Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ

  • 234 Replies
  • 25652 Views
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #120 on: July 18, 2007, 12:14:15 AM »
...
Let's look up more facts. For the invasion of Iraq, there were 297,494 troops used. Currently, there are 168,866 regular troops + ~182,000 private military contractors. These massively dwarf any military involvement that would be necessary for the guarding of the Ice Wall in my estimation and subsequent control center aspects from "HQ".
Your estimates? Are you now saying that you are qualified to make such an estimation?

Is this the estimation where you have a lone soldier covering his territory riding a snowmobile over the world's roughest terrain in the world's coldest weather around during the months-long Antarctic night looking out six miles to the north for interlopers and stopping them? With only pilots coming out with rations? With equipment never intended for use in those conditions?

Have you checked the operating conditions for communication devices? For snowmobiles? For weapons? For fuel? Have you check the thermal rating of existing gear? Have you considered just how cold it would get on the Edge in the dark months of winter?

Don't you think it's time to give up supporting FE's implausible "Ice Guard" theory? I believe they offer it only as a joke. It's just too outlandish.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #121 on: July 18, 2007, 12:24:45 AM »
Some of these long posts bore me.  :(
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #122 on: July 18, 2007, 01:07:31 AM »
Your estimates? Are you now saying that you are qualified to make such an estimation?

No. What would qualify me to make such an estimation? Something that isn't subjective would be nice.

Is this the estimation where you have a lone soldier covering his territory riding a snowmobile over the world's roughest terrain in the world's coldest weather around during the months-long Antarctic night looking out six miles to the north for interlopers and stopping them? With only pilots coming out with rations? With equipment never intended for use in those conditions?

What do they need a snowmobile for? Are you suggesting that non-scientists can bypass the military's security so that they need to traverse the mainland in search of random people?

Have you checked the operating conditions for communication devices? For snowmobiles? For weapons? For fuel? Have you check the thermal rating of existing gear? Have you considered just how cold it would get on the Edge in the dark months of winter?

How do you suppose these scientists and their equipment operate during the summer and winter months? Are you suggesting they'd be any different?


Some of these long posts bore me.  :(

I'm sorry. These people make such long posts and I find I can refute most of what they say. Cheer up old boy!
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #123 on: July 18, 2007, 01:17:46 AM »
Your estimates? Are you now saying that you are qualified to make such an estimation?

No. What would qualify me to make such an estimation? Something that isn't subjective would be nice.
Having planned a military operation of 10% of the size of that needed here would be an objective qualification.
Quote
Is this the estimation where you have a lone soldier covering his territory riding a snowmobile over the world's roughest terrain in the world's coldest weather around during the months-long Antarctic night looking out six miles to the north for interlopers and stopping them? With only pilots coming out with rations? With equipment never intended for use in those conditions?

What do they need a snowmobile for? Are you suggesting that non-scientists can bypass the military's security so that they need to traverse the mainland in search of random people?
You suggested the snowmobile, not me. You suggested the search pattern and the coverage technique, not me. I do suggest that the Ice Guards would have to deal with the potential of unauthorized access to the entire Edge.
Quote
Have you checked the operating conditions for communication devices? For snowmobiles? For weapons? For fuel? Have you check the thermal rating of existing gear? Have you considered just how cold it would get on the Edge in the dark months of winter?

How do you suppose these scientists and their equipment operate during the summer and winter months? Are you suggesting they'd be any different?
As far as I know, there is very little activity during the winter months, and almost all of it in sheltered areas. I find it quite implausible that anyone could patrol during the winter months.

You evade the questions, indeed almost all of them.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #124 on: July 18, 2007, 01:33:04 AM »
Having planned a military operation of 10% of the size of that needed here would be an objective qualification.

The value of that is subjective. -_-

You suggested the snowmobile, not me. You suggested the search pattern and the coverage technique, not me. I do suggest that the Ice Guards would have to deal with the potential of unauthorized access to the entire Edge.

I believe I suggested the snowmobile in regards to some type of argument. I believe it to be unnecessary and ridiculous for anyone to make it passed their safeguards that would be in place to force the guards to use snowmobiles and wander the terrain in search of people.

As far as I know, there is very little activity during the winter months, and almost all of it in sheltered areas. I find it quite implausible that anyone could patrol during the winter months.

There are about 1000 scientists living in the Antarctic during the winter according to Wikipedia.

I find it implausible that they would need to patrol. I can't think of any reason that tourists would be able to circumvent the military's potential detection methods and reach an uncommon area of the continent.

Also, I suppose that the known continent would simply be a common section arrived at by use of their navigational methods. So, depending on their methods, they would always arrive at the same apparent areas, in accordance with RE cartography. This does pose some problems though in regards to mapping and travel for the FE.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 01:34:46 AM by divito »
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #125 on: July 18, 2007, 01:57:06 AM »
Having planned a military operation of 10% of the size of that needed here would be an objective qualification.

The value of that is subjective. -_-
It's objective.
Function Qualified(Experience with total expenditures) as Boolean;
   LargestProjectSize=MaxOfList(Experiences,Size);
   GuessAtSize = DoEstimate();  *RoE Only;
   Return ((GuessAtSize * .1) < LargestProjectSize);
End Function;

You suggested the snowmobile, not me. You suggested the search pattern and the coverage technique, not me. I do suggest that the Ice Guards would have to deal with the potential of unauthorized access to the entire Edge.

I believe I suggested the snowmobile in regards to some type of argument. I believe it to be unnecessary and ridiculous for anyone to make it passed their safeguards that would be in place to force the guards to use snowmobiles and wander the terrain in search of people.
[/quote]Nice change. With this change, however, you'll now need to tell us how you'd have the entire Edge monitored to ensure that no unauthorized person gains access to the Edge and returns with documentation that would foil the conspiracy.
As far as I know, there is very little activity during the winter months, and almost all of it in sheltered areas. I find it quite implausible that anyone could patrol during the winter months.

There are about 1000 scientists living in the Antarctic during the winter according to Wikipedia.

I find it implausible that they would need to patrol. I can't think of any reason that tourists would be able to circumvent the military's potential detection methods and reach an uncommon area of the continent.

Also, I suppose that the known continent would simply be a common section arrived at by use of their navigational methods. So, depending on their methods, they would always arrive at the same apparent areas, in accordance with RE cartography. This does pose some problems though in regards to mapping and travel for the FE.
[/quote]You seem to be making a number of assumptions. Are you assuming that tourists would be the only interlopers? Are you assuming that compasses don't work near the Edge in FE? Are you assuming that the Edge can't be documented from the air or from any point along the Edge?

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #126 on: July 18, 2007, 02:35:35 AM »
We have numerous observations that suggest the shape of the Earth that long precede this.


Divito, you are so tiresome. At what point does the weight of evidence in any given theory constitute "proof" rather than a "suggestion".

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #127 on: July 18, 2007, 02:42:42 AM »
It's objective.
Function Qualified(Experience with total expenditures) as Boolean;
   LargestProjectSize=MaxOfList(Experiences,Size);
   GuessAtSize = DoEstimate();  *RoE Only;
   Return ((GuessAtSize * .1) < LargestProjectSize);
End Function;

Function Qualified(subjective value) as Boolean;

Nice change. With this change, however, you'll now need to tell us how you'd have the entire Edge monitored to ensure that no unauthorized person gains access to the Edge and returns with documentation that would foil the conspiracy.

Applications of radar perhaps, or other suitable technology. And they'd only need to guard the expanse of the Ice Wall that isn't considered the Antarctic.

You seem to be making a number of assumptions. Are you assuming that tourists would be the only interlopers? Are you assuming that compasses don't work near the Edge in FE? Are you assuming that the Edge can't be documented from the air or from any point along the Edge?

That a number of scientists, cruises and tourists can make trips, and pass-overs around common areas known as Antarctica, it's likely that it really is a continent on a spherical Earth, or that their navigational methods simply interact with some aspect of the Earth to allow for such an occurrence. Perhaps the "South Pole" that is experienced is located at that portion of the Ice Wall. The premise for this would have to be investigated and speculated upon though. Other sections of the Ice Wall would then be reachable through alternative methods.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #128 on: July 18, 2007, 02:45:48 AM »
We have numerous observations that suggest the shape of the Earth that long precede this.

Divito, you are so tiresome. At what point does the weight of evidence in any given theory constitute "proof" rather than a "suggestion".

Everything NASA has done constitutes as proof that support those initial observations and experiments of Eratosthenes, Posidonius, and Ptolemy.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #129 on: July 18, 2007, 03:31:42 AM »
Everything NASA has done constitutes as proof that support those initial observations and experiments of Eratosthenes, Posidonius, and Ptolemy.

True. But does that mean that prior to 1958, there was no "proof" that the world was round, and the the evidence only constituted a "suggestion" that the Earth was round?

Wait a minute. NASA are part of the conspiracy!!! You almost had me there.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #130 on: July 18, 2007, 03:39:29 AM »
True. But does that mean that prior to 1958, there was no "proof" that the world was round, and the the evidence only constituted a "suggestion" that the Earth was round?

Wait a minute. NASA are part of the conspiracy!!! You almost had me there.

Yes. Well, not exactly 1958, but prior to space exploration and the subsequent evidence generated by NASA, as I said, the observations suggested the shape of the Earth. And yes, in FET, NASA is a part of the conspiracy.

My whole argument in this thread has been hypothetical as I'm not a believer in the FET. I'm just trying to show that it isn't as outlandish as people assume. But I don't seem to be doing such a good job. :(
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #131 on: July 18, 2007, 07:31:43 AM »
Having planned a military operation of 10% of the size of that needed here would be an objective qualification.

The value of that is subjective. -_-
It's objective.
Function Qualified(Experience with total expenditures) as Boolean;
   LargestProjectSize=MaxOfList(Experiences,Size);
   GuessAtSize = DoEstimate();  *RoE Only;
   Return ((GuessAtSize * .1) < LargestProjectSize);
End Function;


What language is that?  Also, is it common in that language to not declare variables?
OMG!

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • REALLY now....
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #132 on: July 18, 2007, 07:40:44 AM »
Just for the record-- Ockham's Razor, or Occam's razor (i've seen both spellings) is a logical tool that says "the simplest solution is usually the correct one." It is hard to use definitively, of course, but in rhetorical and logical debates, it can be used quite effectively to slash the strings holding up conspiracy theories, fervant religious arguments, and the speeches of many modern politicians.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #133 on: July 18, 2007, 09:56:01 AM »
What language is that?  Also, is it common in that language to not declare variables?

It's VBA. You do not need to declare them. VBA will create it on the fly with the assigned value.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #134 on: July 18, 2007, 09:57:51 AM »
Basic?    *Puke*
OMG!

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #135 on: July 18, 2007, 12:23:04 PM »
It's objective.
Function Qualified(Experience with total expenditures) as Boolean;
   LargestProjectSize=MaxOfList(Experiences,Size);
   GuessAtSize = DoEstimate();  *RoE Only;
   Return ((GuessAtSize * .1) < LargestProjectSize);
End Function;

Function Qualified(subjective value) as Boolean;
Wrong. You can enter the total expenses as recorded in the accounting system for each project that you planned. Cold, hard numbers. Objective.
Quote
Nice change. With this change, however, you'll now need to tell us how you'd have the entire Edge monitored to ensure that no unauthorized person gains access to the Edge and returns with documentation that would foil the conspiracy.

Applications of radar perhaps, or other suitable technology. And they'd only need to guard the expanse of the Ice Wall that isn't considered the Antarctic.
I see. Now you're changing to having this technology developed, operational, maintained, and conditioned to the climate. I imagine that your estimate now includes maintaining and fueling a fleets of AWACS now. Let's see your new calculations please. How many flights? How many AWACs? How many airfields? How much fuel? How will the fuel and spare parts be delivered? Your change still obligates you to a great number of resources.
Quote
You seem to be making a number of assumptions. Are you assuming that tourists would be the only interlopers? Are you assuming that compasses don't work near the Edge in FE? Are you assuming that the Edge can't be documented from the air or from any point along the Edge?

That a number of scientists, cruises and tourists can make trips, and pass-overs around common areas known as Antarctica, it's likely that it really is a continent on a spherical Earth, or that their navigational methods simply interact with some aspect of the Earth to allow for such an occurrence. Perhaps the "South Pole" that is experienced is located at that portion of the Ice Wall. The premise for this would have to be investigated and speculated upon though. Other sections of the Ice Wall would then be reachable through alternative methods.
I notice that you avoid answering the questions, so I'll just repeat them. Are you assuming that tourists would be the only interlopers? Are you assuming that compasses don't work near the Edge in FE? Are you assuming that the Edge can't be documented from the air or from any point along the Edge?

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #136 on: July 18, 2007, 12:52:15 PM »
Wrong. You can enter the total expenses as recorded in the accounting system for each project that you planned. Cold, hard numbers. Objective.

And the value of these "expenses" in relation to being qualified is subjective. Not sure what you don't get about that.

I see. Now you're changing to having this technology developed, operational, maintained, and conditioned to the climate.

Indoors?

I imagine that your estimate now includes maintaining and fueling a fleets of AWACS now. Let's see your new calculations please. How many flights? How many AWACs? How many airfields? How much fuel? How will the fuel and spare parts be delivered? Your change still obligates you to a great number of resources.

Nope. Don't need AWACs. Why would they choose something more complicated and inconvenient?

I notice that you avoid answering the questions, so I'll just repeat them. Are you assuming that tourists would be the only interlopers? Are you assuming that compasses don't work near the Edge in FE? Are you assuming that the Edge can't be documented from the air or from any point along the Edge?

Tourists and scientists are the only people that would be there. Unless you think people can accidentally venture to Antarctica without noticing.

As for the edge, it depends. Clearly, their method of navigation works to reach a common area. As for the rest of the supposed Ice Wall, I'm not sure what a compass would indicate.

Why wouldn't you be able to document the edge?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #137 on: July 18, 2007, 01:02:06 PM »
What language is that?  Also, is it common in that language to not declare variables?

It's VBA. You do not need to declare them. VBA will create it on the fly with the assigned value.

VBA will know what type of value an argument in a function needs to be?
OMG!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #138 on: July 18, 2007, 01:05:27 PM »
VBA will know what type of value an argument in a function needs to be?

It'll be created as a Variant.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #139 on: July 18, 2007, 01:08:56 PM »
Intriguing...I'm guessing that's a type that can be anything?  I'm hating VBA so far =/
OMG!

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #140 on: July 18, 2007, 01:11:47 PM »
Intriguing...I'm guessing that's a type that can be anything?  I'm hating VBA so far =/

Yup. A Variant can hold any type of data, numeric, text, doubles, objects, etc.

Although, testing against the data type isn't exactly efficient, so the flexibility comes at a price. It's basically better to simply declare them.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #141 on: July 18, 2007, 01:14:54 PM »
Wrong. You can enter the total expenses as recorded in the accounting system for each project that you planned. Cold, hard numbers. Objective.

And the value of these "expenses" in relation to being qualified is subjective. Not sure what you don't get about that.
No the value is objective. It's a number that comes from a computer system that tracked the projects you've planned. That's straight forward. There is no debate how much a project cost when standard accounting rules are applied.
Quote
I see. Now you're changing to having this technology developed, operational, maintained, and conditioned to the climate.

Indoors?
No the technology isn't deployed indoors. The buildings to house the equipment is outdoors. The dishes and antennae are outdoors.
Quote
I imagine that your estimate now includes maintaining and fueling a fleets of AWACS now. Let's see your new calculations please. How many flights? How many AWACs? How many airfields? How much fuel? How will the fuel and spare parts be delivered? Your change still obligates you to a great number of resources.

Nope. Don't need AWACs. Why would they choose something more complicated and inconvenient?
Wow! There's just no end to your military expertise, is there? Please tell us how you'd detect low-flying aircraft in the roughed terrain of the Edge without AWACs or patrols. You must know of a wonderful new technology.
Quote
I notice that you avoid answering the questions, so I'll just repeat them. Are you assuming that tourists would be the only interlopers? Are you assuming that compasses don't work near the Edge in FE? Are you assuming that the Edge can't be documented from the air or from any point along the Edge?

Tourists and scientists are the only people that would be there. Unless you think people can accidentally venture to Antarctica without noticing.

As for the edge, it depends. Clearly, their method of navigation works to reach a common area. As for the rest of the supposed Ice Wall, I'm not sure what a compass would indicate.

Why wouldn't you be able to document the edge?
I see. You're going to assume that no one mounts an expedition to expose the conspiracy except for the tourists and scientists there. That's really asinine.

According to FE, the magnetic lines run over the Edge in straight lines from the North Magnetic Pole, so following a compass south will lead one to the Edge with little need for sophisticated navigational equipment.

That my point. You have to prevent anyone from providing photos of the Edge. It's a daunting task for the Ice Guard.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #142 on: July 18, 2007, 01:31:00 PM »
No the value is objective. It's a number that comes from a computer system that tracked the projects you've planned. That's straight forward. There is no debate how much a project cost when standard accounting rules are applied.

Sigh. Yes, mathematical values are objective. The significance of those mathematical values in the opinion of being qualified is subjective.

No the technology isn't deployed indoors. The buildings to house the equipment is outdoors. The dishes and antennae are outdoors.

Yes, the dishes and antennae would be outside the facility. The rest of the equipment would be indoors. If you think the guards would have trouble with their equipment, then those scientists must have plenty of trouble with theirs.

Wow! There's just no end to your military expertise, is there? Please tell us how you'd detect low-flying aircraft in the roughed terrain of the Edge without AWACs or patrols. You must know of a wonderful new technology.

Why do you keep assuming that people would materialize behind the soldiers? The detection methods would be transmitted out over the oceans. I'm sure I don't need to start pasting stuff about radar for you.

I see. You're going to assume that no one mounts an expedition to expose the conspiracy except for the tourists and scientists there. That's really asinine.

You think the tourists and scientists are on expeditions to expose the conspiracy? Nice.

Aha, how many people do you think believe in a flat Earth? How many of those have the means and will to make such a trip to expose the supposed conspiracy?

According to FE, the magnetic lines run over the Edge in straight lines from the North Magnetic Pole, so following a compass south will lead one to the Edge with little need for sophisticated navigational equipment.

Obviously given the information available, there is a common expanse. This either means the Earth is a sphere, or the FET is incorrect regarding the South Magnetic Pole.

That my point. You have to prevent anyone from providing photos of the Edge. It's a daunting task for the Ice Guard.

Several Antarctic photos exist. Do you think the edge would look fundamentally different from the pictures already available? Would there be signs perhaps? Or maybe the ice is like, a hot pink color.
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

?

Ferdinand Magellen

  • 651
  • REALLY now....
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #143 on: July 18, 2007, 01:34:13 PM »
Actually, it would need to provide a rather sheer wall, since its been claimed the ice wall "cannot be scaled." It would also need to be massive enough to contain the "atmolayer." The pictures you refference (and I see none of them) probably do not exhibit these necessary properties.
Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, it just makes you ignorant and disempowered.

Can you change reality by inventing new names for ordinary things?

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #144 on: July 18, 2007, 02:03:51 PM »
No the value is objective. It's a number that comes from a computer system that tracked the projects you've planned. That's straight forward. There is no debate how much a project cost when standard accounting rules are applied.

Sigh. Yes, mathematical values are objective. The significance of those mathematical values in the opinion of being qualified is subjective.
Quote
You asked me my opinion as to what objective measures would qualify you to plan such an operation. If you didn't want my opinion you shouldn't have asked for it. Now answer the question, are you qualified based on that opinion?

No the technology isn't deployed indoors. The buildings to house the equipment is outdoors. The dishes and antennae are outdoors.

Yes, the dishes and antennae would be outside the facility. The rest of the equipment would be indoors. If you think the guards would have trouble with their equipment, then those scientists must have plenty of trouble with theirs.
I don't know where you get the scientists from. One interloper with a camera could break the conspiracy. What equipment would the interloper need that would be so remarkable or implausible?
Wow! There's just no end to your military expertise, is there? Please tell us how you'd detect low-flying aircraft in the roughed terrain of the Edge without AWACs or patrols. You must know of a wonderful new technology.

Why do you keep assuming that people would materialize behind the soldiers? The detection methods would be transmitted out over the oceans. I'm sure I don't need to start pasting stuff about radar for you.
Yet another change. It's amazing to me how often you have change your plan. First, it was men looking out to sea. Second it was men on snowmobiles looking out to sea. Now it's RADAR facilities looking out to sea. Alright, tell us the cost of building, concealing, manning, and maintaining these facilities. Tell us how you would deal with an impostor making by the RADAR grid with a scientific team and then making a break for the Edge.
Quote

I see. You're going to assume that no one mounts an expedition to expose the conspiracy except for the tourists and scientists there. That's really asinine.

You think the tourists and scientists are on expeditions to expose the conspiracy? Nice.

Aha, how many people do you think believe in a flat Earth? How many of those have the means and will to make such a trip to expose the supposed conspiracy?
[I think that you had better deal with the contingency. It would only take one FEer or one skeptic to mount an expedition.
Quote
According to FE, the magnetic lines run over the Edge in straight lines from the North Magnetic Pole, so following a compass south will lead one to the Edge with little need for sophisticated navigational equipment.

Obviously given the information available, there is a common expanse. This either means the Earth is a sphere, or the FET is incorrect regarding the South Magnetic Pole.
I disagree with your premise. It is not obvious that there is a common expanse. It could be mountainous, for example.
Quote
That my point. You have to prevent anyone from providing photos of the Edge. It's a daunting task for the Ice Guard.

Several Antarctic photos exist. Do you think the edge would look fundamentally different from the pictures already available? Would there be signs perhaps? Or maybe the ice is like, a hot pink color.
You're just being silly. The Edge would be different than any place ever seen on Earth. The magnetic field lines would be vertical. the view of the stars over the Edge would be different. The air pressure gradients would be phenomenal. All of which would be easily documented.

*

divito the truthist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 6903
  • Relativist, Existentialist, Nihilist
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #145 on: July 18, 2007, 03:38:19 PM »
You asked me my opinion as to what objective measures would qualify you to plan such an operation. If you didn't want my opinion you shouldn't have asked for it. Now answer the question, are you qualified based on that opinion?

I didn't want your opinion, because your opinion would be subjective. I asked you to answer it because I was hoping you'd be smart enough to realize that.

Based on your opinion of qualification for this idea, of course not.

I don't know where you get the scientists from. One interloper with a camera could break the conspiracy. What equipment would the interloper need that would be so remarkable or implausible?

Scientists, you know, the ones that do research in Antarctica. If the military is going to have trouble with all this terrain and using their equipment in that climate, scientists would face the same problems.

Wait, what do you think they would be taking a picture of exactly? I hope you're not going off the TomB Ice Wall theories.

Yet another change. It's amazing to me how often you have change your plan. First, it was men looking out to sea. Second it was men on snowmobiles looking out to sea. Now it's RADAR facilities looking out to sea. Alright, tell us the cost of building, concealing, manning, and maintaining these facilities. Tell us how you would deal with an impostor making by the RADAR grid with a scientific team and then making a break for the Edge.

Very amazing apparently.

Ahaha, men looking out to sea. Where did I say the guards just looked out to the sea? Do you imagine them on lawn chairs or something? Ahaha. And where did I say they were on snowmobiles looking out to sea? I mentioned them possibly using snowmobiles to get around. That was about it. Another classic TomG expansion into the imagined.

I do not know the cost of all that. And why would I need to tell you? Does attaching a number change the speculation? No.

Would these impostors somehow have stealth fighters or something?

I think that you had better deal with the contingency. It would only take one FEer or one skeptic to mount an expedition.

Then we'll know in the future how everything turns out. I won't hold my breath.

I disagree with your premise. It is not obvious that there is a common expanse. It could be mountainous, for example.

Really? That's weird. All those cruises and research stations..I wonder if any of them are reporting not being able to find their way the following year.

You're just being silly. The Edge would be different than any place ever seen on Earth. The magnetic field lines would be vertical. the view of the stars over the Edge would be different. The air pressure gradients would be phenomenal. All of which would be easily documented.

The edge, yes. Do you have some kind of number on how long the ice is from the start of the wall to the edge?
Our existentialist, relativist, nihilist, determinist, fascist, eugenicist moderator hath returned.
Quote from: Fortuna
objectively good

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17538
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #146 on: July 18, 2007, 04:32:49 PM »
Quote
Actually, it would need to provide a rather sheer wall, since its been claimed the ice wall "cannot be scaled." It would also need to be massive enough to contain the "atmolayer." The pictures you refference (and I see none of them) probably do not exhibit these necessary properties.

The 150 foot Ice Wall was discovered by Sir James Clark Ross, a polar explorer who was among the first to venture to Antarctica in an attempt to determine the position of the South Magnetic Pole. Upon confronting the massive vertical front of of ice he famously remarked

    "It was ... an obstruction of such character as to leave no doubt in my mind as to our future proceedings, for we might as well sail through the cliffs of Dover as to penetrate such a mass.

    It would be impossible to conceive a more solid-looking mass of ice; not the smallest appearance of any rent or fissure could we discover throughout its whole extent, and the intensely bright sky beyond it but too plainly indicated the great distance to which it reached southward."

Beyond the 150 foot Ice Wall is anyone's guess. How far the ice extends; how it terminates; and what exists beyond it, are questions to which no present human experience can reply. All we at present know is, that snow and hail, howling winds, and indescribable storms and hurricanes prevail; and that in every direction "human ingress is barred by unsealed escarpments of perpetual ice," extending farther than eye or telescope can penetrate, and becoming lost in gloom and darkness. Some hold that the tundra of ice and snow stretches forever eternally.

Edge of the world: http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/images/gallery/B15Aedge.jpg

Temperatures approach absolute zero the further one explores outwards. Exploration in this type of pitch black freezing environment is impossible for any man or machine. We live on a vast plane with an unknown diameter and an unknown depth. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham held that knowing the true dimensions of the Earth is something which will be forever be unknowable by man.

The Flat Earth does not necessary need to be physically infinite in order to contain the atmosphere - just very big. Often we might hear "infinite earth" from Flat Earth proponents as an analogy for what exists past the ice wall; a stretch of land incomprehensible by human standards.

In order for barometric pressure to rise and fall, an element of heat must be present. Heat creates pressure. A lack of heat results in a drop in pressure. These two elements are tightly correlated in modern physics.

In our local area the heat of the day comes from the sun, moving and swashing around wind currents from areas of low pressures to areas of high pressures with its heat. The coldness of the Antarctic tundra keeps the pressure low. Beyond the known world, where the rays of the sun do not reach, the tundra of ice and snow lays in perpetual darkness. If one could move away from the Ice Wall into the uncharted tundra the surrounding temperatures would drop lower and lower until it nears absolute zero. Defining the exact length of the gradient would take some looking into, but at a significant distance past the edge of the Ice Wall temperatures will drop to a point where barometric pressure nears the zero mark. At this point, whether it be millions or hundreds of millions of miles from the edge of Ice Wall, the world can end without the atmosphere leaking into space.

The atmosphere exists as a lip on the surface of the earth, held in by vast gradients of declining pressure.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2007, 04:34:44 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #147 on: July 18, 2007, 04:44:37 PM »
Is the irony in claiming that any exploration beyond the wall is impossible due to imagined darkness, and then linking to an aerial image of the icewall obviously taken by a helicopter during the day, intentional, or what?

Some sections of the Antarctic coast are tall and sheer. Others are not.



Is there any reason to believe your bubble hypothesis for the atmosphere? Is there any reason to believe that those who claim to have been to the South pole were lying, and that further explorations there are the result of a massive conspiracy? Is there any reason to believe that the sizes and shapes of bodies in the Southern hemisphere necessary to contain such a theory are accurate?

Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #148 on: July 18, 2007, 04:46:30 PM »
well all i have to say is that soon theres going to be alot of rich people in on this "conspiracy"  because virgin galactic is launching suborbital flights for the paying public in the near future for the small price of $200,000 a person. virgingalactic.com. i'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but i also find it boring to read these posts that drone on and on. i just want to get this debate done and over with. git-r-done.
I broke the damn flywheel.

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Who's in on the conspiracy? Info for the FAQ
« Reply #149 on: July 18, 2007, 04:48:41 PM »
well all i have to say is that soon theres going to be alot of rich people in on this "conspiracy"  because virgin galactic is launching suborbital flights for the paying public in the near future for the small price of $200,000 a person. virgingalactic.com. i'm sorry if this has been mentioned already, but i also find it boring to read these posts that drone on and on. i just want to get this debate done and over with. git-r-done.

Well, good luck with that!  ::)
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?