

From the rubbish site that you posted:


Can you find a single review for this rubbish company that said they explored deep into Antarctica other than the few "camp sites"? It's probably vaporware or $$$ tax payer funded.

Silly insults. Is that the best you can do?

Here's the rubbish "edge of the ice caps" activities:

• Airport transfers in Punta Arenas, Chile
• Round trip flight to Antarctica from Punta Arenas
• Round trip flight to South Pole from Union Glacier, Antarctica
• Meals and tented accommodation in Antarctica
• Antarctic guides and lecturer
• Celebration dinner and Certificate of Achievement
• Checked luggage up to 55 lb (25 kg)

Can you tell me where they explore beyond the ice caps? Where they go 100s of miles past the ice caps? On other non antarctic tours, they do 100s of miles. Why not this one?

It's the third bullet point. I've highlighted it for you.

 

[Strathos]

I like how no one has actually attempted to answer any of the questions in the OP yet

 

[Jimmy D]

I like how no one has actually attempted to answer any of the questions in the OP yet

Because when it comes to sensible questions they tend to get ignored and we just get the usual unsupportable conspiracy nonsense.

 

[Jimmy D]

From the rubbish site that you posted:


Can you find a single review for this rubbish company that said they explored deep into Antarctica other than the few "camp sites"? It's probably vaporware or $$$ tax payer funded.

Here's the rubbish "edge of the ice caps" activities:


Can you tell me where they explore beyond the ice caps? Where they go 100s of miles past the ice caps? On other non antarctic tours, they do 100s of miles. Why not this one?

Are you playing devil's advocate Morse or do you genuinely believe that the Earth is flat? If so have you got a map of how you think the Earth looks?

 

[Strathos]

Are you playing devil's advocate Morse or do you genuinely believe that the Earth is flat? If so have you got a map of how you think the Earth looks?

He genuinely believes it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Curious. Do dogs meow in your world?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AV1611VET]

He genuinely believes it.

Again, I have to ask:

If superliteralists teach us literalists that the Bible speaks of a flat earth creation, then why do they then ridicule those who listen to them and apply it to their lives?

I too have been bullied to interpret the Bible as teaching a flat earth creation; and I'm about as literal as one can get, but I'm not falling for it.

I have Boolean standards -- (and get ridiculed for those too).

What's up with this superliteral stuff?

Or don't you know?

 

[Radrook]

Are you playing devil's advocate Morse or do you genuinely believe that the Earth is flat? If so have you got a map of how you think the Earth looks?

Those kind of maps come a dime per dozen on the Internet.
Take your pick!
The Flat Earth Society :: Maps

Here is the official modern one.
The white band encircling the oceans and continents is what is considered Antarctica.

 

[Oldmantook]

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 quote the entire statement then and demonstrate how my interpretation is faulty? Back it up and if so I will apologize. Otherwise you owe me an apology.

 

[rturner76]

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.

I have repeatedly searched for statements from NASA or even a NASA scientist on another organization's website either confirming or denying NASA has achieved geosynchronous orbit. The only thing I have found in my efforts is conformation it has been achieved, when and how the satellite was first used, and absolutely no denial or contradiction of the fact that it happened anywhere that I searched on the web. As I did this search this second time, I reconfirmed the information I cited previously (I'm assuming the first confirmation I provided from NASA's official website was insufficient), but I seem to also be expected to find contrary or conflicting information from NASA and post that as well. So I began to wonder, why am I searching for information to discredit the perfectly valid information I have already provided? The information I am citing then confirming, is coming directly from NASA's official website. If there is contradictory information out there, the evidence would point to it neither being from NASA scientists nor NASA itself. So it begs the question, where is the denial and contradiction that you are indicating exists? Who has made this denial or contradiction?

So I guess I am going to stand on the evidence that came from NASA itself.

Also,more recently, Russia sent up a satellite with a super high resolution camera into geosynchronous orbit and the pictures came out more amazing than anything that has been seen yet. Here is a link to the article
http://gizmodo.com/5478787/the-most-accurate-highest-resolution-earth-view-to-date

Here are some pictures that the Chinese government took of their rovers on the moon a few years ago. See Stunning Moon Photos from China's Lunar Lander

Scripture is infallible

Again, If we are going to be honest here, we must acknowledge that the above statement is based on faith. There is nothing wrong with believing it is true, we just need to be honest about the nature of your belief in it. There is plenty of historical information in the Bible that has been verified by independent sources. However, supernatural occurrences and scientific facts have not been verified and should not be considered as though it is empirical data.

Just to solidify this point, the University of Michigan gives this as the criteria for verification: Verification: The use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth or rational justification of a hypothesis. Scientific beliefs must be evaluated and supported by empirical data.

I have provided verification that the Earth is spherical in nature. You have provided information indicating that your faith dictates that you must believe the Earth is flat.

Just to recap: no information was found by me or put forward by you indicating that the information on NASA's website is false or contradictory

Can we be honest now?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Why don't you quote the entire statement then and demonstrate how my interpretation is faulty? Back it up and if so I will apologize. Otherwise you owe me an apology.

I already did in this post.

 

[Oldmantook]

I have repeatedly searched for statements from NASA or even a NASA scientist on another organization's website either confirming or denying NASA has achieved geosynchronous orbit. The only thing I have found in my efforts is conformation it has been achieved, when and how the satellite was first used, and absolutely no denial or contradiction of the fact that it happened anywhere that I searched on the web. As I did this search this second time, I reconfirmed the information I cited previously (I'm assuming the first confirmation I provided from NASA's official website was insufficient), but I seem to also be expected to find contrary or conflicting information from NASA and post that as well. So I began to wonder, why am I searching for information to discredit the perfectly valid information I have already provided? The information I am citing then confirming, is coming directly from NASA's official website. If there is contradictory information out there, the evidence would point to it neither being from NASA scientists nor NASA itself. So it begs the question, where is the denial and contradiction that you are indicating exists? Who has made this denial or contradiction?

So I guess I am going to stand on the evidence that came from NASA itself.

Also,more recently, Russia sent up a satellite with a super high resolution camera into geosynchronous orbit and the pictures came out more amazing than anything that has been seen yet. Here is a link to the article
http://gizmodo.com/5478787/the-most-accurate-highest-resolution-earth-view-to-date

Here are some pictures that the Chinese government took of their rovers on the moon a few years ago. See Stunning Moon Photos from China's Lunar Lander


Again, If we are going to be honest here, we must acknowledge that the above statement is based on faith. There is nothing wrong with believing it is true, we just need to be honest about the nature of your belief in it. There is plenty of historical information in the Bible that has been verified by independent sources. However, supernatural occurrences and scientific facts have not been verified and should not be considered as though it is empirical data.

Just to solidify this point, the University of Michigan gives this as the criteria for verification: Verification: The use of empirical data, observation, test, or experiment to confirm the truth or rational justification of a hypothesis. Scientific beliefs must be evaluated and supported by empirical data.

I have provided verification that the Earth is spherical in nature. You have provided information indicating that your faith dictates that you must believe the Earth is flat.

Just to recap: no information was found by me or put forward by you indicating that the information on NASA's website is false or contradictory

Can we be honest now?

Do you question my honesty? Just what kind of search did you do? Perhaps only on the NASA official website, or did you do a wide internet search. I googled "nasa low earth orbit" and found all kinds of video recorded statements by NASA spokespersons/astronauts who state that travel is limited to LEO. If my presumption is correct, why in the world would you limit your search to the NASA website only? If NASA is putting out false or misleading data for public consumption, isn't it foolish to inherently trust what they say without even any sort of independent verification. Frankly, that's just plain lazy research. Since I don't think you made a good effort and I don't like doing research for people but for the sake of argument I'll provide you with just one link among many and hopefully you can do your own unbiased study.
THE BIG LIE - NASA ADMITS WE'VE NEVER BEEN OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT -