Mr.Grieves
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 680
This statement is at such a total and utter disconnect from reality, sense, and logic that it completely defies response. Well... not COMPLETELY.
Last edited:
Flat Earth And The Alien Deception
- Thread starter King David
- Start date
KoncreteMind
Star
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,342
Ok you can run along now. Men are discussing...
The Zone
Star
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 3,165
My gosh...how old are you... You call people girls in some posts and boys in others, refer to your dick in one post when you lose your composure or are mad.. I mean, you are still in the school yard in so many ways.
Mr.Grieves
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 680
...how ridiculous you are, yes.
KoncreteMind
Star
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,342
In regards to your other post, I understand what you're saying Loki. You believe that Byrd essentially meant that theres more to Antarctica than originally thought (correct me if Im wrong). I dont believe he meant this, but believe he meant theres actually more land out there beyond Antarctica. This is an impasse so what I said next is that if we go with your view on what he said, he has essentially said that Antarctica is DOUBLE the size we originally imagined. I dont think he meant this, but Im saying that with either interpretation, it puts a hole in our understanding because he's saying that Antarctica isnt roughly the same size of the US. Its DOUBLE the size of the US. (Or he's saying theres more land). Antarctica being double the size puts a question mark in regards to the maps we've seen. And just because he went there for that purpose, doesnt mean thats the only place he explored. He very well could have traversed more than the South Pole, or he could have went straight there. The fact that he detailed the resources and the "land", leads me to believe that he went further than the South Pole. Then theres the hollow earth stuff, which I guess he actually said (I considered it more of a rumor/conspiracy before). I hope Im understanding you well, and making myself understandable. Im not arguing the interpretation of what he said, but moreso that it STILL leaves a question mark in regards to the world as we know it (well Antarctica).
As for Andhoy, heres a link:
If you're going to tell me he was arrested for what they say he was (to "protect" the environment) or because it was dangerous, than I advise you ahead of time, that we are on a conspiracy website,so anticipate what my response will be to that lol
KoncreteMind
Star
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,342
Umm well you're probably not from my generation, but in my generation being on another's "dick" means that said person is like a groupie. Following that person around. Keeping that person on their mind. Keeping that person's name in their mouth. So around my way, or in my generation, we'd say that YOU are all on my dick because you keep doing this. Earlier in this thread you lied and said that flat earthers bring up flat earth in irrelevant threads, but I've seen you mention flat earthers in threads that have nothing to do with the topic. Now I called you a female, because I hoped that only a female would be begging for my attention in this manner.
Now as for Grieves, I didnt call him a female. Child? Yes. Because he or someone else posts a sagan video, I say that the differences in shadow length in the video could be due to elevation and he deletes that totally out of the post (among other things) to only come back to make another childish post. So he can run along and go discuss things that interest him, and let the men discuss the topic in this thread till one or both lose interest. Because Loki is the only one I've seen in this thread that has been able to discuss the topic as the topic and not as in a "if you dont believe what I do you're dumb but I wont discuss with you but I will keep returning to tell you you're dumb" type of way.
But yea I am a child at heart and will try to keep it that way because the world always kills off people's spirit as they get older.
GreenTea
Rookie
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2017
- Messages
- 68
Renegade
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 737
Heres the Andhoy story with links... Its not as off limits as is made out..
http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/berserk.html
http://www.southpolestation.com/trivia/10s/berserk.html
This map shows the small explored area in Byrds day...
Loki
Established
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 401
Yes, I understand what you are meaning, but again I can't help but feel you are misunderstanding me. Not because you aren't agreeing with me, I never expect that to be the case
, but because what I'm explaining fits what Admiral Byrd said and what we know as the current globe exactly but somehow you think it doesn't. As well, you still seem to make no actual distinction between the South Pole and the continent of Antarctica, which I hope you understand by this point are not the same thing. I really don't know how to explain it better, but I'm going to give it one final shot here.Admiral Byrd saying that (at the time of his interview) there was more land beyond the South Pole yet to be explored by man, and that he believed it to be about the equivalent of the size of America, fits exactly with those maps I just showed you on the previous page. I'll reuse one here to hopefully demonstrate:
So by my understanding, and I've seen nothing from you that I can recall to say otherwise, these expeditions he was taking with the Navy were from off the coast of South America, so they would be traveling into the Antarctic Circle from there, which means they likely started their exploration of the continent and search for the South Pole from the Antarctic Peninsula, or round thereabouts. (I'm using vague wording because I don't know for sure the routes they took, so if you happen to then feel free to share them, this just makes the most sense) From the peninsula they would have made their way into the continent less than halfway before finding the geographic South Pole. It is at this point that they began to build what became the AMundsen-Scott Research Station. After this success it doesn't seem to me that they would have any reason to continue exploration into the continent as they had achieved their mission (the government and military aren't exactly keen on spending extra money for frivolous ventures and personal exploration, so to say he would have explored further is an assumption on your part as far as I can tell), however, Admiral Byrd would of course have the knowledge that there was still much of the continent of Antarctica to explore still (the portion of which, and you can compare this on maps by yourself, is actually around the size of the US, perhaps a bit larger by my eye), and the rest of the continent is what he is talking about in that quote we are discussing. The rest of the continent (as you can see on the map above) would roughly equal the size of the USA, and so I don't understand how you are saying that his words, by this explanation, don't reflect the map we know today. It seems to me that you continue to hold onto this notion that he said there was a land beyond the entire continent of Antarctica that was unexplored and equal in size to the USA, but that is not what he says at all, he specifically states that the land he is describing lays beyond the South Pole, which works just fine with our current maps and knowledge, whether you are able to recognize this or not.
I'll read up on Andhoy in a little while here and give you my thoughts separately from this post.
Btw, did I miss you debunking/disproving the traversing of Antarctica by Ranulph Fiennes and Mike Stroud (not to mention the north-to-south global trip Ranulph and Charles Burton)? Or do you just disbelieve it and that's that?
Edit: After re-reading your post maybe you do understand what I'm trying to get at, and if that is the case and this latest post does nothing to clarify it, then I can't help but believe that we simply don't have the capacity to ever really understand each other's perspectives as we see them. It is clear as day to me at this point that what Byrd meant by his words was that there was more of Antarctica to explore, and that you can't see that after it is laid out is baffling to me.
It's hard to see what more could come from this conversation, but I would still be interested to see what your explanation for Ranulph, Charles, and Mike's exploration. To deny their accounts because you don't think it is possible would be no different than anyone else denying the account of Mr. Piccard because we don't believe what he claims to have seen is possible.
Last edited:
Loki
Established
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 401
Okay, so what I read about Andhoy was actually what you were talking about. My understanding of the situation is that he and his crew didn't have the proper permits to sail in that area, and this is why the patrols attempted to stop them and eventually arrested him. My guess (I'm not terribly knowledgeable about sailing and the like) is that you need specific permits to sail in any national open waters, but perhaps more so in areas like the Antarctic due to those illegal Japanese whalers (many use the scientific research provision to kill and sell whales but some don't and those are hopefully caught by patrols) and similar characters we've mentioned before. Also, permits and approval are likely required in order to try and keep people safe in the dangerous area; ironically, and tragically, Jarl's other yacht he took to Antarctica was caught in a storm and floundered, resulting in the loss of three lives. Had he had his permits in order he would have been allowed to sail in the area and not been arrested as far as I can tell.
Again, you know that people are allowed to visit Antarctica, whether it be tourists who pay a lot of money to visit, whalers like these (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/01/japanese-fleet-returns-from-antarctic-hunt-with-333-whales.html) or explorers like the aforementioned Ranulph and his companions who traversed the continent after Admiral Byrd's death. It can be difficult to visit the area obviously, but it is not actually off-limits and as long as you do things the appropriate way there doesn't seem to be any issue. It's essentially no different than attempting to show up to the shores of any country on the face of the Earth and just entering their waters or coming onto their land with no passport or other papers.
Again, you know that people are allowed to visit Antarctica, whether it be tourists who pay a lot of money to visit, whalers like these (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/01/japanese-fleet-returns-from-antarctic-hunt-with-333-whales.html) or explorers like the aforementioned Ranulph and his companions who traversed the continent after Admiral Byrd's death. It can be difficult to visit the area obviously, but it is not actually off-limits and as long as you do things the appropriate way there doesn't seem to be any issue. It's essentially no different than attempting to show up to the shores of any country on the face of the Earth and just entering their waters or coming onto their land with no passport or other papers.
KoncreteMind
Star
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,342
@Loki
You'd have to listen to his interview as a whole to get the full context of what he was saying. You want to say he meant more of the land in accordance to that map, and leave it at that. But the interview says much more. If you watch it more closely, you'll see that one of the hosts keeps his hands in a pyramid the whole time lol but moreover Byrd kept saying over and over that the gov't and gov'ts of other nations would be very interested in it. In what? He said there was an "untapped reservoir of resources". He said there was enough coal to fuel the whole world. He said there was uranium there. A year later, this guy dies, NASA is established, and later the Antarctic treaty is signed. Im not sure how Im supposed to ignore that then turn around and call myself a "truth seeker". What are we told about the place that matches what he said was there?
If he simply meant "more land" on the other side as in regards to that map you posted, then that is a weird way to word it. The rest of the video he is very straight forward (whether he's telling the truth, or lying, or doing both) with his talk, but there and ONLY there, he confounds it like that? You're using that map as a frame of reference when that map could very well be false but thats neither here nor there. As I keep saying either way you slice it, it pokes a hole in the view they give us of the place and the world. The map you keep posting, says that Antarctica is barely larger than the US itself. So this man, who was in planes, not a ship, says that theres an area the size of the US on the other side of the south pole from Middle America, and he's simply referring to what would be half the size of the US? And in that "half" we havent heard anything of the "resources" he said he that were there? Which leads to your point about the circumnavigation north/south examples. They came after the succession of events I mentioned before so thats why I said you're right, Im not going to believe it. If they did do it, did they see the things they dont mention or address what this guy said, the same guy who was on that tv show saying he had another expedition going on as they spoke? They just say we flew over and leave it at that? Yea, Im not buying it. You'll call it selective probably, but I call it distrust. Nobody has addressed what Byrd claimed was there. So we have him dying, NASA was established, then they sign the Antarctic treaty all like in a period of 3-5 years. You might see nothing fishy with that, but I do.
And he didnt simply go to the South Pole if you listen to the interview. He talks about the ice walls(he called it belts of ice) that are 14,000 feet high and how he had to go as high as 15,000 feet to go over them. He talks of mountain ranges with coal as well. Funnily enough, there is a mountain range named after the Rockefellers. But yea "nothing to see there"..I should have prefaced my use of Admiral Byrd with the point that what he says doesnt prove the earth is flat. But it does poke a hole in the world as they present it to us. Because they dont tell us the things he said he saw at all and dont even bring that up.
Jarle Andhoy's story, the insurance/fines/arrest shows the channels they put up to prevent going to the place Admiral Byrd is talking about. The treaty is proof that they're trying to prevent going to that place. You probably can only reach that place by plane, so that would probably be the only real threat. We're just on opposite sides of the spectrum. Its not that I dont "understand" my position, and it shouldnt be that you dont "understand" my position. Its just that Im personally, based on some of the stuff this website espouses, going to question the official story. You are not going to do the same, or are only going to do it in certain instances...
You'd have to listen to his interview as a whole to get the full context of what he was saying. You want to say he meant more of the land in accordance to that map, and leave it at that. But the interview says much more. If you watch it more closely, you'll see that one of the hosts keeps his hands in a pyramid the whole time lol but moreover Byrd kept saying over and over that the gov't and gov'ts of other nations would be very interested in it. In what? He said there was an "untapped reservoir of resources". He said there was enough coal to fuel the whole world. He said there was uranium there. A year later, this guy dies, NASA is established, and later the Antarctic treaty is signed. Im not sure how Im supposed to ignore that then turn around and call myself a "truth seeker". What are we told about the place that matches what he said was there?
If he simply meant "more land" on the other side as in regards to that map you posted, then that is a weird way to word it. The rest of the video he is very straight forward (whether he's telling the truth, or lying, or doing both) with his talk, but there and ONLY there, he confounds it like that? You're using that map as a frame of reference when that map could very well be false but thats neither here nor there. As I keep saying either way you slice it, it pokes a hole in the view they give us of the place and the world. The map you keep posting, says that Antarctica is barely larger than the US itself. So this man, who was in planes, not a ship, says that theres an area the size of the US on the other side of the south pole from Middle America, and he's simply referring to what would be half the size of the US? And in that "half" we havent heard anything of the "resources" he said he that were there? Which leads to your point about the circumnavigation north/south examples. They came after the succession of events I mentioned before so thats why I said you're right, Im not going to believe it. If they did do it, did they see the things they dont mention or address what this guy said, the same guy who was on that tv show saying he had another expedition going on as they spoke? They just say we flew over and leave it at that? Yea, Im not buying it. You'll call it selective probably, but I call it distrust. Nobody has addressed what Byrd claimed was there. So we have him dying, NASA was established, then they sign the Antarctic treaty all like in a period of 3-5 years. You might see nothing fishy with that, but I do.
And he didnt simply go to the South Pole if you listen to the interview. He talks about the ice walls(he called it belts of ice) that are 14,000 feet high and how he had to go as high as 15,000 feet to go over them. He talks of mountain ranges with coal as well. Funnily enough, there is a mountain range named after the Rockefellers. But yea "nothing to see there"..I should have prefaced my use of Admiral Byrd with the point that what he says doesnt prove the earth is flat. But it does poke a hole in the world as they present it to us. Because they dont tell us the things he said he saw at all and dont even bring that up.
Jarle Andhoy's story, the insurance/fines/arrest shows the channels they put up to prevent going to the place Admiral Byrd is talking about. The treaty is proof that they're trying to prevent going to that place. You probably can only reach that place by plane, so that would probably be the only real threat. We're just on opposite sides of the spectrum. Its not that I dont "understand" my position, and it shouldnt be that you dont "understand" my position. Its just that Im personally, based on some of the stuff this website espouses, going to question the official story. You are not going to do the same, or are only going to do it in certain instances...
Loki
Established
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 401
Okay, I guess we've hit a stalemate on this one.
We could shift over to another fact of the world that doesn't fit the Flat Earth model. I brought this up on VF but I believe you kind of just said you didn't know enough to say one way or the other, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it alone would mean that at the very least the model that Flat Earthers purport to be the truth simply can't be the case, and that is the Cape Horn Trade Route:
Because of how the world is shaped (a globe), sailing around the bottom of it was the shortest route to reach the UK from Australia/NZ. They would leave Australia/NZ and sail West above Antarctica, skirt Cape Horn at the bottom of South America, and then up between South America and Africa to reach the UK for trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Horn#Trade_route
Now, according the the Flat Earth model, this same route would have been extraordinarily long because sailing "above" Antarctica would mean sailing around pretty much the entirety of the most outer rim of the world. So instead of it being the shortest (albeit dangerous) route, it would have been the longest and also most dangerous trade route, probably ever in human history.
I don't necessarily expect you to have an answer for this, but I would hope that you could see how much doubt things like this shed on the possibility of your theory being reality.
Further, according to your map and beliefs, circumnavigating Antarctica should be nigh impossible, if your map is correct they would actually be circumnavigating the entire world, which hopefully you would admit should take a very, very long time. This man has done it 4 times apparently, his latest trip (2008) only took him 102 days to complete. http://yachtpals.com/boating/antarctica-boats
We could shift over to another fact of the world that doesn't fit the Flat Earth model. I brought this up on VF but I believe you kind of just said you didn't know enough to say one way or the other, which is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it alone would mean that at the very least the model that Flat Earthers purport to be the truth simply can't be the case, and that is the Cape Horn Trade Route:
Because of how the world is shaped (a globe), sailing around the bottom of it was the shortest route to reach the UK from Australia/NZ. They would leave Australia/NZ and sail West above Antarctica, skirt Cape Horn at the bottom of South America, and then up between South America and Africa to reach the UK for trade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Horn#Trade_route
Now, according the the Flat Earth model, this same route would have been extraordinarily long because sailing "above" Antarctica would mean sailing around pretty much the entirety of the most outer rim of the world. So instead of it being the shortest (albeit dangerous) route, it would have been the longest and also most dangerous trade route, probably ever in human history.
I don't necessarily expect you to have an answer for this, but I would hope that you could see how much doubt things like this shed on the possibility of your theory being reality.
Further, according to your map and beliefs, circumnavigating Antarctica should be nigh impossible, if your map is correct they would actually be circumnavigating the entire world, which hopefully you would admit should take a very, very long time. This man has done it 4 times apparently, his latest trip (2008) only took him 102 days to complete. http://yachtpals.com/boating/antarctica-boats
Mr.Grieves
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 680
Loki; your saint-like patience astounds me.
How you maintain reasonable discourse with so thick a brick wall is really rather impressive. You're like a Monk patiently forging an ornate and incredible design out of grains of sand, in the full knowledge no one will ever actually get a chance to appreciate it.
How you maintain reasonable discourse with so thick a brick wall is really rather impressive. You're like a Monk patiently forging an ornate and incredible design out of grains of sand, in the full knowledge no one will ever actually get a chance to appreciate it.
The Zone
Star
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 3,165
LOL I am not sure if I'd call Loki a Monk but his ability to be rational is appreciated. Anybody named Loki enjoys their fun whether we see it or not... I am betting that his patience has been tested at this point but that he sees it as a challenge to get through the hardest of surfaces. I sort of feel this will be an inevitable stand off in that KM will see to that, common sense knowlege be damned.
Loki
Established
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2017
- Messages
- 401
Lol, this might be my favorite compliment I've ever received. Thanks!
Coincidentally, I'm finally getting to play a character in D&D rather than DMing and I chose to play a Monk, so that is fitting.
KoncreteMind
Star
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,342
I dont think its a stalemate at all though. I mean it is when it comes to the difference in views, but I think you just want to ignore certain things concerning the place. Again, in the span of 2-3 years (not 3-5 like I said) Admiral Byrd died, NASA was created, and Antarctica made off limits. Dont see how one can ignore that, then call themselves a truth seeker. And in the only TV interview we have of him concerning the place he explored, he said the gov't would be VERY interested in the place over and over again, yet all I've ever known about the place is that there is alot of ice there. So I know Im not wrong for putting two and two together that they're probably hiding something there...And with the icing on top being that there is a mountain range named after the Rockefellers there, its an open and shut case for me.
And the model they use may very well be incorrect. But how exactly cant that route exist on that flat earth map?
It would be the shortest sailing trade route on the flat earth map too.
I didnt think about this when you first posted this to me, but what exactly is different between the route you posted and the one that would have happened on a flat earth map? Either scenario you go South (South on flat earth being AWAY from the north pole) than east (east on the flat earth map being the opposite direction than the moon/sun are moving in your graphic). Its the same easiest route either way. And the thing about your map, is that its not fit to scale (of course). So it makes Australia seem much closer to Africa than it actually is.
I personally dont think these guys did what they said they did. Because they and nobody else has exactly pointed out anything of the sort that Admiral Byrd said was there. We have never heard anything concerning what interest Admiral Byrd saw in the place and none of the people who supposedly went to the place he did, say anything about it... All those "circumnavigations" happen after the agenda was (allegedly since I know you dont think theres an agenda with NASA and Antarctica) in place. Therefore, I dont consider it as trustworthy as the first guy who went there. My question to you is, why do you place more trust in what they say, then what Admiral Byrd say he saw? To me its like you dont think he was telling the truth...
KoncreteMind
Star
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,342
If Loki is trying to convince me that the earth is round, he might as well stop. Im too far gone to turn back now, unless they bring something more koncrete than fake CGI pictures and freemason astronauts... If he is just trying to discuss things that may interest him or just to pass time, then I think we're on the same page.
Mr.Grieves
Veteran
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 680
Hey, at least you're starting to recognize that you're ill.. that's a big first step.
KoncreteMind
Star
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2017
- Messages
- 2,342
Yea Im "ill" because I make the foundation of my beliefs, my observations/experiences and not those of men in lab coats
While you're "intelligent" because you can parrot off what they teach you about "gravity"
All while they poison your food, water, and air, not to mention the truth/history in general, but yea you're not "ill", I am.. You'd say the same to Jesus if you ever met him