Page 21 of 25 FirstFirst ... 11171819202122232425 LastLast
Results 801 to 840 of 976

Thread: The earth is round

  1. #801
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    CPig has already addressed one issue there (you are free to travel Antarctica), but then what if you travel straight West or East (from Panama City, for example). With car and boat. You will never hit ice.
    My computer is running too slow to find videos today. There were one or two where a guy documents his efforts to make travel plans to Antarctica, researching companies like Cpig mentioned, only to find that every single one of the companies is owned by the same person/persons, even though they do appear, at first glance, to be separate tour companies. Hmm. ["tourism...has been largely self-managed for the past 40 years."(@Captialist Pig) - and it just happened that they are all owned by the same person. Just happened that way by itself? What appears to be separate companies all self-managed, are instead all one? Somehow I think if you wanted to start your own tours to Antarctic you would run into insurmountable obstacles.] There were a number of odd things, like trip reviews. But I can't search now. I have a lot going on today and this month actually.

    Can you travel there? Yes. Its highly restricted. There are firm laws for how much food and fuel you can have on your boat. Strange. Like for travel to no other place. They will tell you it is all about environmental protection! All that international protection - it seems the antarctic is the most rigidly protected environment on earth!

    3-4 years back I was having a conversation with a old colleague of mine at an event. She is retired and likes to travel. Her big news was a trip to Antarctica with her daughter, and she was describing it as the privilege of a lifetime. It was more special to her than Europe, Hawaii, the Caribbean, etc. I was astonished, because of all the places you could go, why in the world would you want to go there?? She mentioned the penguins. Okay. She kept emphasizing what a great privilege it was, and how hard it was to get a spot on one of these tours and how she had waited for years to do it. She was telling also of all the strict rules for the ship passengers, like no other rules I heard of, including rules for taking pictures. Of ice? Why? Oh, it was regulated by international law. I remember just being puzzled. Then when I saw the video on antarctic travel related to FET, and only then did it all make sense.
    __________________

    Interestign southern hemisphere flight plans. The get prretty strange! http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X55RuPop_9...y-santiago.jpg
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-X55RuPop_9...y-santiago.jpg
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  2. #802
    Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,921
    Mentioned
    221 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Not sure why still. Sorry, I am not following your thinking. Not blaming that on you! I think I am freezing up. Too many demands on this thread on my vulnerable function. I need to manage these demands or I will literally type all night. I started this thread as a conversation starter, NOT so I could be a pontificater for a scientific theory I had only just learned the existence of.
    I'm not sure why you don't want to tell me on what you think of the other planets in the solar system. The reason I want to know on whether you think the other planets in the solar system are round is because if you think they're round then I want to know why do you think the Earth is the only flat planet in the solar system? What makes Earth so special to ignore the laws of physics? If you don't think the other planets in the solar system are round then why do they appear to be round when you use a telescope? So please answer this question before we can talk about your FET theory.
    “We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  3. #803
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eliza there are very good reasons for regulations. My cousin recently took a trip to Greece where she innocently took a picture of some relic or something. She found out quickly that it wasn't allowed and the rules were for the protections of artifacts.

    Visiting the Antarctic is dangerous no matter how you get there. Taking pictures is allowed as long as you are not disrupting the wildlife. Keep in mind that no company wants to be liable for the death of a tourist who acted stupidly and people do act, or are, stupid.

    http://iaato.org/visitor-guidelines

    Visitor Guidelines

    Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic

    At the 2011 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM XXXIV, Buenos Aires), Treaty Parties adopted new general guidelines for visitors to the Antarctic (Resolution 3).
    Visitor Guidelines in PDF format: EnglishSpanishFrenchRussian
    Visitor Guidelines (English, 2007) Poster

    Visitor Guidelines Recommendation XVIII-1

    Adopted at the Antarctic Treaty Meeting, Kyoto, 1994
    Visitor Guidelines in PDF format: EnglishDutchFrenchGermanItalianSpanishChineseRussianJapanese

    Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic

    Table of Contents




    Activities in the Antarctic are governed by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and associated agreements, referred to collectively as the Antarctic Treaty System. The Treaty established Antarctica as a zone of peace and science.
    In 1991, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties adopted the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which designates the Antarctic as a natural reserve. The Protocol sets out environmental principles, procedures and obligations for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment, and its dependent and associated ecosystems. The Consultative Parties have agreed that, pending its entry into force, as far as possible and in accordance with their legal system, the provisions of the Protocol should be applied as appropriate.
    The Environmental Protocol applies to tourism and non-governmental activities, as well as governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. It is intended to ensure that these activities, do not have adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment, or on its scientific and aesthetic values.
    This Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic is intended to ensure that all visitors are aware of, and are therefore able to comply with, the Treaty and the Protocol. Visitors are, of course, bound by national laws and regulations applicable to activities in the Antarctic.

    Protect Antarctic Wildlife

    Taking or harmful interference with Antarctic wildlife is prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued by a national authority.

    • Do not use aircraft, vessels, small boats, or other means of transport in ways that disturb wildlife, either at sea or on land.
    • Do not feed, touch, or handle birds or seals, or approach or photograph them in ways that cause them to alter their behavior. Special care is needed when animals are breeding or molting.
    • Do not damage plants, for example by walking, driving, or landing on extensive moss beds or lichen-covered scree slopes.
    • Do not use guns or explosives. Keep noise to the minimum to avoid frightening wildlife.
    • Do not bring non-native plants or animals into the Antarctic such as live poultry, pet dogs and cats or house plants.

    Top of Page

    Respect Protected Areas

    A variety of areas in the Antarctic have been afforded special protection because of their particular ecological, scientific, historic or other values. Entry into certain areas may be prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued by an appropriate national authority. Activities in and near designated Historic Sites and Monuments and certain other areas may be subject to special restrictions.

    • Know the locations of areas that have been afforded special protection and any restrictions regarding entry and activities that can be carried out in and near them.
    • Observe applicable restrictions.
    • Do not damage, remove, or destroy Historic Sites or Monuments or any artifacts associated with them.


    Respect Scientific Research

    Do not interfere with scientific research, facilities or equipment.

    • Obtain permission before visiting Antarctic science and support facilities; reconfirm arrangements 24-72 hours before arrival; and comply with the rules regarding such visits.
    • Do not interfere with, or remove, scientific equipment or marker posts, and do not disturb experimental study sites, field camps or supplies.

    Be Safe

    Be prepared for severe and changeable weather and ensure that your equipment and clothing meet Antarctic standards. Remember that the Antarctic environment is inhospitable, unpredictable, and potentially dangerous.

    • Know your capabilities, the dangers posed by the Antarctic environment, and act accordingly. Plan activities with safety in mind at all times.
    • Keep a safe distance from all wildlife, both on land and at sea.
    • Take note of, and act on, the advice and instructions from your leaders; do not stray from your group.
    • Do not walk onto glaciers or large snow fields without the proper equipment and experience; there is a real danger of falling into hidden crevasses.
    • Do not expect a rescue service. Self-sufficiency is increased and risks reduced by sound planning, quality equipment, and trained personnel.
    • Do not enter emergency refuges (except in emergencies). If you use equipment or food from a refuge, inform the nearest research station or national authority once the emergency is over.
    • Respect any smoking restrictions, particularly around buildings, and take great care to safeguard against the danger of fire. This is a real hazard in the dry environment of Antarctica.


    Keep Antarctica Pristine

    Antarctica remains relatively pristine, the largest wilderness area on Earth. It has not yet been subjected to large scale human perturbations. Please keep it that way.

    • Do not dispose of litter or garbage on land. Open burning is prohibited.
    • Do not disturb or pollute lakes or streams. Any materials discarded at sea must be disposed of properly.
    • Do not paint or engrave names or graffiti on rocks or buildings.
    • Do not collect or take away biological or geological specimens or man-made artifacts as a souvenir, including rocks, bones, eggs, fossils, and parts or contents of buildings.
    • Do not deface or vandalize buildings, whether occupied, abandoned, or unoccupied, or emergency refuges



    You would think that all that is common sense but considering a lot of people lack it, they need to have firm guidelines.


    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  4. #804
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    I'm not sure why you don't want to tell me on what you think of the other planets in the solar system. The reason I want to know on whether you think the other planets in the solar system are round is because if you think they're round then I want to know why do you think the Earth is the only flat planet in the solar system? What makes Earth so special to ignore the laws of physics? If you don't think the other planets in the solar system are round then why do they appear to be round when you use a telescope? So please answer this question before we can talk about your FET theory.
    LOL. We are not understanding each other. I don't see any other earth/universe theories besides the one we have all been taught - the solar system - and where the planets in the solar system are, we all know. The only other model I know of is the FET model, and as to the placements of planets in the flat earth theory model, you can see that in the post above, "Flat earth Model with Planets in Motion" - (I tagged you for that. Its easier to show than describe).

    As to round - yes, we can see they are round through telescopes. As to what they are made up of, I have seen videos of the planets through telescopes and some of them appear as if they are gaseous or transparent and/or changing. That is what the eye observes. But they are far away, even on the FE model, with the "firmament above". Not near so far in FET as they are in solar system theory, and not near so far as NASA claims we can/have traveled (which is questionable), yet still too far to get close enough to gather too many observations. Basically planets in FET are much smaller and much closer.

    [Solar System theory seems to be supported by fantastic and amazing NASA "photos". But they aren't photos. They are art. NASA has some great artists, and the best equipment for artists to work with for their creations. And quite a budget!]

    You wrote: "What makes Earth so special to ignore the laws of physics? " - I am the wrong person to answer that question. I never took physics. FET does address physics issues and they do question some laws of physics, and GRAVITY is one of them. It does seem dubious to me that gravity explains all the stuff it is supposed to explain. (Why does the apple fall from the tree? Because its heavier than the air. Why does the a balloon go up in the sky? Because its lighter than air... Good enough answer to me.) Apparently some scientists question laws of physics, too! Tesla opposed the highly esteemed Relativity Theory. And he opposed a lot about Einstein, while most of us today see no room for questions - he is the great physics genius. Apparently, then, many things in what we call the highest of sciences, which we accept are absolute truths, are things that other reputable scientists call theory, not science, and they find reason to call things like our accepted basic laws of physics into question.
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 09-28-2016 at 10:24 PM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  5. #805
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    what if you travel straight West or East (from Panama City, for example). With car and boat. You will never hit ice.
    @Eliza Thomason
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  6. #806
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    Do you mean on the globe model, or the FET model?

    Because yes, of course, on a globe model you would not hit anything.

    But see that map images I linked you above for plane routes to Sydney to Santiago? (At the bottom of post #809 to you). They make no sense, just as many flight routes make no sense. Unless you look at a FE map - then strange flight routes suddenly make obvious sense. Also less extreme route anomalies as well. Like the flight to London from NYC suddenly looks like perfect sense. I mention that becaseu I have been on that, and the explanation for why we head north instead of east never made sense to me, looking at my globe.

    So FET points our the strangeness of flight routes, and raises plausible questions about the French Vendee Globe yacht route, and also the disappearance of ALL airplanes from ALL GPS tracking in the Southern Hemisphere ALL the time when the plane travels continent-to-continent, and over oceans, until suddenly reappearing on tracking systems just before arrival (why just the Southern Hemisphere??) and finds that FET solves all these mysteries..
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  7. #807
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    RLOAI, maybe
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life. ~ Oscar Wilde

  8. #808
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Eliza there are very good reasons for regulations. My cousin recently took a trip to Greece where she innocently took a picture of some relic or something. She found out quickly that it wasn't allowed and the rules were for the protections of artifacts.

    Visiting the Antarctic is dangerous no matter how you get there. Taking pictures is allowed as long as you are not disrupting the wildlife. Keep in mind that no company wants to be liable for the death of a tourist who acted stupidly and people do act, or are, stupid.

    http://iaato.org/visitor-guidelines

    Visitor Guidelines

    Guidelines for Visitors to the Antarctic

    At the 2011 Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM XXXIV, Buenos Aires), Treaty Parties adopted new general guidelines for visitors to the Antarctic (Resolution 3).
    Visitor Guidelines in PDF format: EnglishSpanishFrenchRussian
    Visitor Guidelines (English, 2007) Poster

    Visitor Guidelines Recommendation XVIII-1

    Adopted at the Antarctic Treaty Meeting, Kyoto, 1994
    Visitor Guidelines in PDF format: EnglishDutchFrenchGermanItalianSpanishChineseRussianJapanese

    Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic

    Table of Contents




    Activities in the Antarctic are governed by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 and associated agreements, referred to collectively as the Antarctic Treaty System. The Treaty established Antarctica as a zone of peace and science.
    In 1991, the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties adopted the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, which designates the Antarctic as a natural reserve. The Protocol sets out environmental principles, procedures and obligations for the comprehensive protection of the Antarctic environment, and its dependent and associated ecosystems. The Consultative Parties have agreed that, pending its entry into force, as far as possible and in accordance with their legal system, the provisions of the Protocol should be applied as appropriate.
    The Environmental Protocol applies to tourism and non-governmental activities, as well as governmental activities in the Antarctic Treaty Area. It is intended to ensure that these activities, do not have adverse impacts on the Antarctic environment, or on its scientific and aesthetic values.
    This Guidance for Visitors to the Antarctic is intended to ensure that all visitors are aware of, and are therefore able to comply with, the Treaty and the Protocol. Visitors are, of course, bound by national laws and regulations applicable to activities in the Antarctic.

    Protect Antarctic Wildlife

    Taking or harmful interference with Antarctic wildlife is prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued by a national authority.

    • Do not use aircraft, vessels, small boats, or other means of transport in ways that disturb wildlife, either at sea or on land.
    • Do not feed, touch, or handle birds or seals, or approach or photograph them in ways that cause them to alter their behavior. Special care is needed when animals are breeding or molting.
    • Do not damage plants, for example by walking, driving, or landing on extensive moss beds or lichen-covered scree slopes.
    • Do not use guns or explosives. Keep noise to the minimum to avoid frightening wildlife.
    • Do not bring non-native plants or animals into the Antarctic such as live poultry, pet dogs and cats or house plants.

    Top of Page

    Respect Protected Areas

    A variety of areas in the Antarctic have been afforded special protection because of their particular ecological, scientific, historic or other values. Entry into certain areas may be prohibited except in accordance with a permit issued by an appropriate national authority. Activities in and near designated Historic Sites and Monuments and certain other areas may be subject to special restrictions.

    • Know the locations of areas that have been afforded special protection and any restrictions regarding entry and activities that can be carried out in and near them.
    • Observe applicable restrictions.
    • Do not damage, remove, or destroy Historic Sites or Monuments or any artifacts associated with them.


    Respect Scientific Research

    Do not interfere with scientific research, facilities or equipment.

    • Obtain permission before visiting Antarctic science and support facilities; reconfirm arrangements 24-72 hours before arrival; and comply with the rules regarding such visits.
    • Do not interfere with, or remove, scientific equipment or marker posts, and do not disturb experimental study sites, field camps or supplies.

    Be Safe

    Be prepared for severe and changeable weather and ensure that your equipment and clothing meet Antarctic standards. Remember that the Antarctic environment is inhospitable, unpredictable, and potentially dangerous.

    • Know your capabilities, the dangers posed by the Antarctic environment, and act accordingly. Plan activities with safety in mind at all times.
    • Keep a safe distance from all wildlife, both on land and at sea.
    • Take note of, and act on, the advice and instructions from your leaders; do not stray from your group.
    • Do not walk onto glaciers or large snow fields without the proper equipment and experience; there is a real danger of falling into hidden crevasses.
    • Do not expect a rescue service. Self-sufficiency is increased and risks reduced by sound planning, quality equipment, and trained personnel.
    • Do not enter emergency refuges (except in emergencies). If you use equipment or food from a refuge, inform the nearest research station or national authority once the emergency is over.
    • Respect any smoking restrictions, particularly around buildings, and take great care to safeguard against the danger of fire. This is a real hazard in the dry environment of Antarctica.


    Keep Antarctica Pristine

    Antarctica remains relatively pristine, the largest wilderness area on Earth. It has not yet been subjected to large scale human perturbations. Please keep it that way.

    • Do not dispose of litter or garbage on land. Open burning is prohibited.
    • Do not disturb or pollute lakes or streams. Any materials discarded at sea must be disposed of properly.
    • Do not paint or engrave names or graffiti on rocks or buildings.
    • Do not collect or take away biological or geological specimens or man-made artifacts as a souvenir, including rocks, bones, eggs, fossils, and parts or contents of buildings.
    • Do not deface or vandalize buildings, whether occupied, abandoned, or unoccupied, or emergency refuges



    You would think that all that is common sense but considering a lot of people lack it, they need to have firm guidelines.







    So it seems! Yes, you have shown us the information most easily found when looking for "rules" for Antarctic tourists (you have to look a lot harder to find the international law restricting how much extra food and fuel is allowed on a ship getting near the Antarctica).

    Yes, what you shared seem innocuous enough. But isn't it a bit odd that such effort is made to tell people not to litter on vacation tours? I have been on guided tours! I have never been told not to litter. Because its assumed we WON"T of course.

    Honestly, think about the tourists that are being addressed whom apparently are supposed to lack normal everyday courtesy. Think of the nice retired folks or hardworking people or persons of means who fork over quite a lot of money to go on an exclusive GUIDED tour, after jumping through some hoops to land a spot on that tour with a shipload of other tourists (I think there are waiting lists if I recall). They purchased special arctic wear for the trip, and bundled up in it for the long awaited land tour. How likely are they to bring along a can of spray paint to deface a building or a rock with graffiti?? About zero? Also its a group guided tour. No one is idling about alone. And are these folks likely to leave candy wrappers behind to blow about in the wind? How many people are motivated to pull off their wool/sheepskin mittens and expose their hands to sub zero weather to unwrap a sandwich they stashed in their parka pocket? Do you think the tours do not plan/provide indoor mealtimes? Think about it. Pretty strange!

    They have something to hide, and they want you to think their Antarctic vigilance is just their interest in "preserving the environment." That's the party line, as you can see in what you pasted here.

    Does this tour group look like a threat to the antarctic environment? Do you get this protective feeling that inspires you to give them a lot of warnings so things don't get ruined? http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/...ca-tourism.jpg

    So no, I do not see "very good reasons" for these regulations. They are odd.

    What are they hiding?The video below will explain my implication there is something big being hidden. There are many mysteries concerning Antarctica, as you will agree after watching this:


    (one hour, 52 minutes)
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 09-29-2016 at 05:06 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  9. #809
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Eliza, my blow dryer insert warned me not to use while sleeping. None of their rules seem unreasonable to me. How much money someone can afford to spend on a trip doesn't determine how conscientious they are or how much common sense they have. Have you ever seen the room of a luxury hotel that has been wrecked? Some people don't think or just don't care about things that don't belong to them. We have laws against littering in my state. You would think that people would know better than to leave a trail of garbage behind them for someone else to clean but not everyone thinks like that. They would probably be quite upset if you dumped garbage on their doorstep though.

    Check out rules and regulations for visiting historical or other protected areas and see if you don't find similar regulations. Antarctic is far more dangerous to visit than your local nature preserve but the ones around me are pretty strict about what you can and can't bring into the parks. I know not to stick my hand in the cougar enclosure but some adults and children seem to lack that knowledge. I suppose the threat of falling into a crevice in the ice might be exciting to some people though. Chances are no one is going to be able to rescue you. Regardless it's not like they are going to shoot you if you drop your candy wrapper.

    I don't care if you believe in flat earth or not but some rules are there for a reason. To protect both the environment and the stupid.

    Edit: It wasn't hard to find the reason for fuel restrictions.
    Last edited by Aylen; 09-28-2016 at 10:59 PM.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  10. #810
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,263
    Mentioned
    167 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    You don't have to book a tour through a cruise or fly-over. If you have the money, you can sail a boat or fly a plane yourself to Antarctica and do whatever you want. All of these things that the IAATO lays out about visitor guidelines that are drawn from the treaty are fine. But it's not like if you're flying your private plane over Antarctica, you are going to be intercepted by fighter jets and asked to turn around. You're a free person travelling freely across the globe.

  11. #811
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Eliza, my blow dryer insert warned me not to use while sleeping. None of their rules seem unreasonable to me.
    How much money someone can afford to spend on a trip doesn't determine how conscientious they are or how much common sense they have.

    Have you ever seen the room of a luxury hotel that has been wrecked?
    Anyone and everyone buys a blow dryer and their kin can sue after it was used in the bathtub. So that's a different matter entirely. Not everyone can go to Antarctica. Only a select few!

    And its not about how much money they have, though that can have something to do with it. Because generally you are talking about the money of retirees who have worked hard all their life and saved and lived prudently and have long anticipated this experience, or hard working people who make money but can afford limited leisure time. Maybe now you can picture the actions of these persons who are not careless litterers and never were. That is most of the people who can afford these trips, but there also are people of abundant means, and a plausible tiny percentage of those possibly might be slobs. But not in public.

    I feel I can make a judgment on who makes up these tours because my grandmother took me on guided tours abroad. As to the luxury slobs, trust fund kids or overgrown kids at the luxury hotel, they are alone in their room and their actions are not being observed by anyone, and no one is going to chastise the high-budget guests for giving the maid too much work. (And if the hotel sends a bill for damages, their accountant can pay it).

    So consider the behavior of badly-behaving people under the cover of the darkened glass of their motor vehicle. In the same way these folks in the privacy of their rooms toss their garbage on the floor with impunity if they are that kind of persons. But on a guided tour, in a group, close with strangers, and nowhere to run, you get the best of their behavior and you'd never guess they are closet slobs. (But this type will be avoid restrictive supervised tours like this anyway). And "guided tour" means little time to take off and explore on your own. But I'll bet that's not at all on an Antarctica guided tour.

    So, no tossing trash on the tundra from these tourists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Some people don't think or just don't care about things that don't belong to them. We have laws against littering in my state. You would think that people would know better than to leave a trail of garbage behind them for someone else to clean but not everyone thinks like that. They would probably be quite upset if you dumped garbage on their doorstep though.

    Check out rules and regulations for visiting historical or other protected areas and see if you don't find similar regulations. Antarctic is far more dangerous to visit than your local nature preserve but the ones around me are pretty strict about what you can and can't bring into the parks.
    This is nothing at all like the park or the nature preserve open to the general public to come and go as they please. That's not possible in the Antarctic. You are taking a restricted tour in a group in a highly regulated place.. And you are on a ship, which by nature has many restrictions (My friend who took the tour said even the restrictions on the ship were extreme and unusual - nothing like any cruise she had been on).

    People behave in a restricted way in close proximity to others. Think an elevator or plane. (Exceptions make good human interest news stories because they are unusual and shocking). Believe me, crowd control on guided tours abroad is extremely tame. This is a docile obedient polite crowd (that does not need warnings for the general-everybody/anybody crowd like public parks or people who buy common appliances). You could control this crowd, Aylen. Seriously. Just bat your eyes and they'll do anything you say!


    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    ... I suppose the threat of falling into a crevice in the ice might be exciting to some people though. Chances are no one is going to be able to rescue you....
    That would be a reasonable thing to warn people about. However, I think it would be rare - more likely not allowed - for a tourist to go exploring on his own or with his buddy - no matter what prior hardy experience they can boast.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Edit: It wasn't hard to find the reason for fuel restrictions.
    Yeah, but its weird isn't it? Just what is it that makes the polar environment so much more "delicate" than other environments that it requires ultra-unique and restrictive international laws and regulations? Oh, and so the newest fuel restriction will "reduce the total number of Antarctic passenger visits from more than 15,000 a year to about 6,400". So the guided tours will now be less than half annually! And thats after whittling down from 45,000 in previous years. Hmm.. And this is all about being greener. Su-re...

    I see why my friend made such a point to tell me she was fortunate and privileged to take this trip, and that many people wait to be allowed the opportunity and many are not chosen. And now it will be even more so!

    Maybe you are having a hard time seeing these anomalies because you are in the mode that organizations, governments and businesses just do things for reasonable reasons, that are all about our good, so this is the assumption to make. I don't have that issue. If you watch that Antarctica video I linked above (I would watch it on youtube on TV) your eyes would open.

    It occurs to me that published rules and regulations you showed us, Aylen, are telling in another way. They are establishing their pretext for why they need to be rule-focused. They are giving you the idea that just like people who buy small appliances or go to the city parks, these vacationers must be controlled! Or the Antarctica COULD end up looking like the city park! So *phew!*, you can pat them on the back and rest assured that the environment in the Antarctica is being saved from tourists in parkas and snowshoes.

    ______________
    P.S. I am finding it harder to find online the laws on restricting how much food can be carried on a ship near Antarctica and I don't have time to pursue the search now. But it is a law. Just a very odd one for which it would be harder to justify because it is "protecting the environment".
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 09-29-2016 at 05:17 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  12. #812
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    You don't have to book a tour through a cruise or fly-over. If you have the money, you can sail a boat or fly a plane yourself to Antarctica and do whatever you want. All of these things that the IAATO lays out about visitor guidelines that are drawn from the treaty are fine. But it's not like if you're flying your private plane over Antarctica, you are going to be intercepted by fighter jets and asked to turn around. You're a free person travelling freely across the globe.
    I'm not so sure about that as you are. I highly doubt that you can choose to fly over the Antarctic, ever.* These people/nations mean business and they have serious restrictions on anyone even approaching the Antarctic.

    Anyway, it seems to me you would have to get permission from EACH country whose air space you want to fly over. Pretty tricky.

    Isn't it odd that there are NO FLIGHTS over the Antarctic? We do this instead of this.** And if its "too cold" then why not this?

    _________________________
    *Admiral Byrd was televised highly recommending extensive exploration of Antarctica as the greatest most potential-filled frontier. However, shortly after, that frontier was firmly closed to exploration or even curious looks (meaning I am pretty sure no fly-overs) by the strange Antarctic Treaty.

    **[These images come from 3/4 down of this page where there is also a discussion of them.]
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 09-29-2016 at 05:09 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  13. #813
    Feeling fucking fantastic golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Second story
    TIM
    EIE
    Posts
    3,724
    Mentioned
    250 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'll bite.

    Is the world's only edge in Antarctica?

  14. #814
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,263
    Mentioned
    167 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    I'm not so sure about that as you are. I highly doubt that you can choose to fly over the Antarctic, ever.* These people mean business and they have serious restrictions on that air space.

    Anyway, it seems to me you would have to get permission from EACH country whose air space you want to fly over. Pretty tricky.

    Isn't it odd that there are NO FLIGHTS over the Antarctic? We do this instead of this.**

    _________________________
    *Admiral Byrd was televised highly recommending extensive exploration of Antarctica as the greatest most potential-filled frontier. However, shortly after, that frontier was firmly closed to exploration or even curious looks (meaning I am pretty sure no fly-overs) by the strange Antarctic Treaty.

    **[These images come from 3/4 down of this page where there is also a discussion of them.]
    There's a company in Australia that respectfully disagrees, as does the aforementioned Adventure Smith Explorations. That being said, there are some commercial flights that get close to the polar ice cap, but none that would routinely overfly it. This probably isn't due to the treaty, I'm sure it has a lot more to do with how the airlines operate and what their respective countries aviation authorities mandate for Extended Operations (ETOPS) considerations. It's generally ill-advised to have flights, even long-range multi-engine operations, over remote areas. The logic being that there are very few places to divert to in the event of an emergency, and the difficulty of rescue efforts should a plane go down. There are special considerations for polar flights, because of concerns that the temperatures encountered at high altitude over polar regions could potentially freeze the jet fuel in the tanks that are normally located in the wings and central fuselage underbody. Every airplane that one would consider taking on a polar overflight have sensors that warn flight crews of unsafe fuel temperatures.

    Aside from the difficulties of polar operations, there could be a simple ecological explanation. I underlined could because what's to follow is my opinion, and I don't know if the following has anything to actually do with why airlines do not routinely cross Antarctica, but hear me out. Nobody wants plane crashes marring the polar region, or to have their overflights disturb the natural state of things in any way. There are many places around the US, for example, that the NOAA prohibit overflights due to those areas being designated as biological preserves (the actual regulation is 15 CFR 922 {PDF}). A good example is the Channel Islands off the coast of Southern California (see the Los Angeles VFR sectional chart).

    "But," you may object. "NOAA regulations typically only apply up to a certain altitude. Even in the case of your example, the Channel Islands, overflights are only prohibited up to 1,000 feet Above Ground Level. Any plane travelling over the polar region is bound to be three miles or higher above the surface."

    Yeah, fair enough, but then you have the problem of contrails. NASA researchers have shown that regions saturated in airplane traffic have increased cloud cover, produced from contrails that under the right atmospheric conditions, persist and spread out to form thin cirrus layers. These cirrus clouds are enough to have a direct effect on surface temperatures by a few degrees, and are a contributing factor to anthropogenic climate change. Now we've only known this for a little over a decade, so it's unlikely that this is a reason polar overflights are not common, but I think the last thing we want to do is increase surface temperatures at the polar ice caps. So good thing, right?

  15. #815
    :popcorn: Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,263
    Mentioned
    167 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    By the way, something I'm awfully curious about. How do Flat Earthers account for the differences in the amount of daylight at different longitudes along the same latitude? This is most noticeable at dawn and dusk. On the east coast of the US, for example, at sunrise, if you look at a webcam in Florida and a webcam in New York at the same exact time, there is more sunlight in Florida than there is in New York. And why is it that, depending on the time of year, locations near and within the arctic circle experience extended periods of day and night for weeks at a time?

  16. #816

  17. #817
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,347
    Mentioned
    1005 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Anyone and everyone buys a blow dryer and their kin can sue after it was used in the bathtub. So that's a different matter entirely. Not everyone can go to Antarctica. Only a select few!
    And its not about how much money they have, though that can have something to do with it. Because generally you are talking about the money of retirees who have worked hard all their life and saved and lived prudently and have long anticipated this experience, or hard working people who make money but can afford limited leisure time. Maybe now you can picture the actions of these persons who are not careless litterers and never were. That is most of the people who can afford these trips, but there also are people of abundant means, and a plausible tiny percentage of those possibly might be slobs. But not in public.

    I feel I can make a judgment on who makes up these tours because my grandmother took me on guided tours abroad. As to the luxury slobs, trust fund kids or overgrown kids at the luxury hotel, they are alone in their room and their actions are not being observed by anyone, and no one is going to chastise the high-budget guests for giving the maid too much work. (And if the hotel sends a bill for damages, their accountant can pay it).

    So consider the behavior of badly-behaving people under the cover of the darkened glass of their motor vehicle. In the same way these folks in the privacy of their rooms toss their garbage on the floor with impunity if they are that kind of persons. But on a guided tour, in a group, close with strangers, and nowhere to run, you get the best of their behavior and you'd never guess they are closet slobs. (But this type will be avoid restrictive supervised tours like this anyway). And "guided tour" means little time to take off and explore on your own. But I'll bet that's not at all on an Antarctica guided tour.

    So, no tossing trash on the tundra from these tourists.



    This is nothing at all like the park or the nature preserve open to the general public to come and go as they please. That's not possible in the Antarctic. You are taking a restricted tour in a group in a highly regulated place.. And you are on a ship, which by nature has many restrictions (My friend who took the tour said even the restrictions on the ship were extreme and unusual - nothing like any cruise she had been on).

    People behave in a restricted way in close proximity to others. Think an elevator or plane. (Exceptions make good human interest news stories because they are unusual and shocking). Believe me, crowd control on guided tours abroad is extremely tame. This is a docile obedient polite crowd (that does not need warnings for the general-everybody/anybody crowd like public parks or people who buy common appliances). You could control this crowd, Aylen. Seriously. Just bat your eyes and they'll do anything you say!


    That would be a reasonable thing to warn people about. However, I think it would be rare - more likely not allowed - for a tourist to go exploring on his own or with his buddy - no matter what prior hardy experience they can boast.


    Yeah, but its weird isn't it? Just what is it that makes the polar environment so much more "delicate" than other environments that it requires ultra-unique and restrictive international laws and regulations? Oh, and so the newest fuel restriction will "reduce the total number of Antarctic passenger visits from more than 15,000 a year to about 6,400". So the guided tours will now be less than half annually! And thats after whittling down from 45,000 in previous years. Hmm.. And this is all about being greener. Su-re...

    I see why my friend made such a point to tell me she was fortunate and privileged to take this trip, and that many people wait to be allowed the opportunity and many are not chosen. And now it will be even more so!

    Maybe you are having a hard time seeing these anomalies because you are in the mode that organizations, governments and businesses just do things for reasonable reasons, that are all about our good, so this is the assumption to make. I don't have that issue. If you watch that Antarctica video I linked above (I would watch it on youtube on TV) your eyes would open.

    It occurs to me that published rules and regulations you showed us, Aylen, are telling in another way. They are establishing their pretext for why they need to be rule-focused. They are giving you the idea that just like people who buy small appliances or go to the city parks, these vacationers must be controlled! Or the Antarctica COULD end up looking like the city park! So *phew!*, you can pat them on the back and rest assured that the environment in the Antarctica is being saved from tourists in parkas and snowshoes.

    ______________
    P.S. I am finding it harder to find online the laws on restricting how much food can be carried on a ship near Antarctica and I don't have time to pursue the search now. But it is a law. Just a very odd one for which it would be harder to justify because it is "protecting the environment".
    If you don't see the value in keeping the Antarctic pristine I wonder if you see the value of preserving nature at all. This whole "humans have dominion over the earth" thing is getting tiresome. It keeps people ignorant and irreverent of the earth we live on. Not that you are using that argument... We will be long gone but the earth will keep spinning for millions or perhaps a couple billion years longer.

    I just want to repeat it is a dangerous and beautiful place. Humans tend to destroy as much as they create. Even those who prepare and respect the environment can and do lose their lives trying to explore it. Your stated "anomalies" are not that strange to me. They are easily dismissed because I have read more on the subject. Educate yourself on both sides. You are having trouble following some of the good arguments made in this thread. I don't include my own because I have not taken it that seriously until you brought this who Antarctic thing up. I do care about that. If you want to know for sure what it is like, stop watching youtube videos and arrange a trip to one of the research facilities. Aren't you a teacher? Perhaps that can get you on a waiting list. I don't know the rules of visiting the research facilities though since that would not be my main focus if I wanted to visit.

    My sister and I have planned to go on an Alaskan cruise for ages. Perhaps we haven't yet because it is meant for us to go to Antarctic so I can come back and give you a personal report. I will run it by her. She is game for anything. I just have this weird feeling about all the things that could go wrong and I don't want to die by freezing in water if our ship goes down. I feel we might have a better shot at rescue in Alaska if something went wrong.

    'My journey is at an end. I've run out of time and endurance': The last poignant diary entry and selfie of British explorer who died 30 miles short of becoming the first man to cross Antarctica alone

    Henry Worsley had abandoned the history-making Antarctic trek on Friday
    The 55-year-old married father-of-two suffered exhaustion and dehydration
    He was bidding to become the first adventurer to cross the Antarctic alone
    But his family today confirmed he has died from 'complete organ failure'
    He had been supported by Prince William and raised £100,000 for charity


    By COREY CHARLTON and SAM TONKIN FOR MAILONLINE
    PUBLISHED: 05:34 EST, 25 January 2016 | UPDATED: 14:03 EST, 25 January 2016

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hing-line.html


    Three die in 'Viking' yacht off Antarctica

    MICHAEL FIELD

    Last updated 19:26 27/02/2011


    A foolhardy voyage to Antarctica by a group of self-proclaimed Vikings has cost three lives while forcing a New Zealand navy ship and its 55 crew into savage seas, damaging the new vessel.

    Berserk, a Norway-flagged 45m-long steel yacht with three men aboard, disappeared on Tuesday, in McMurdo Sound, 33km north of Scott Base.
    Yesterday it was confirmed that an empty liferaft, found by the Sea Shepherd's Steve Irwin, was from Berserk. There was also debris but no sign of the missing men.

    Berserk had dropped two other men, with quad bikes bought in Auckland, on the ice. Last night they were trapped on the Ross Ice Shelf, trying to reach Scott Base, before the sea ice, which is breaking up, separates from Ross Island.

    An Auckland mariner who saw Berserk in the Viaduct said the boat had been made unseaworthy by its heavy cargo, including the quad bikes lashed to the deck.

    After Berserk's emergency beacon sent a Mayday signal, ice-strengthened patrol vessel HMNZS Wellington, commissioned last year and in McMurdo Sound, was dispatched.

    "As we responded, we were stuck in the most intense storm I have ever encountered in 19 years in the navy," skipper Lieutenant Commander Simon Griffith told Stuff yesterday from inside the Antarctic Circle, enroute for Dunedin and a Thursday docking.

    Hurricane force winds up to 182km/h "exploded off the Ross Ice Shelf" and sharp swells of 8m slammed into HMNZS Wellington.
    Spray turned to thick ice on the decks. Aerials, lighting and speakers were swept away. Griffith ruefully noted they even lost their stern light.
    Liferafts were ripped off. "We still have enough on board to keep us safe," he says. In the midst of it, Griffith got word of the Christchurch earthquake; he kept it to himself for 12 hours.

    Wellington made it into the lee of Mt Erebus but once they entered McMurdo Sound they got slammed again.

    "They were the biggest seas I have ever come across, but it was pretty obvious the ship was up for it." Nothing of Berserk was found.
    On Monday they had met Berserk at Back Door Bay, where Shackleton's Hut stands.

    "They gave us a call and asked us for a packet of cigarettes. We did not have any, but we gave them a cigar," says Griffith. The yacht was warned severe weather was coming.

    "The yacht seemed a very sturdy, oceangoing yacht and they were three cheerful Norwegians."
    Berserk leader Jarle Andhoy, 34, and Samuel Massie Ulvolden, 18, were attempting to reach the South Pole to mark the centenary of Norwegian Roald Amundsen's South Pole expedition.

    The three left on the yacht were Robert Skaane, 34, Tom Gisle Bellika, 36, and South African Leonard Banks, 32.
    Andhoy, a television celebrity in Norway, was fined recently for "trying to talk to the polar bears".

    Canadian authorities arrested him on suspicion of being a member of the Hell's Angels and deported him.
    Berserk needed to get permission from the Norwegian Polar Institute to sail below 60 degrees south.

    Official Jan-Gunnar Winther confirmed they did not have permission.

    Scott Base manager Troy Beaumont said the storm which hit Berserk and Wellington was "a bit of a doozy".
    "There are a whole lot of treaties down here and they have managed to violate every one of them," he added.

    Antarctic New Zealand CEO Lou Sanson told Radio New Zealand the two men on the ice shelf were stuck amidst crevasses in a whiteout with minus 20C temperatures.

    "Why you would want to drive a motorbike to the South Pole at this time of year is completely beyond us.
    "It just seems all the safety principles operating in Antarctica have been broken."

    Auckland commercial skipper Kevin Peat saw Berserk at the Viaduct.
    "They had all the stuff sitting on the dock and we thought there was no way they could get it onto the boat, but, over a two week period they slowly, but surely, lifted the gear into the boat," Peat said.

    "We thought it was a joke, no way you would go with all that gear out it onto the ocean, certainly not the Southern Ocean."
    It included 44 gallon drums of fuel lashed to the deck, along with quad bikes.
    One bike was lashed over the engine room hatch.

    Berserk was structurally sound but all the weight would have compromised its righting moment, meaning the boat would be vulnerable to capsize.
    He said it would have cleared Customs but as a foreign flagged vessel, it could not be prevented from sailing, even though it was unsafe.

    ICE BREAK HALTS AIRLIFT

    Meanwhile, an American bid to get as many people back to New Zealand from McMurdo Sound and Scott Base today has run into trouble as the sea ice which holds the runways breaks away from land.

    The US Antarctic Programme has already moved its 500 people out of quake-struck Christchurch and was last night and today sending two giant US Air Force Globemasters south to bring out several hundred people early before winter.

    If successful, they will be flown to Auckland from Christchurch today in an RNZAF airlift.

    Scott Base manager Troy Beaumont told the Sunday Star-Times that the sea was opening up and access to the ice shelf was becoming difficult.
    "The ice is breaking up," he said. He said it was likely the Globemasters would be able to land at this point, but it would take staff longer to get onto the ice.
    Antarctic New Zealand CEO Lou Sanson said they had run into complications now that the Ross Sea Ice Shelf was parting from Ross Island.
    "We are seeing the biggest ever break out of the Ross Ice shelf in 15 years, our supply lines to the airfield are getting affected," he told Radio New Zealand

    I am not sure how your grandmother taking you on a guided tour makes you qualified to judge what rules and regulations are necessary for travel to the Antarctic but anyway...

    You can't trust that people will do the right thing. Not everyone has the social shame that you think they have. Having more money or being old doesn't mean you know what is and isn't acceptable. The list of rules and regulations do sound reasonable to me. People litter openly all the time. Not just the poor, uncultured slobs. People take what doesn't belong to them, even the rich. I imagine there are weight restrictions on all types of cruises and that includes the food and fuel they are allowed to carry. Even on trips elsewhere. I didn't find anything conspiratorial about food on ships to that specific area but if there are they probably have sound reasons for them.

    People are given these rules to keep them safe and the area pristine. I don't know what is so hard to understand about that. If we all concede that you live on a flat earth it doesn't have anything to do with wanting to protect an area that has not been destroyed by humans. You ignore the fact that if people were allowed to just go off exploring on their own, most would die so applying for permits to be a guide or even explore on your own doesn't seem unreasonable.

    Land Tourism

    For descriptions of IAATO air and land tourism operators to the Antarctic, see the IAATO Membership Directory, specifically Members Adventure Network International (ANI)/Antarctic Logistics and Expeditions (ALE), The Antarctic Company (TAC) and White Desert.

    Tourism Statistics

    Since IAATO's inception, records of tour itineraries and site visits have been maintained, a valuable resource that is available to researchers. According to these records, approximately 200 sites including 20 research stations have been visited in the Antarctic Peninsula region since 1989. About 50 of these sites have received more than 100 visitors in any one season and about the same number have been visited just once. A cursory examination of the tour data indicates that visits are concentrated at less than 35 sites. Less than 10 sites receive around 10,000 visitors each season, and Port Lockroy – where the British Antarctic Survey is conducting a monitoring program – receives over 10,000 visitors annually.
    According to current information, Antarctica is likely to remain a specialized and relatively expensive niche destination offered by a limited number of experienced operators focusing on educational voyages to areas of natural and wilderness value.IAATO vessels also transport dozens scientists per year to the Antarctic and Sub Antarctic islands.

    Conclusion

    The benefits derived from responsible tourism, such as better knowledge and appreciation of the region are substantial. The wildlife-rich coastline, snow-covered mountains, glaciated landscapes, and extreme weather of this physically remote and magical part of the world lend this region remarkable wilderness and aesthetic value for the adventurous traveler.
    Join us for a journey to a remarkable area of the world, and become an "Ambassador" for the conservation of the Antarctic environment.
    If your flat earth theory depends on this area being the ends of the earth then it is pretty flimsy. Where exactly are the other fall off points? It seems to me you see no value in keeping it pristine but I do so we have nothing really more to discuss. There will be no meeting of the minds here.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung
     
    YWIMW

  18. #818
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    ... ends of the earth ...Where exactly are the other fall off points?...
    This confuses me as does also @goldenbane's question in #821 about the "only edge". I don't quite get what you are asking.

    There are only two models available that I'm aware of. The antarctic is an island at the bottom of the ball earth, or it circumferences around the round flat earth with a high steep wall. As to "edge" and "fall-off points", the water doesn't fall off the ball because of gravity-glue, and it doesn't fall off the plane because of the extremely steep wall around it. Two models, two solutions.

    I'll address the rest of what you said after I return to type in a few days. I have family and a friend coming in this weekend; I am so excited. Dh and I are cleaning and prepping happily. And CPig raised some good questions which I want to answer first.
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 09-29-2016 at 07:34 PM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  19. #819
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    RLOAI, maybe
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    This confuses me as does also @goldenbane's question in #821 about the "only edge". I don't quite get what you are asking.

    There are only two models available that I'm aware of. The antarctic is an island at the bottom of the ball earth, or it circumferences around the round flat earth with a high steep wall. As to "edge" and "fall-off points", the water doesn't fall off the ball because of gravity-glue, and it doesn't fall off the plane because of the extremely steep wall around it. Two models, two solutions.

    I'll address the rest of what you said after I return to type in a few days. I have family and a friend coming in this weekend; I am so excited. Dh and I are cleaning and prepping happily. And CPig raised some good questions which I want to answer first.
    "Only" two? There is only one model that is based on observation. Everything else is not even up for consideration in the 21st century.

  20. #820
    Shiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    126
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, this thread exists. At least I'm not surprised.

  21. #821
    SongOfSapphire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    517
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    This Talk made me think of this thread: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_berkens...erm=art-design
    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra

  22. #822
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Eliza Thomason
    I'm looking at the picture in your signature. Just for my clarity, do you believe in this flat earth theory?
    If you do, I have to know the answer to this question- what is an eclipse and how does it happen? Is an eclipse caused by the positions of the sun and moon? I know that the explanation in ancient societies was often a myth about a dragon swallowing the sun then shitting it out shortly afterwards. Though I never believed they took this literally, but maybe they did.
    I haven't read your posts thoroughly so if you already mentioned this just refer me to that part of this.

  23. #823
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratrevisits View Post
    @Eliza Thomason
    I'm looking at the picture in your signature. Just for my clarity, do you believe in this flat earth theory?
    If you do, I have to know the answer to this question- what is an eclipse and how does it happen? Is an eclipse caused by the positions of the sun and moon? I know that the explanation in ancient societies was often a myth about a dragon swallowing the sun then shitting it out shortly afterwards. Though I never believed they took this literally, but maybe they did.
    I haven't read your posts thoroughly so if you already mentioned this just refer me to that part of this.
    Hi ratrevisits. Most of the posts in this thread are skeptics explaining the same things we all learned in science. I used to answer a lot of them but its a waste of my time. I am not the expert to provide answers. However I think the flat earth theory is fascinating, and has real merit, and that's why its still around, in spite of its falling out of popularity with scientists after the Antarctic Treaty and NASA's well-funded "space explorations". It is enjoying a resurgence of popularity today by persons who are even actually well-educated.

    It is very threatening for many people to consider. The very idea threatens cognitive dissidence, for one, which is threatening especially the first time you experience that challenge to your reality. I have been through that experience already more than once for other things so its not so threatening for me. I am fine with considering a theory that seems way too far out to be true. So thats what I did, and I found it interesting, and I still do.

    But I am not a scientist, and not only that, and as an IEE, I am Ti polr, and that means, for an IEE, with my panoramic-holographic cognitive style thinker, my earnest explanations include way too much information and are hard for many to follow. Maybe sometime I will write a summary of how my FET interest unfolded, but not now. It started with a nagging curiosity I was feeling when I started this thread, which started that week when I saw an intriguing video, and started exploring the topic looking for answers. I figured my interest would not last longer than a week before I found good reason to dismiss it - but my interest in the theory has not gone away. I keep going back to it. I am an artist, and I have a good grasp of certain visual concepts - its a reality I can't erase. I honestly think the reason I never wanted to learn astronomy or even more about astrological projections in the sky was because it just didn't make sense to me how a sky could have that kind of order after learning about the solar system and the universe. So I always avoided learning it. But now I want to learn about the wonderful movement of the stars and planets. As to my avatar, that is an interest that makes me marvel about God's order. We know this:
    is a reality - that is just exactly how the stars have moved and have moved for all time. But how in the world can we look up in the sky and see that, every time, every day, exactly the same, if we are actually spinning at 1000 miles per hour, AND also doing this, as well?? :

    https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...tXp-xnfCjg.gif

    There is NO WAY to explain that or SHOW how both those things can exist - which is why there is no explanation to be found.

    But what the stars actually do from our perspective is just a fact of observational reality. And I am enarmored with that beautiful reality, which is why I put that time lapse of actual star movements in my avatar.

    As to eclipses, its not one of the topics that I can explain well or remember. It is one I want to look at. It is hard to find which videos aren't "fakes" put there to confuse you from reality. I think mark Sargent's are good. Hope I am right on that. I prefer to read, but there are some good video's out there. I am not watching them lately but if I posted something in this thread then I recognized it as a worthwhile one. Hope that helps. If you find a good one on eclipses, let me know.

    I once saw a cool 24 hour time lapse of the sky from Antarctica (what you see from there supposedly does not make sense with a globe-model) and the moon (or was it sun) never set but this thing called a "black moon" showed up in some of the shots, which was fascinating. Then I couldn't find that video again. Apparently its something you see in ancient art from other cultures, and might factor into the explanation of eclipses. When you read FET on eclipses, they explain why the current explanation for eclipses is observationally a hoax.
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 10-28-2016 at 02:52 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  24. #824
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    As to eclipses, its not one of the topics that I can explain well or remember. It is one I want to look at. It is hard to find which videos aren't "fakes" put there to confuse you from reality. I think mark Sargent's are good. Hope I am right on that. I prefer to read, but there are some good video's out there. I am not watching them lately but if I posted something in this thread then I recognized it as a worthwhile one. Hope that helps. If you find a good one on eclipses, let me know.

    I once saw a cool 24 hour time lapse of the sky from Antarctica (what you see from there supposedly does not make sense with a globe-model) and the moon (or was it sun) never set but this thing called a "black moon" showed up in some of the shots, which was fascinating. Then I couldn't find that video again. Apparently its something you see in ancient art from other cultures, and might factor into the explanation of eclipses. When you read FET on eclipses, they explain why the current explanation for eclipses is observationally a hoax.
    Hello Eliza. I am just going to focus on this part of what you said.
    For your future knowledge, a black moon (or just a new moon) happens very frequently (about once a month). And this happens when the moon is in conjunct the sun ( in the same direction as the sun). This means no light from the sun hits the face of the moon from our perspective, since the sun is behind the moon. This is why no light is reflected off the moon and back at the earth.
    As you can see, whether the sun is above or below the horizon is totally unrelated to whether the moon is a new moon (black moon) or not. All that matters is that the two are generally conjunct in the sky.
    Now, a lunar eclipse has only ever happened when the sun and moon were measured to be on exactly opposite sides of the earth, and the two bodies were both intersecting the 'solar plane' (plane formed by the suns apparent orbit), placing the earth exactly in between them. Only ever when these factors were in perfect alignment has an eclipse been seen to happen. The eclipse has been seen in the sky in many different places, it is definitely not localized to a particular part of the earth.... it's been seen above every continent and ocean and has happened many times. It's timing has always been perfectly consistent with all measurements taken from the 'globular model' and 'solar system model' that we have.

  25. #825
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratrevisits View Post
    Hello Eliza. I am just going to focus on this part of what you said.
    For your future knowledge, a black moon (or just a new moon) happens very frequently (about once a month). And this happens when the moon is in conjunct the sun ( in the same direction as the sun). This means no light from the sun hits the face of the moon from our perspective, since the sun is behind the moon. This is why no light is reflected off the moon and back at the earth.
    As you can see, whether the sun is above or below the horizon is totally unrelated to whether the moon is a new moon (black moon) or not. All that matters is that the two are generally conjunct in the sky.
    Now, a lunar eclipse has only ever happened when the sun and moon were measured to be on exactly opposite sides of the earth, and the two bodies were both intersecting the 'solar plane' (plane formed by the suns apparent orbit), placing the earth exactly in between them. Only ever when these factors were in perfect alignment has an eclipse been seen to happen. The eclipse has been seen in the sky in many different places, it is definitely not localized to a particular part of the earth.... it's been seen above every continent and ocean and has happened many times. It's timing has always been perfectly consistent with all measurements taken from the 'globular model' and 'solar system model' that we have.
    Hi, I am thinking of something else - its something completely different in FET. There is the idea of a black sun and/or black moon. Sometimes called Rahu? I found a video like the one I saw before. Its not the same one I saw before on another Antarctica timelapse, but the same black thing shows up in this Antarctica timelapse. Its here. The next video up has another one, including another Antarctica timelapse. Notice that that one shows that there is a picture of the black sun (moon?) in murals at the Denver Airport [oops - that might be Bank of America murals but, basically, same thing]. Makes sense. Now, you could argue: someone is making this up, they took footage and added this in. Well, maybe, but I don't know either way. But what if it is not added in, and it was there?

    Apparently some (most??) FE theorist relate the eclipses and the black or "invisible" moon or sun. This is something I have scarcely read about and cannot speak for, but here is a couple of articles if you are interested. (and "aplanetruth.info" is a good FET site, I think. I was beginning to wonder about flatearthsociety so stopped reading it, but I think tfes.org might be better. Not positive though.).

    https://aplanetruth.info/2015/10/23/...-are-overhead/

    https://aplanetruth.info/2016/08/03/...he-black-moon/

    https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3207.0
    Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 10-28-2016 at 02:54 AM.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  26. #826
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I was just thinking, is there any conceivable way that the Earth could be round when viewed from one perspective and flat when viewed from the other but they're both actually true? I've noticed a lot of other things are like that, and it's interesting to think about the Earth being like that as well. I've noticed something about time and about the planets and such that suggests that could be possible but I haven't figured out how yet and I'm busy.

  27. #827
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eliza Thomason View Post
    Hi, I am thinking of something else - its something completely different in FET. There is the idea of a black sun and/or black moon. Sometimes called Rahu? I found a video like the one I saw before. Its not the same one I saw before on another Antarctica timelapse, but the same black thing shows up in this Antarctica timelapse. Its here. The next video up has another one, including another Antarctica timelapse. Notice that that one shows that there is a picture of the black sun (moon?) in murals at the Denver Airport [oops - that might be Bank of America murals but, basically, same thing]. Makes sense. Now, you could argue: someone is making this up, they took footage and added this in. Well, maybe, but I don't know either way. But what if it is not added in, and it was there?

    Apparently some (most??) FE theorist relate the eclipses and the black or "invisible" moon or sun. This is something I have scarcely read about and cannot speak for, but here is a couple of articles if you are interested. (and "aplanetruth.info" is a good FET site, I think. I was beginning to wonder about flatearthsociety so stopped reading it, but I think tfes.org might be better. Not positive though.).

    https://aplanetruth.info/2015/10/23/...-are-overhead/

    https://aplanetruth.info/2016/08/03/...he-black-moon/

    https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3207.0
    Hello Eliza. In the case of Lunar eclipses occuring when the sun and moon are exactly conjunct both opposing horizons, typically we see the half of the moon which is above the horizon does reflect light since it is exposed to the sun, while the half below the horizon does not, since it is not struck by any light. To see this partial eclipse you must be standing on the dark side of the earth near the moon. You cannot see it from the lit side, because the dark side is below the horizon.
    However, in the rare case of there being an eclipse visible slightly above the horizon, it is due to atmospheric refraction which causes light to very slightly bend:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
    There is also something called a 'solar eclipse'. This is when the moon itself actually moves in front of the sun.

    Now, "rahu" has nothing to do with a "new moon" or "black moon". Rahu is a name given to one of the two points where the moons orbit intersects with the solar plane. These intersections points are where the moon is located when eclipses occur. Rahu is not a planet, it is a point of intersection along an orbit.
    Last edited by rat200Turbo; 10-28-2016 at 02:25 PM.

  28. #828
    Hacking your soul since the beginning of time Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,087
    Mentioned
    200 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    I was just thinking, is there any conceivable way that the Earth could be round when viewed from one perspective and flat when viewed from the other but they're both actually true? I've noticed a lot of other things are like that, and it's interesting to think about the Earth being like that as well. I've noticed something about time and about the planets and such that suggests that could be possible but I haven't figured out how yet and I'm busy.
    Well technically the earth is neither flat or round. These are phenomenon created by our senses and how they interpret waves of energy. You could technically tweak the observation of the planet by creating a different perspective(traveling near the speed of light or some other tweak of general or special relativity). When you really get into the relativity of the universe you realize a lot of things you take for granted aren't actually how things are.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  29. #829
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Hitta That is so close to what I was getting at yet not. Anyways, I think I know now.

  30. #830
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratrevisits View Post
    Hello Eliza. In the case of Lunar eclipses occuring when the sun and moon are exactly conjunct both opposing horizons, typically we see the half of the moon which is above the horizon does reflect light since it is exposed to the sun, while the half below the horizon does not, since it is not struck by any light. To see this partial eclipse you must be standing on the dark side of the earth near the moon. You cannot see it from the lit side, because the dark side is below the horizon.
    However, in the rare case of there being an eclipse visible slightly above the horizon, it is due to atmospheric refraction which causes light to very slightly bend:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
    There is also something called a 'solar eclipse'. This is when the moon itself actually moves in front of the sun.

    Now, "rahu" has nothing to do with a "new moon" or "black moon". Rahu is a name given to one of the two points where the moons orbit intersects with the solar plane. These intersections points are where the moon is located when eclipses occur. Rahu is not a planet, it is a point of intersection along an orbit.
    Thanks for explaining rahu. I had not read on that but it "rahu" kept coming up with the black moon/sun stuff when I was looking for FET's explanation of an eclipse. Since I have been educated on the almost universally accepted solar system model as much as most anyone else, my interest is understanding the completely different explanations on the alternate model.

    Anyway, you were asking about how FET explains eclipses, and like I said, I did not study that, but I wonder if those links explained to you the flat earth model of eclipses, or if you found something particularly lacking in the theory? I'm interested in what you think on it.
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  31. #831
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Eliza Thomason
    There was no theory. There was a misunderstanding of what a 'new moon' (which they referred to as a 'black moon') and 'rahu' are, and then an emotional reaction to the phenomenon of 'atmospheric refraction'. But there is no theory given for how eclipses work with a flat earth.

  32. #832
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratrevisits View Post
    @Eliza Thomason
    There was no theory. There was a misunderstanding of what a 'new moon' (which they referred to as a 'black moon') and 'rahu' are, and then an emotional reaction to the phenomenon of 'atmospheric refraction'. But there is no theory given for how eclipses work with a flat earth.
    I had to figure out why my impression of what I had seen/skimmed about rahu and black/invisable planets was so off, so I looked at one of those links this morning, this one: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3207.0

    and I see that apparently "rahu" has more than one meaning. Not only the meaning you described, but also the more like what i described.

    So I still don't know enough to explain anything about what FET explains about eclipses, but its on my to-learn list...
    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  33. #833
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    628
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Eliza Thomason
    I have been studying this topic (vedic astrology) for probably 5 years now. Rahu does not have more than one meaning, it has always been a hindu word and has always referred to the node of the moon. It is not the name of a potential object NASA found near Orion. Nowhere on the web do I see any information put out by NASA that they are naming a possible object near Orion "Rahu". A link to some random person on a forum talking about FET is not evidence.
    EDIT: I have lost my patience so I am done with this, have a nice life.
    Last edited by rat200Turbo; 10-30-2016 at 01:18 AM.

  34. #834
    back for the time being Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    europe
    TIM
    ExFx 3 sx
    Posts
    9,181
    Mentioned
    720 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    How is this thread still a thing

  35. #835
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    RLOAI, maybe
    Posts
    19,136
    Mentioned
    506 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    How is this thread still a thing
    "The name of the Globe (Theatre) supposedly alludes to the Latin tag totus mundus agit histrionem, in turn derived from quod fere totus mundus exerceat histrionem—"because all the world is a playground"—from Petronius, which had wide circulation in England in the Burbages' time."

  36. #836
    Exodus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    TIM
    LII
    Posts
    8,472
    Mentioned
    332 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chae View Post
    How is this thread still a thing
    I don't know but I'm impressed with the general level of patience in explaining this topic. I have been trying to restrain myself...

  37. #837
    Serious Left-Static Negativist Eliza Thomason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    eastern U.S.
    TIM
    ENFp, IEE
    Posts
    3,671
    Mentioned
    378 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ratrevisits View Post
    @Eliza Thomason
    I have been studying this topic (vedic astrology) for probably 5 years now. Rahu does not have more than one meaning, it has always been a hindu word and has always referred to the node of the moon. It is not the name of a potential object NASA found near Orion. Nowhere on the web do I see any information put out by NASA that they are naming a possible object near Orion "Rahu". A link to some random person on a forum talking about FET is not evidence.
    EDIT: I have lost my patience so I am done with this, have a nice life.
    But, ratrevisits, be honest with me. You weren't on the level on this in this communication with me. You didn't read those articles. And you can't have been studying vedic astrology for 5 years and be unfamiliar with the two black/"invisible" planets - two of them, including one called Rahu, that vedic astronomy has always used to explain eclipses.

    That third article I linked, "Eclipses, What NASA doesn't explain", is very interesting; I read it for the first time today. In that article, in discussing that in "1982 NASA recognized the possibility of the existence of an extra sun planet...[etc.]", which NASA now does not discuss, the author of that article says, "They’re hiding this knowledge from the public to keep the flat-earthers from having a solid explanation for solar eclipses."

    "Hiding information". Oo! Well, you could call that a "Conspiracy theory"! And you have been well-drilled as to what you should think of anything called THAT! Secrets! Goodness gracious! Governments and organizations don't keep secrets! Of course not!

    But, just to suppose - what if its true? The FET model of eclipses does include these black sun or moon planets that NASA is NOT going to tell us about anymore. Without their official explanation, one should assume they don't exist, right? Nothing that does not have the NASA stamp of approval can be true, certainly, and should never be considered.

    The average person who is smart trusts NASA. Any scientist with a decent-paying job is not going to risk it by questioning NASA, which is, after all, run by the government, so it has to be on the up-and-up. Because our government is akin to a good, honest helpful person that just wants to serve us. Not like some power-mongering Narcissist or anything!

    So, to continue on that idea of your not being on the level with me: When you asked me about what is the FET view of eclipses, it was NOT because you wanted to know what is the FET view of eclipses, was it? And certainly you did not want to be linked any articles to help you learn about what you pretended to want to know about. You really didn't want to learn a thing. You posed because you heard it said somewhere that the "easy" way to debunk it FET was to ask about how FET explains eclipses, since it relies on astronomical information, which NASA is the sole purveyor of. Right?

    "A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
    ........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........


    "Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
    by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
    attitude acceptable to today's standards."
    - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"

    .
    .
    .


  38. #838
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    7,019
    Mentioned
    422 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I STILL don't understand what people would gain from a massive conspiracy like this...?
    “Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.”
    ― Anais Nin

  39. #839
    I sacrificed a goat to Zeus and I liked it
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Durmstrang School
    Posts
    2,845
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    I STILL don't understand what people would gain from a massive conspiracy like this...?
    It makes people not believe in the Bible, so they are lead astray (possibly to Hell, at least to a lot of misery). Notice pretty much all the flat Earthers are religious "fundamentalists" (although not only from Christianity). I'd be willing to entertain the idea if I thought there were a chance it's true, but obviously the "round Earthers'" observations are true, and since it seems that a decent amount (not all!) of the "flat Earthers'" seem to be as well (although obviously their explanation doesn't seem to be right since it conflicts with actual evidence) I think there needs to be some sort of model to reconcile that, although whatever it is would be rather complex.

  40. #840
    Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    TIM
    ILI-Te
    Posts
    5,428
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    I STILL don't understand what people would gain from a massive conspiracy like this...?
    Well for them it's just a need for information i guess, just like we are here on the socionics forum to learn stuff about relationships, they learn stuff about the truth.

    though the truth is a bit weird in their world, but they have a mental defect, called monological thought pattern or something, meaning a premise can never be falsified because contra evidence means only that there are more people involved in the conspiracy.

    example 1: 911 the pentagon was hit by a missile. Oh there are plane parts found there? well somebody must have put them there, cause it was a missile for sure.
    example 2. oh you say you are innocent because dna test prove so, well you probably bribed the dna lab. you are guilty so it can't be something else.
    example 3. oh the earth is round you say because of pictures from outer space. they never went to outer space. cause if they would have been there, they would have seen the earth was flat.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •