- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 month, 3 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Since no country owns Antarctica, no visa is required. However, the countries that signed the Antarctic Treaty’s Protocol on Environment Protection require that visitors from those countries need permission.
Does this mean if your from a country that is not a signatory, you can go without permission?
You can visit if you abide by the treaty apparently
Anyone can visit Antarctica provided they follow the requirements of the Antarctic Treaty and respect that it is a pristine environment, so technically what you propose is completely legal.
Exorbitant costs of rescuing people
Antarctica is an extremely hostile environment and many well prepared expeditions have run into trouble. Do be aware if you find yourself in trouble and a rescue mission needs to be launched by one of the nations that have a presence on the ice, that you will be billed for all costs involved. And it will be expensive. Tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars expensive.
I guess that is one reason right there. If you are from NZ and you rock up to Antarctica in the NZ territory, then if you need to be rescued it will cost a lot of money and NZ is tasked with looking after NZers. But if a Norwegian entered our territory and needed to be rescued, would the NZ authorities let them die because of the cost? So they would have to shell out huge expenses to do the right thing and hope they can recoup the cost from the rescued. For example, I have read some articles where tourist enter the NZ wilderness in the North or South Island ill prepared and need rescuing. People don’t complain about that and the costs involved except when it happens more than once to the same person. Then people get a little pissed. Even a helicopter ride to the nearest hospital isn’t cheap.
Stands to reason if there is a vetting process of some kind for expeditions to the territory on Antarctica. Further, you don’t want people hunting penguins for example as it is a reserve. So its probably a good idea to check that expeditions are well equipped, have good intentions, and will abide by the tenets of the treaty.
People do not travel to Antarctica for the same reason people do not climb Mt Everest
The answer is death. Most people do not want death because unless you spend large and are an experienced wilderness explorer, you will die. In fact even if you are all that and more, you could still easily die. Plus it will cost heaps of money.
Conclusion
So why don’t tourists the world over climb Mt Everest, because they will die. Yes many do climb that mountain, but Antarctica is a more harsh environment than that and way more expensive too.
Kapiti Island
Air must be way better there then. Because like I said, I’ve shot Superstition from 55 miles away, and often can’t see it from 10. So much haze and pollution here that the mountain looks like gray sky from only 10 miles away. Anyway, the point is that IF Kapiti was supposed to be behind the curve, then you’d be seeing a mirage of it being loomed up around the curve. Since it’s not supposed to be hidden by curvature, you’re seeing the actual thing.
That’s just how it works with globe proponents. Dazza has openly admitted as much, and you should too. Fact: It’s only “a mirage” IF the ball earth math says we’re seeing something we’re not supposed to be seeing. That’s all there is to it.
The island is very close and the region has really clear air. Sometimes on very windy days you get dust, but even then it remains visible.
And if Kapiti was beyond the curve and you could see it, the chances are that you would be seeing what the math says you would see with refraction possibly aiding it slightly. Flat Earthers would say that you shouldn’t be seeing the island whereas Dazza or myself would probably just say that hypothetically you can’t see the bottom third (or something like that) and when all things are considered correctly, the math would also say around one-third hidden too.
Correcting some smaller points
But now we don’t have to EVER hear about the math not being accurate again, right?
Correct. Just because I don’t mention it all the time doesn’t mean I wholeheartedly agree that it is 100% accurate. I made at least two points about it and was never challenged on it directly so it still stands.
- I stated a few times that the math could be out, especially earlier on in the discussion.
- I posted a video and now a new one that stated that this was not an accurate way to measure long distances and the latter video gave a reason why, because the math assumes a hyperbola.
At the end of the day Mike, you won’t be bothered by semantics if you are a truth seeker. If not, then you will take any advantage you can get even if it is on a technicality.
No, no, no… he did NOT make a good globe case with your photo. He embarrassed himself by trying to overlay a much closer photo of the mountain on top of yours.
I didn’t see it that way at all. He corrected you and your case fell apart when Dazza pointed out that the photo made a case for the globe earth. His posting of that mountain shot that was taken much closer didn’t really change anything. There were probably too little to zero other images from a long way out for him to choose. He just grabbed an image that showed some topography from roughly the same angle which are not really that common.
Space Selfie VS The ISS – Mike Boll
Mike Boll Non Fisheye Flat Horizon Debunked
Thanks to Dazza for saving me time in debunking some of these absurd claims.
Well, as t8 spikes the ball again for no apparent reason, Mike is off to watch some real players. But he left us with some solid words to consider.
The math is correct for the curvature of the earth and the drop distances.
Will this factor into t8s claims? Doubtful. Will he continue to parrot videos without much thought involved? More than likely, just look above. Now that YouTube has hidden the pro-FE videos and put all the “debunk” videos at the top of the list t8 is in paradise. And the eyes are tightly closed and the mind is disengaged.t8, here is a thought; come up with a better math formula for the curvature and drop distances. If you really think Mike did not make the case then take the time to prove it. Otherwise accept it as accurate and begin to evaluate the claims with the accepted science. Can you do that?
Your being silly diggy.
I simply stated that according to some, the formula you use is not accurate for long distances because it is math that calculates a parabola not a sphere. Obviously a parabola and sphere are very similar to begin with, but become wildly inaccurate once the sphere starts to close because a parabola isn’t closed.
That said, I am not stating that this is indeed the case, but that the calcs you guys use are and always have been up for debate.
You then ask what the calc should be, so here it is apparently:
h=6371−6371∗sin(π2−s/6371)
Of course this means little to me as I’m not a mathematician. But suffice to say, there is a more accurate calc, but how much that changes things is also up for debate.
How correct is that 8″ x the square of the mile formula really though. Here is one opinion on the matter.
https://medium.com/@trtf4006/the-math-of-the-flat-earth-dfaadba0409f
As I read this, I realized that one thing driving this Flat Earth revival (beyond a well-founded mistrust of government) is a fundamental misunderstanding of algebra and trigonometry. I responded:
That formula is not accurate if one’s goal is to make real-world calculations: the formula provided can only calculate the height of targets hidden if the perspective was at 0cm from the Earth’s surface. While this doesn’t seem to make a very dramatic difference at first glance, it’s actually very substantial.
Here’s an example: as your friend accurately points out, at 0cm above the Earth’s surface an 96′ object would be hidden at a distance of 12 miles. On the other hand, at 5’7″ above the Earth’s surface (the eye height of a six-foot man, me), a 12 mile distance would only obscure a 55′ object. That’s nearly a 50% discrepancy!!! As distances become closer, the discrepancy becomes larger: at the Earth’s surface a 24′ object would be obscured at only 6 miles, whereas for a standing man that distance could only obscure a 6’4″ object — Dubay’s equation would have yielded results nearly 4x higher than the correct value for a standing man.
If you go to https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/ you can input values into boxes and it will render the correct values. Assuming a 6′ man with an eye-height of 5’7″ (you have to use a decimal format with this tool; 5.58, not 5’7″), the distance he could see to the horizon (the distance to which the horizon would be upon obstructing another 5’7″ target from view, equidistant from that horizon) is 2.738 miles. This means that two men with eye-heights of 5’7″ could possibly see each other over a body of water at a maximum distance of ~5.4 miles.
I think Mike is already using this calculator or similar. If so, then some of his calcs could be correct, even if his conclusions are wrong.
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/
t8: I think Mike is already using this calculator or similar. If so, then some of his calcs could be correct, even if his conclusions are wrong.
Hmm, so even if his math is correct he might be wrong. I’m sure you’ll explain that one.
However, all the mathematicians say the math is correct. There is a lot of explaining to do!Does he have an example where his math is correct and is impossible on the globe?
I delved into the Ruapehu math because it was worth checking out at least one of his proofs that you shouldn’t see this on a globe. Also, the fact that it was my photo made it a bit more worthwhile for me.
As it turned out, his math was out and when all things were considered, the figures matched a globe earth. Took a long time, but he was proven wrong in the end.
Even now he seems to ignore the 600 – 900 metres that sits under the mountain. He just looks at the shape and carries on as if the base of the mountain is just above sea level.
Wrong! Fail! Debunked!
From Genoa, Italy at a height of just 70 feet above sea-level, the island of Corsica can often be seen 99 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Corsica should fall 5,245 feet, almost an entire mile below the horizon.
From Anchorage, Alaska at an elevation of 102 feet, on clear days Mount Foraker can be seen with the naked eye 120 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Mount Foraker’s 17,400 summit should be leaning back away from the observer covered by 7,719 feet of curved Earth. In reality, however, the entire mountain can be quite easily seen standing straight from base to summit.
The Port Nicholson Light (lighthouse) in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.
The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.
The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.
Once you chew on these awhile there will be plenty more.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
Port Nicholson
Okay Dig, let’s dig a little deeper.
Obviously I am not going to spend my life on this hearsay, so I will focus on debunking one of these claims. Port Nicholson Light (lighthouse in New Zealand since I live very close to it and can potentially test this particular claim out.
Zetetic Cosmogony book
First off, quoting from Zetetic Cosmogony (Conclusive Evidence that the World is not a Rotating Revolving Globe but a Stationary Plane Circle) from 1899 is pretty stupid. Have you verified any of these claims or taking it at face value without even checking the facts? And do you really believe that there were no liars in 1899?
But let’s run with the figures for Port Nicholson regardless and see if they are possible on a globe. Now I note that I have not checked this out because life offers more important things to do than sail a boat on a clear day 35 miles out, but here is an explanation that works, even though the claim in the first place could be BS. I’ll quote the claim first:
The claim
Allowing 16 feet for the altitude of the observer …..
The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand (erected in 1859), is visible 35 statute miles. the altitude being 420 feet above high water. If the water is convex it ought to be 220 feet below the horizon.”
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ETxNCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT24&lpg=PT24#v=onepage&f=falseExplanation if the figures are true
In 1881 the ships that would be observing the lighthouse would be sailing ships or steam ships that still had sails as a back-up. Look-outs on those ships would be placed in a crows nest near the top of the main mast.
“… masts were still to be found on many merchant and passenger ships well into the 1900s”
Source: https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1338.htmThe 65 feet of elevation required to see the Port Nicholson Light on a spherical Earth is absolutely consistent with the elevation we could expect for look outs stationed on the main mast.
Conclusion
Flat Earthers believe the Zetetic Cosmogony book at face value and quote claims about lighthouses that can be seen from too far if the earth was a globe. However, in the case of Port Nicholson, it seems it could still be possible to see that lighthouse from the claimed distance.
I will chalk this one down as another Flat Earth proof debunked. Feel free to offer new evidence that could lead to a reexamination if it doesn’t require much time and work to debunk of course.
How absurd is the Flat Earth view?
It’s almost as absurd as believing that Australia doesn’t exist.
If you haven’t been to Australia, then how do you know it exists?
What if millions of lizard people were deceiving us about this?
And you can’t prove it can you. Your telescope cannot reach Australia, so you need to rely on videos, images, and travel reviews which could all be fake.
Australia doesn’t exist view
I went to Australia for 1 year on a working holiday when I was a younger man. But I guess it is possible that the Australians I met were shape shifting lizard people. And I could have been transported to a massive clearing in South America somewhere. I traveled around the whole Australian coastline (coastal route), so not sure how that one was pulled off. Any ideas?
As an aside, have you heard of Qanon yet? Do you follow him/them?
Hi Mike,
Yes, I have been following Q for over 3 years
I Saw Port Nicholson Lighthouse today
Was in the area and remembered the discussion on Port Nicholson Lighhouse, so I thought I would get it on video. Yes I know the video is a bit shaky.
I also saw this memorial to the Antarctica. from the same location where I took the video.
Look at the effort the lizard people have gone to in order to preserve the lie that there is no Antarctic continent.
Lol.
Port Nicholson Lighthouse circa 1964s
What were the chances. I am scanning some slides today that my dad took in the 1960s and there it is. Actually you can see both the old (1859) and new (1906) lighthouses. These are known today as Pencarrow Lighthouse upper and lower.
The Plan
There is a way to do this. Take the local ferry to the South Island return. That gives me two opportunities to photograph / video the lighthouse and plot when it goes out or comes into view. I will do this at some stage because I do this trip from time to time anyway.
But we both know that we will not be able to see it 35 miles out if it is impossible to see that far on a globe earth. (Note: I haven’t worked out the math because I can’t be bothered, I’m assuming that is correct, but it might not be.)
The way to see this lighthouse from over the curve is to be on a boat but be around 65 feet high when viewing the lighthouse, but perhaps at night you can also see it on the deck of a boat when there is low cloud. The light that shines up may be reflected back down in that case and could potentially go over the horizon.
Why make Antarctica a reserve?
Mike said:
Really? “Environmental Protection”? It’s supposedly a huge patch of ice, man!
Lots of reasons.
- Only pristine continent left.
- Most fresh water on the planet is here. Could also raise sea levels significantly if it were to melt.
- To stop nuclear waste, explosions, and trash from being dumped here.
- Wildlife exists here.
- Too hard to develop anyway. If it was easy to exploit resources there, then my bet is there would be no treaty.
In short, as a protected wilderness, it serves a lot of interests. If you find that hard to believe then why is NZ on route to making the Kermadec region an ocean sanctuary? This subtropical region comprises a whopping 620,000 square kilometers which is 35 times larger than the combined area of New Zealand’s existing 44 marine reserves. What are they trying to hide there? Entrance to the hollow earth perhaps? Lol. If they can make that area a reserve then of course for the same reasons, they made Antarctica a reserve.
The idea that Antarctica is a reserve to stop people seeing the edge of the world or the glass dome is debunked. Come on Mike, just because you want to a hero in a Flat Earth Truman Show, this weird desire of yours does not change reality one bit.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
