B flat B♭

[Hentenza]

Are you still yapping about this? This is hardly what I would call flying over but back and forth.

View attachment 374116

These are the permanent bases in Antartica today. There are all around Antartica.

 

[David Lamb]

This is the only flight route I can find. To my knowledge there has never been a flight directly over Antarctica.

But the site I gave a link to describes flight directly over Antarctica. The QANTAS website Seating and Pricing even gives ticket prices, and you can book a seat, if you can afford it.

 

[jonojim1337]

These are the permanent bases in Antartica today. There are all around Antartica.
View attachment 374118

Ok, that has nothing to do with flights over Antarctica, or anything crossing Antarctica.

 

[jonojim1337]

But the site I gave a link to describes flight directly over Antarctica. The QANTAS website Seating and Pricing even gives ticket prices, and you can book a seat, if you can afford it.

The flight does not cross over, it flies to a point and then turns back to Australia.

 

[Hentenza]

Ok, that has nothing to do with flights over Antarctica, or anything crossing Antarctica.

Sure it does. How do you think scientists get there? Walk?

 

[jonojim1337]

Sure it does. How do you think scientists get there? Walk?

They go around, obviously.

 

[jonojim1337]

Whistleblower888 on Instagram: "The secret about space you were never meant to see Space isn’t even real! And they’ve lied to you. That’s why you have to finally awaken! To see through their entire illusion. We’ve revealed how you’ll break free!

Join us on a journey to debunk common space myths and explore the intricacies of space exploration. From the effects of microgravity on everyday objects to the realities of living and working in space, our experts will guide you through the fascinating world of space. With real-life examples and...

www.instagram.com

 

[Hentenza]

They go around, obviously.

lol No. they fly there. Second, you do know that Antartica had been fully mapped, right? You also do know that there has been expeditions that have crossed Antartica right?

 

[Hentenza]

Whistleblower888 on Instagram: "The secret about space you were never meant to see Space isn’t even real! And they’ve lied to you. That’s why you have to finally awaken! To see through their entire illusion. We’ve revealed how you’ll break free!

Join us on a journey to debunk common space myths and explore the intricacies of space exploration. From the effects of microgravity on everyday objects to the realities of living and working in space, our experts will guide you through the fascinating world of space. With real-life examples and...

www.instagram.com

Instagram? Great source.

 

[David Lamb]

The flight does not cross over, it flies to a point and then turns back to Australia.

Well, if the route map of the flight you posted is accurate, the planes fly over Antarctica to the South Pole, and then turn back. That doesn't seem to fit with what believers in a flat earth say about a huge ice wall surrounding the earth.

 

[Strong in Him]

This is the only flight route I can find. To my knowledge there has never been a flight directly over Antarctica.

Googling, "can planes fly over Antarctica?" gave the following results.

You can theoretically fly over Antarctica, but it’s rarely done due to there being very few viable reasons to do so.

Commercial flights connecting North America to Europe and Asia generally fly over the Arctic region, also referred to as the “Great Circle Route.” However, planes rarely fly over the Antarctic regions, primarily due to extreme weather conditions.

But flights are not banned or prevented by law from flying over the southernmost continent on Earth.

A brief glance at other sites suggests that it is possible to fly over Antarctica but commercial flights rarely, if ever do. This is because a) by law, all planes have to be within distance of an airport and be able to land in case of emergencies, b) there is no public demand for it and c) the dreadful weather conditions.
I.e flying over Antarctica has everything to do with safety, infrastructure and weather conditions and nothing to do with hitting an ice wall or because it is illegal.

 

[jonojim1337]

Googling, "can planes fly over Antarctica?" gave the following results.



A brief glance at other sites suggests that it is possible to fly over Antarctica but commercial flights rarely, if ever do. This is because a) by law, all planes have to be within distance of an airport and be able to land in case of emergencies, b) there is no public demand for it and c) the dreadful weather conditions.
I.e flying over Antarctica has everything to do with safety, infrastructure and weather conditions and nothing to do with hitting an ice wall or because it is illegal.

Well my claim was simply, there is no recorded flight that passes the pole and onto the other side.

 

[Strong in Him]

Well my claim was simply, there is no recorded flight that passes the pole and onto the other side.

Well as commercial flights very rarely, if ever, happen, there's no reason why there should be. That's not the same as saying that it cannot happen - i.e it's impossible.
Admittedly, you may not have been saying that, but I know that @Apple Sky has and does.

 

[prodromos]

Objects that small wouldn’t be seen that far away. This is explained in the video.

If someone 2km away from you shines a torch in your direction at night, you will be able to discern the light even though it is much smaller than the angle of resolution our eyes can discern. The satellites we see at night are reflecting bright sunlight until their orbit takes them into the earth's shadow, so even though as objects they are much too small to discern with the naked eye, the bright reflected sunlight is visible against the blackness of the night sky.

 

[prodromos]

The video showed globers explaining moving lights bigger than the stars to be satellites. This is ridiculous if you take into account how small a satellite is and how far away it is supposed to be.

They are not bigger lights, they are brighter lights, because they are reflecting sunlight.

 

[jonojim1337]

If someone 2km away from you shines a torch in your direction at night, you will be able to discern the light even though it is much smaller than the angle of resolution our eyes can discern. The satellites we see at night are reflecting bright sunlight until their orbit takes them into the earth's shadow, so even though as objects they are much too small to discern with the naked eye, the bright reflected sunlight is visible against the blackness of the night sky.

Well, that’s the theory, but some calculations would suggest the distance is too astronomical for this to be true. That is, the suggested distance. No one is denying that there are objects in the sky. But if you want me to believe this is true you’re gonna have to provide some real world example of something similar.

 

[Hentenza]

Well my claim was simply, there is no recorded flight that passes the pole and onto the other side.

But there has been flights that crossed Antarctica. Commercial flights won’t fly over it merely because there are no services in case of an emergency.

 

[jonojim1337]

But there has been flights that crossed Antarctica. Commercial flights won’t fly over it merely because there are no services in case of an emergency.

Well the flights I’ve seen didn’t go straight over it but in a pattern that would be possible on a flat earth. Maybe Byrd did, but I recall that was classified. Also Buzz went deep into Antarctica and tweeted something strange. But you can correct me if I’m wrong regarding the historical flights.

 

[prodromos]

There’s something called buoyancy among gasses as well, which is how balloons work. Meaning lighter gasses will float up. A firmament is absolutely necessary for our atmosphere to exist, otherwise the vacuum would suck it out, as 1 G force is not enough to hold out against a vacuum and this has been demonstrably demonstrated.

I thought flat earthers didn't believe in gravity.

The footage we have of the ISS travelling at supposed 50,000 km/h show absolutely no friction even in very light textile fabrics. This goes to show the footage is fake, because even you yourself say there shouldn’t be a vacuum there.

There is friction drag due to very, very thin atmosphere in the ISS orbit, which is why they occasionally have to perform a boost burn to correct their orbit.

 

[prodromos]

Easy. Create a vacuum, then hold it against the surface of the earth, and see if the air is sucked into the vacuum or stays due to gravity

Ah, the stupid is strong with this one.