Does anyone else believe antarctica isn't real?
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
frank lynn say: Of course it isn't real. All you need to do is increase the temperature by about 10 degrees and see it it's all there.
-
Joseph say: There is a guy named Henry who posts here when they let him out of his padded room who claims that nothing is real. You and him will get along just fine.
-
MARK say: It is irrelevant what I, you or anyone thinks. The only things that matter are facts.
You should do some research in to the difference between evidence and proof. The two are different. It is evidence that is required rather than proof.
Antarctica does exist and there is a lot of evidence which is freely available in the public domain. If you think Antarctica does not exist it matters not one jot. Your belief and opinion are irrelevant. Demonstrate with evidence the fact it does not exist.
Instead of wasting time with such a puerile question why not pose a sensible question and learn something.
-
John P say: Obviously not the two men, one American, one British, who have just spent nearly 60 days walking across Antarctica!
-
Eric say: It's not that Antarctica isn't real, El. It is, it just isn't a continent in the sense that we're conditioned to believe that it is. Obviously there is a landmass beyond the Southern Ocean, but it is not a landmass that can be traversed in the traditional sense the way that The Americas, Afro-Eurasia and Australia can be traversed, that is to say from North to South OR from East to West.
You see, Antarctica IS contiguous, but it's a contiguous ring. It cannot be traversed, it can only be rounded. The globes that can be found in every grade school classroom are a lie and they have been placed there to give us the illusion that this ridiculous heliocentric spherical Earth nonsense has a bearing in actual science. It doesn't.
Let's examine some facts: In the early days of Antarctic exploration, some of the greatest navigators of all time were completely baffled that they were able to reach latitudes much, much farther south of the equator than they were able to achieve sailing north of it. Some of these expeditions managed to skirt through the ice floes and bergs and actually managed to get within sight of land. As was the custom in those days, they were then tasked with charting the coast, which they set about doing...
Several of these expeditions reported (and these reports can be confirmed by looking at the official logs of these voyages), that they had traversed in some cases almost 60,000 nautical miles and NEVER lost sight of land, and that the coast remained on the same side of the ship the ENTIRE time. Now I ask you, how would that be possible if Antarctica were actually a continent?
If we were to attempt to chart the Australian coast, let's say approaching from the north so that we first sight land at the Northwest corner of the continent, say where Western Australia and the Northern Territory meet, and we were then to sail East, keeping the coast off our starboard side, eventually, we would reach the extreme Northeastern portion of the continent, and if we wanted to keep the land on the starboard side, we'd have to head South (past the Great Barrier Reef), and then, upon reaching the extreme Southeastern corner, we'd head West and sail across the Bight until we reached the extreme Southwestern corner, at which point we'd head due North and eventually reach the point where we first began. Now, I ask you, how many miles would we have to travel to completely circle Australia and arrive back at our point of origin?
On a round Earth map, Antarctica has a coastline of a little over 11,000 miles whereas Australia has a coastline of about 16,000 miles. Even travelling at a modest speed, one could round Australia under wind power alone in about 3 months (and again, the distance is GREATER than that of what these men sailing in Antarctic waters should have managed to complete), and yet the Antarctic sailors followed the coast for over 12 weeks and never once saw a break in the coastline. Not once.
Now, many people will tell you that large numbers of people have travelled to Antarctica. And that's true. They will use that fact as a basis for an argument that Antarctica could not possibly differ from its representation on world maps because so many people have been there. BUT many people have been to Australia and Britain and Canada too. Dos visiting a place mean that you come away with the ability to draw a map of the contours of the place from memory? Of course not. The Australian and New Zealand governments were still using charts hand-drawn by Captain James Cook well up into the 1990s when they were finally replaced by surveying done by technology. That's how incredibly accurate they were. They were in use for about 200 years. So we're not talking about a cluster of morons that didn't have any idea what they were doing when it came to surveying charting.
Back to Antarctica's visitors - how many of these people managed to travel great distances from one point to another whilst they were there. I have only personally known one person who has set foot on Antarctica, but I have corresponded with several. Most have been to the outlying Antarctic Islands which are obviously not part of the mainland, therefore, no matter how long they stayed or how far they travelled, they never would have been able to go from one point on the Antarctic landmass to another - not from East to West, and certainly not deeper inland to be in a position to verify anything.
Next, Antarctica is the one place on Earth where sovereign nations are not permitted to claim territory, yet individuals are not permitted to travel there without permission. Ships which approach the coast are turned back and anyone who might made landfall there would be subject to arrest and detention. Why? They will claim that it is to protect the environment, yet these people don't pose any threat to the environment whatsoever. They are simply not allowed to go there.
Have you ever even once heard of anyone circumnavigating the "spherical Earth" from North to South? Ever? because I haven't. No one has. Why is it in nearly 120 years of heavier than air travel no one has ever done this? I mean, they claim that they've been to the moon half a dozen times, so it would seem that they could accomplish a simple fight over both poles relatively easily if they were so inclined. But yet no one has done it, and when it comes up, people just shrug and say "Well, what would be the point anyway?" Well, what was the point of going to the summit of Mount Everest? What was the point of sending submersibles down to the depths of Challenger Deep? What was the purpose of "going to the moon"? I do't understand how they can say that travelling over the poles is pointless, but that handing over hundreds of billions of dollars to NASA isn't.
So to better answer your question, yes, I am in agreement with you that Antarctica isn't real, at least not in the sense that we have been programmed and conditioned to believe that it is.
-
Roger the Mole say: No, I know several people who've been to Antartica, took pictures, and had a GPS unit that verified their position.
-
Reporting say: No.
-
TribalWolf say: It is real, it has armed soldiers on it guarding the edge of the world. I been there.
-
tentofield say: I know it's real, I've been there twice. I took the photo on the left there.
-
say: No. The rest of us are educated.
-
Dixon say: Yes, there are plenty of retards who believe Antarctica isn't real.
-
I hate myself say: No
-
Bill-M say: No. your the only one. Proof. I have been there, once on a Ship and once flying over it.
-