[Home][Contents or "Site Map" coming soon][Rick Potvin Piano]


Friday, May 15, 2015

Aerial Circumnavigation of Antarctica Flight Plans of Globe vs. Flat Earth



You're about to witness a map nobody has ever created before in the life of man on Earth.... an actual place name locator of field stations on the flat earth projection of Antarctica. Amazingly, Rick Potvin (me) is the first to do it. Why is this? Am I special? No. Not in the least. Is the beer I drink? Maybe. Not likely. Is it... something I don't understand? Probably. Watch this... you'll love it. I love it... so I know you will.  FIRST-- my virtual flight path on a GLOBAL Planet Earth....




Now... my flight path on a FLAT Earth with the research stations placed approximately correctly...









Are you ready... ?  Scroll down a bit more

























Ta DAAAA!!!!




To find this again, see index below for 
"FLIGHT PLAN ON GLOBE VS FLAT EARTH"

Now for the ultimate flat earth map-- complete with Vendee race course, and science stations with airports... along with my complete planned virtual route..... scroll down....










SOUTH POLE LOCATION PROBLEM ON FLAT EARTH
As I think about my route, above, around the flat earth-- testing distances, the sniggly problem of exactly HOW "they" pretend there is a "south pole" is bothering me more and more. I'll deal with that in another post.... upcoming. 




ANTARCTICA FLIGHT SYSTEM was planned as early as 1970!
I only discovered the following map this morning! It's from a proposal to build a NETWORK of airports in the Antarctic. Check it out-- it's very similar to the diagram I drew at the top of this post... but I still have to "flip" it inside out to represent a FLAT EARTH ICE WALL Antarctica-- where I can examine what "They" say the distances are, in depth. 





Next, I'll add up the accumulated miles using the above map.  It turns out that it's only (officially) 8099 nautical miles around Antarctica-- quite a bit off from today's reported circumference of around 14,000 miles. These numbers are just estimates but they're within a reasonable order of magnitude for my present purpose. This low number is quite shocking because it makes me wonder how "they" came up with 14,000 lately. This original study was done in 1970. Has Antarctica grown since then? Recall that part of my fakeology method is to watch for anomalies, contradictions and inconsistencies. This is definitely one of those. 




Now I'll add in the distances to the South Pole from the stations they measured. The South Pole might become an integral part of the perimeter distance situation since, on a Flat Earth, that "pole" becomes a "perimeter" itself, like the "equator" only further "south".  Approximate distances from a station they chose to the pole are marked in red with red dotted lines. 



Finally let's transfer the numbers above to the Flat Earth map to see what it might look like. Where I don't have exact stations mapped, I've chosen a fairly "close" station. Everything here is approximate and conceptual for the purpose of getting the general idea with orders of magnitude roughly correct but without pushing for pinpoint accuracy at this time.





Notice where the approximate location of the South MAGNETIC pole is and where the various oceans are-- just to get your bearings on Flat Earth. Note as well that there are MULTIPLE "south poles" (Green squares). The dotted green line is the "south pole perimeter". Interesting, the measurements taken by the map-makers above place the "south pole" 1500 miles inland, more or less, in all cases except one-- where it's 700 miles inland in the case of Scott/McMurdo.  

The question of how to think about the south pole as a perimeter on flat earth is mind boggling. Keep in mind that they say there is a "ceremonial" south pole and that the south pole "keeps shifting". Here's a blogger who has a few points relevent to this along with nice photos. (There are ALWAYS nice photos, just like with the moon landing and 9/11). 


The poinant question becomes-- if the world is flat-- HOW is the "Trick" of making multiple stations appear to be ONE station-- for the now numerous visitors to the South Pole? More on this as I think it through. Recall that I'm just as likely to prove the world is global as it is flat-- depending on which way the evidence takes me. If I prove the world is flat, fine-- we have a new situation. If I prove the world is global, then the entire flat earth literature is a hoax. 

233 comments:

  1. The BAS asks students to calculate the circumference of Antarctica,assuming it to be a perfect circle
    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/teacher_resources/resources/schoolspack/01nature_pr.pdf


    One approximation is that it is a circle at 70S
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nttR5Ibb7j4C&pg=PA211
    which is 2 x pi x 2000 km i.e. approxmately 12,600 km.

    The BAS gives a different - more accurate? - figure using an average diamater of Antarctica
    Antarctica is approximately circular in shape. The
    average diameter of this circle is 4500 km, giving a radius of
    2250 km. The area of this circle is:

    π r sq = 3.14 x 2250 sq= 15.89 million km sq

    This figure compares favourably with the widely published area of
    nearly 14 million km sq.

    .
    Assuming Antarctica to be a circle, then its circumference is:
    2πr = 2 x 3.14 x 2250 = 14,130 km
    Mapping experts at the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have worked
    out that the length of coastline is approximately 36,750 km,
    considerably more than the rough calculation. This is because the
    coastline is irregular and is not a perfect circle. For example, there
    are two large embayments – the Weddell Sea and the Ross Sea –
    and also the narrow Antarctic Peninsula projects out toward South America

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/teacher_resources/resources/schoolspack/teachers_notes_pr.pdf

    One additonal distance given between Australian stations is
    637km between Mawson and Davis [no distance is given on the map above**] or 396 miles
    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations

    ** the kilometer map equivalent is here
    http://antarktis.ch/2000/01/01/transportwege/

    Since Mawson is just under half way 26/55 approx - of the distance between Davis and Molodezhnaya from maps, then there is a slight discrepancy with the overall distance of 700 miles from Davis and Molodezhnaya
    Davis - Mawson 397miles
    by inference, Mawson to Molodezhnaya = 29/26 x 397 = 443miles approx. 840 miles for an indirect flight. Since the deviation is less than 20 degrees from the direct route between Davis and Molodezhnaya, the total ought to be nearer 800m than 700m



    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry, ignore the last part, your map has nautical miles not miles.

    Mawson to Syowa - 1000km by plane
    http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/history/exploration-and-expeditions/modern-expeditions/this-week-in-antarctica/2007/air-support-this-season

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reference map of East Antarctica with stations
      http://rses.anu.edu.au/~rich/maps/Anteast20mill.jpg

      Delete
  3. Okay so we're still a long way from common understanding of what we mean by circumnavigating Antarctica. YOU point out that coastline is NOT what we're after. We're after something "like" 14,000 and/or 60,000-- as "perfect circles" at about 65 deg. S latitude-- then measured with real trips reported by real people. Nautical miles vs. statute are not orders of magnitude different but I'll try to watch out for that nevertheless.

    I see you point out the perfect circle around Antarctica is 14000 km-- so miles without looking it up must be around 12,000. That's fine except for the possibility that there is an illusion being perpetrated at the highest integrated levels here. That's what we're going to find out. in reality, flat earth kilometers should be around 100,000.

    Keep looking for disceprencies and contradictions. I'll look up the links you gave me over coming days and weeks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Hi Rick,

      I've been following your thread on this topic of Antartica being the ice border of flat earth map. Surely, you've got a pretty good idea of how it looks like. Anyway, I've made some research in the internet, and I came across of a man named Børge Ousland, a Norwegian, who reported (in 2013) to have gone across Antartica, from Berkner Island to Scott base via the South Pole, covering around 3000 km (1,864 mi) from Nov. 15 to Jan. 17. See this:

      https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/dec/13/borge-ousland-how-i-crossed-antarctica

      At first, I thought he really crossed across the Continent, but when I really studied the Antartica map in detail, I found out he just traveled at near the periphery of the continent. From Berkner, Pensacola Mountains, South Pole, then to Ross shelf and finally to Scott base McMurdo. So it's NOT really across Antartica towards the other sea coast somewhere in Syowa passing through the central area of Antartica beyond or towards east of the south pole. Anyway, I've shared this to you for info that no one, in the real sense or actual happening, had gone through across the continent...

      By the way, I've deciphered already how did the global earthers, from the medieval to modern time, or NASA had made their global map. They based it from that of flat earth map. In doing so, they made so many errors. No doubt that google map is replete with error especially at the south pole area. Your map is I think awesome and practical enough to call the attention of the global earthers that they're wrong... of course, they could have done it by ill-intention or innocently... Either way they couldn't deny that their map, global map, is inaccurate and erroneous.. I'll be posting later on in my website or youtube their serious, grave errors!

      Thanks Ric

      Jyscelo

      https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/dec/13/borge-ousland-how-i-crossed-antarctica

      Thanks.

      Jyscelo

      Delete
    3. Yes, Borg Ousland's trip is partial like so many others that claim to cross. I'm more interested in your take on how the global map was derived from the flat one. Some say that the shape of Antarctica is derived from the shape of the Arctic Ocean... that Antarctica is shaped like that northern ocean.

      Delete
    4. So you believe he travelled around 15,000 miles instead of the 1,864 miles claimed? In 60 days? On foot? Wow. That's 250 miles a day in Antarctic weather, instead of 31 miles per day as claimed. That's incredible. He must have cheated. Used planes or helicopters?

      Delete
    5. Jyscelo didn't mean that. If you look at a map, Borg Ousland didn't "fully" cross the Antarctic. He crossed over a "section" of it... a small section. Here's a rough approximation map...
      http://www.peakbagger.com/range.aspx?rid=81

      https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=pensacola+mountains+antarctica&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2

      From Berkner, Pensacola Mountains, South Pole, then to Ross shelf and finally to Scott base McMurdo.... that's IF it occurred "at all".

      Delete
    6. Hey guys........
      I was wondering if taking a distance fix from somewhere in the northern hemisphere....say 70 deg N may help in the quest. There should be ample data available to get a very realistic approximation of what distance it should be at &0 deg South....Just a thought .....I have not read the whole string of comments here and unsure if anyone suggested this? Greg sends

      Delete
    7. Interesting idea. On first thought, it seems to me that the difference between a longitudinal distance on a curved surface and a plane from 70N to 0 would not be enough to impress anyone. If, for example, travelling from 70N (say Anchorage) to 0 (say Bogata) (for argument sake-- though we could be more accurate if we do this)... SHOULD be 3000 miles as calculated on a spherical planet-- yet airlines prove it's 3800 miles in reality-- would anyone be impressed with that enough to believe that it proves earth is a plane? I don't think so. It's not vivid enough-- but I'll think about it and maybe develop an approach to that POSSIBLE solution. Thanks.

      Delete
    8. (1 of 2)
      Rick I'll give you a free vacation. Here is the deal. You and I purchase 3 airplane tickets.

      1st: Los Angeles to Sydney, Australia non-stop. We will take Quantas flight 12 with a flight time of 14hr 50min. Cost one-way $999

      2nd: Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile, non-stop. We will take Quantas flight 27 with a flight time of 12hr 40min cost $2064.

      3rd: Santiago, Chile to Los Angeles (our original point of departure) non-stop. We take LATAM flight 602 with a flight time of 11hr 15min cost $2345.

      Here is the agreement we would make. You chose ANY stop watch available on Amazon.com and "sold by Amazon."

      You chose ANY reputable escrow agent at a major US bank branch ideally near Los Angeles.

      The cost for all three flights is $5403 per person. Each of us deposit $15,000 with the escrow agent of your choosing. (continued)

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. (2 of 2; read 1of 2 first above)
      We direct the escrow agent to a) buy three stop watches on Amazon and have them shipped to the escrow agent. b) we further direct the escrow agent to buy each of us a set of 3 one-way airline tickets on the flights I set forth above. (Cost $11,000 of the $30,000 deposited by us ($15,000 each). We then direct the escrow agent to purchase at least one night hotel in Sydney and one night in Santiago (2 rooms, one for each of us)

      We each bring our own mobile phone with ability to make calls from all locations (Los Angeles, Sydney, Santiago).

      We meet the escrow agent at the bank in Los Angeles the day before of day of the flight if there is time. You, me, and the escrow agent each take one of the stop watches you selected on Amazon. With us all there together. We simultaneously start our stop watches at the escrow agents office. We then instruct the escrow agent to be available by phone at least 2hrs before and after the scheduled departure and arrival time of each flight. As soon as we board each flight we call the escrow agent and "check in" and note the current running time on our stop watches (we will sit next to each other on each flight to facilitate this). As soon as a flight lands we call the escrow agent and note the time of arrival on our synced stop watches. We do this for each flight.

      If . . . your flat earth map hypothesis is ANYWHERE CLOSE to correct. The Sydney to Santiago flight should be close to twice as long in distance and time as the Los Angeles to Sydney and the Santiago to Los Angeles flights. We tell the escrow agent to add the LA-Sydney AND the Santiago to LA ACTUAL flight times per our synced stop watches once we arrive back in LA. He then compares that sum (both flight times) to the Sydney to Santiago flight time.

      The following final instruction is given to the escrow agent:

      Possibility 1: If . . . the sum of the LA/Sydney AND Santiago/LA flights is closest in time to the Santiago flight time times 2 (consistent with a flat earth map/hypothesis) you get the remainder of the money left in escrow (approximately $15,000) which would mean your right re "flat earth" and I paid for the entire cost of the experiment and you get a free vacation paid by me.

      Possibility 2: If the AVERAGE (as opposed to "sum") of the LA/Sydney AND Santiago/LA flights is closest in time to the Santiago flight time (no times 2) (consistent with a globe earth map/hypothesis) I get the remainder of the money left in escrow (approximately $15,000) which would mean your our mutual timing and flights crossing Southern Hemisphere in a triangle route (LA-Sydney's-Santiago-LA) means the time it took to travel the distances can ONLY be explained by a "globe earth" and you will have learned wisdom by virtue of YOUR OWN direct empirical observation (I.e. No "NASA", Google Earth, or Government conspiracy).

      I'm dead serious. If your interested let me know. I've never been to Sydney or Santiago. I'll even agree to change so we fly Business class for comfort sake. If the earth is flat I pay all costs. If it's a globe you pay all costs. The use of a reputable escrow agent chosen by you means your money is not at risk other than the instructions given to escrow as set forth above.

      Deal? Let me know.

      Delete
    11. I'll have to study your proposal over coming days and will make it definite point to evaluate it in some detail. At first glance, it seems a bit involved-- which MIGHT be neccessary --however simplicity is also neccessary to prove the point.

      Delete
    12. So is the earth flat or round ,conclusion?

      Delete
    13. S, your experiment does not actually prove the earth is flat or a globe. I believe you actually know this, and are attempting to exploit the truth to obtain a free vacation. Your chosen vectors fall on a line on a flat earth. but, if its possible to "tunnel" or "portal" from the outer ring, across a finite antarctic landmass, and appear on the other side of flat earth, a la "asteroids" (horizontal and vertical wrapping), then you have proven nothing. choose flight paths that circumnavigate the exterior of antarctica, and validate those measured distances. it might be 60,000 miles around, and 6000 miles across, making no logical sense whatsoever, except inside of a computer simulation where math has defined the world.

      Delete
  4. If the official antarctica is 14,000miles and flat earth antarctica claim 60,000, so it mean they hide 36 000miles or less if the flat earth is not a perfect circle. So where is the better place to manage the size of the antarctica ? I've found where. You don't need to hide coast, but something else easy to cut because no one stay on.
    There is 2 solution :
    1 they hide only one part (I've found which one)
    2 they manage some part to divide the 36000miles hidden (possible).
    I work on this problem like you since 2014 when I discovered the flat map, I've founded that the antarctica only work for sphere, not for flat. And by research and deductions, the hidden part is the most possible evidence to trick the flat for a sphere, because offical antarctica is for sphere only.
    And amundsen scott station is just a central point for meeting, nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ok so where is the hidden part?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apparently my anonymous broken english speaking friend is now gone. Too bad he didn't leave a forwarding address or website. If he's been working on this since 2014, he should have had a website like me. It's free.

      I like his point that that the south pole station -- amundsen scott it's called -- is just a central meeting point.

      His 36,000 mile area where 'no one stay on' is the section Felix pointed out as between the peninsula and the part south of australia.

      Delete
    2. sorry to never passing by there before, I though you canceled my comment so.. Now I see it and I post a reply, sorry. The hidden part should be the Ross Ice shelf, this is a shelf, not a land coast as their is all along. I saw your last map but you crop some part that it should be not crop. I explain this better : You have to draw the entire perimeter of the antarctica as it is scale on the globe all around the continent. You will see if you draw it with the same continents scale that it miss a part. You cannot trick with this actual antarctica, it was done for the globe model, so this is an official antarctica mapping and it doesn't mean that it is true or you have to admit that this antarctica will never sacle for the flat map. I say that they should hide a part because this is not possible to trick on the earth side, you have seas, lands, too much parameters to trick and to match for the actual antarctica if you draw this scale for a flat earth. The antarctica is made for the globe. So when you understand that they have to hide a part to match for the globe scale, the only part they can is Ross ice shelf, exactely because it is a shelf and ice. No land. Byrd did a great expedition above it, did you saw the map? An entire mission only for this part. Does it mean they only flight above? Or does it mean they calculate what they have to hide from? If you don't believe on the globe model, you cannot believe on the antarctica mapping scale right now, you cannot join a true with a false. We are ok that the external hemiplane is more huge than the central hemiplane? Or does the central hemiplane is equal to the external hemiplane (a bit strang world isn't it)? So, look at the globe and see that the antarctica is mapped on a small hemisphere (equal to the north hemisphere right?), the last part of the south hemisphere, this is small. If the earh is extended from the north to the external only, opposite to the globe that extend and retract, so the antarctica cannot match on any flat earth model with it around the world. First you have to stretch it as the conventional map is, or, as you did, you have to cut and trick some part that should not be crop to enlarge a zone because this is not the real map of this place,like you did to the south america part of the antarctica. You did this because you didn't take in consideration that they probably cut form the actual mapping a part of the land to match for the globe. Do you think that they are totally honest with the map? Or they only change the form of the earth? Only the form ? Not enough to match for the globe because they know it is flat, so they understand. They anticipate all. Your work is good, but you have to consider this factor of crop, hidden part. The antarctica fit only for the globe. You can start by drawing only antarctica keeping the actual scale and placing the continents to this scale. Albatros journey "around antarctica" take 85 000miles according to the globe model, real datas give 120 000miles. it miss 35 000miles and it fit on my assumption that I have since december 2014 about the hidden part.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for that, I'll study it further. By the way, there is a link to the albatross migration situation that apparently proves 86,000 miles...http://ifers.boards.net/thread/808/albatross-antarctic-circumnavigation-proves-earth

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Has anyone ever considered that the Earth may be extremely huge,a massive globe so large that our earth pool appears quite flat.like a billiard ball with a dot on it,that dot being a flat earth type,the rest of the billiard ball totally unknown to most of us.

      Delete
    6. Has anyone ever considered that the Earth may be extremely huge,a massive globe so large that our earth pool appears quite flat.like a billiard ball with a dot on it,that dot being a flat earth type,the rest of the billiard ball totally unknown to most of us.

      Delete
  6. What is the solution I came up with?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Nepal Base Camp Treks (P) Ltd (team guide) are not only provide you a perfect holiday tour services, also here to organize your trouble less trekking holidays in scenic green hills to icy peaks where reachable on foot.
    There are hundreds of best and fantastic trekking tour operators in Nepal, offer you to choose many popular trekking destinations in high Himalayas as, Everest Base Camp Trek, Everest Chola Pass Gokyo Lake trek, Everest Gokyo Renjo la Pass Trek, Annapurna Base Camp Trek, Annapurna Circuit Thorong La Pass Trek , Upper Mustang Trek,Annapurna Nar –Phu Hidden Valley Trek, Kanchenjunga Base Camp Trek, Manaslu Circuit via Tsum Valley Trek, Langtang Valley Trek,Gosaikund Helambu Trek, Kathmandu Valley Circuit Trek and untouched tourist destinations of Ganesh Himal Camping Trek, Tawal Earthquake Area Camping Trek, Upper Dolpa Trek, Makalu Base Camp Trek and much more… as you desirable.
    If you are looking for perfect trekking operator and perfect guide who take care all your responsible and looking unexpected trouble free holidays in Nepal, our professional guides, Bibek Gurung, Buddhi Tamang, Anjan Waiba, Debman Tamang and female guide Pramila Lama are our young and 10 /12 year experienced license holder in Nepal Base Camp Treks (P) Ltd.
    We are fully government Registered small group trekking company in nepal and trained under the ministry of tourism sector around 10/15 years. We operate only trekking in Nepal Himalaya and small peak climbing.
    You are heartily welcome to Nepal Base Camp Treks (P) Ltd. to experience your wonder trekking activities in Himalaya with our team believes "providing good service" is our motto. Our team also believes not to regret your past, not to worry about future but let's enjoy the journey with us.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The south pole makes sense when you see the flat earth as the iris of the eye, and the antarctic as the rest of the globe eyeball. Possibly other earth ponds as you mentioned too.

    My theory' the Hyalo-centric Model
    https://jasontheartonaut.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/eye_macula_te_con_sept-psi_ans.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  9. math proves there is no curve... the math is mile squared times 8 inches .. 1 mile = 8 inches 2 miles = 2x2=4 x8= 32 inches 3rd mile = 3x3x8= 72 inches 4th = 4x4x8= 128 inches 10 miles = 100x8=800 inches 800 inches divided by 12 = 66.66 ft .. 20 miles = 400x8=3200 divided by 12 = 266.66 ft .. so if a person is looking across from NJ pine barens 60 miles away to phila Pa center city they shouldn't be able to see the buildings but they can 60x60=3600x8=28800 divided by 12 = 2400 ft below the curve .. but center city can be seen 60 miles away .. there IS NO CURVE ... THIS IS THE SAME DRIVING FROM MIAMI TO THE KEYS ..OR DRIVING FROM LOUSIANA ALONG INTERSTATE 10 THRU THE SWAMPS .. NO CURVE ... AND PEOPLE WATCHING A BOAT AT SEA GO OUT THEN DISAPPEAR THEN PUT ON BINOCULARS AND THERE IT IS AGAIN.. THEN KEEP WATCHING IT GO OUT UNTIL IT DISAPPEARS THEN USE A TELESCOPE THEM BOOM IT APPEARS AGAIN... THERE IS NO CURVE... SHIPS AT SEA SEE LIGHTHOUSE FOR 60 MILES AWAY ... ON A CURVED EARTH THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE 2x2x8 = 32 inches 3x3x8= 72 inches 4x4x8= 128 inches 5x5x8=200 inches 10x10x8= 800 inches divided by 12 inches = 66.66 ft you can see the curve increases dramatically for a globe which proves we are not on a globe .. maybe not exactly flat but not a globe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.facebook.com/1601478303438559/videos/vb.1601478303438559/1615696982016691/?type=2&theater&notif_t=notify_me_page ..................................................... One argument that we live on a globe is that when ships disappear on the ocean it is because they have gone down over the curve. But what happens when you get your telescope out and zoom in? The boat reappears!! Are you seeing around the curve with a magic telescope? Or is the earth FLAT?

      Delete
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOTTT-DuFmQ
      The Chicago Skyline "Mirage" Proves Flat Earth (Fixed)

      Delete
    3. SCIENTIFIC PROOF the earth is the center of the universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=53&v=YHykDpLQelw

      Delete
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1jeL7VpImI The Censorship of Geocentrism by Victor the Baptist

      Delete
    5. Sun Spots Prove Flat Earth Again?
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n00jvH8o4LA

      Flat Earth Research: More sunspots filmed throughout day prove flat, geocentric earth. This shows that the sun spots in the morning and afternoon are the same ones. They do not move across the sun's surface but changing viewer's perspective makes sun spots go from top to bottom of the sun. This one includes a demonstration of the difference between heliocentric and geocentric models.

      The sun is said by conventional science to be spinning and that sun spots travel across the surface of the sun. However, these observations show this clearly is not true. Like a spotlight doing an arc across the sky, the sun spots stay in their original position throughout the day. It is only after the sun goes overhead that we have to look the other way, and we see those same sun spots flipped due to our change in perspective.

      Delete
    6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE
      NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhLSY5Kr7hA
      (weneverwenttothemoon.com) FAKE MOON LANDING TOTALLY EXPOSED

      Delete
    7. Thanks for the input Guy.

      Delete
  10. Welcome to Base Camp Trekking Tour! Hundred percent pure lands of highest Himalaya's adventures
    Trekking in Nepal is one of the best adventure government registered company operating all adventure holidays trip to world most popular mountains Everest Base Camp Treks, Annapurna Base Camp Treks, Langtang Treks, Manaslu Treks, as well Upper mustang trek, Ganesh Himal Treks, Langtang Ganja La Pass Treks and all popular sightseeing tour of Ancients Kathmandu Valley and relaxing Chitwan Lumbini Tour on your desirable local budget for national and international travelers to Nepal.
    Nepal Base Camp Treks (P) Ltd.(www.basecamptrekkingtour.com) may be your next Trekking and Trekking Company in Nepal for any Trekking Agency in Nepal to highlander Himalayas Everest base camp, best mountain sceneries Annapurna Base Camp, recently promoting Manaslu Circuit Trek, several High passes Thorong La Annapurna Circuit,Gokyo Lake Chola Pass,Gokyo Lake Renjo La Pass, Chhukung Kongma La Pass, Rolwaling Tashilapchha Pass, Gosaikund Lake Pass, Kathmandu Valley Cultural trek and tour,Dhulekhel Namoduddha, Nagarkot trek, Bungmati Tour, Chiwan Chepang Hill Trek, Bandipur Tour,Pokhara Valley trekking tour,Ghorepani Poon Hill Trek, Annpurna Ghandruk Trek, Kanchanjanga north to south Pass,Langtang Ganja La Pass, depending small group travelers to joining group travelers on your desired budget to standard budget.
    Nepal Base Camp Treks offers you very popular non tourist destinations as remote regions of manaslu Tsum Valley Trek, Nar-Phu Valley Trek, Tamang Heritage Trail, Ghale Gaun Trek, Kanchanjanga Base Camp Trek, Rolwaling Camping Trek, Upper Mustang Cultural Trek, Lower Dolpo and Upper Dolpo Trek on very reasonable social trek in non touristic destination to better understand your holidays with our professional team
    Our team in Nepal Base Camp Treks is very profession of peak climbing experiences of most popular Island Peak, Lobuje Peak, Mera Peak, Phakchhermo Peak in Everest Region and Pisang Peak, Kanguru Peak, Chulu Peak in Annapurna Circuit Region and Tent Peak in Annapurna Base Camp.
    We guaranteed you best services and trouble less during your lifetime holidays journey with our professional mountain local team and wish you have a nice journey and see you soon in Nepal here to dream your adventure awaits you, as I remain
    Yours sincerely
    Sappa Lama (Sagar) and team
    info@basecamptrekkingtour.com
    www.basecamptrekkingtour.com

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Rick Potvin
    Ive been fascinated about the antarctic rim vs.island concept as well. I have not seen it illustrated or discussed anywhere, until now. Since we cannot feasibly sail or fly the perimeter (whether it an island cap on a sphere or a 360 degree surrounding wall on a plane) The logical move is to map distances between known landmarks. Bravo !! Thus confirming a much greater milage circumference than is believed on an island scenario. But still questions remain. As to the post by Anonymous Nov.24: I am somewhat confused about the 36,000 miles that is being hidden.
    I think that the true answer may lie in the expedition logs of those who have physically attempted to sail "around" the wall. Please comment?? ll explain....Thank you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry for the delay... I was busy with piano gigs through Xmas and NEw Years. You're right about gathering expedition logs-- or in our case here, "B"logs... of which I have found several by "workers"-- not the "scientists and engineers" who might be having to sign non disclosures. Lots of workers support the research stations and must fly from one to another. This is where the rubber hits the pavement-- you're right-- in those worker-reports that are online. Type of plane, maximum speed, flight altitude, time of journey etc all have to be inter-calculated and cross-checked. My preferred method is to get the officials to do a complete inspection tour but ALL inspection tours so far fall short. Look in the index below under "I" for Inspection and you'll see the reports I've gathered. Why in the world would the official inspection teams do only a partial inspection tour with virtually unlimited legal and financial abilities? Answer-- because they have PHYSICAL limits they can't overcome... because it's a 60,000 mile radius-- not a 15,000 mile radius. But you're on the right track. Thanks for posting and joining me in this mad mad insane line of thought. If I'm crazy at least I have like minded crazy friends.

      Delete
  12. f a n t a s t i c

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Fantastic is a good word for this adventure.

      Delete
  13. Great work. I already linked to you in a FE Research thread. My ideal proof is a photo/slide with am embedded caption. Like a picture of a distant object + text box with stats: height of observer, miles to target, expected drop from sight.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think you're referring to the curvature/line-of-sight proof rather than a circumnavigation proof. I like those curvature proofs too-- I just haven't dug into them as much as Antarctica's perimeter length.

    I discovered -- only today-- that the shoreline of Antarctica might have been inspired by the inverse outline of the coastline in the Arctic. As bizarre and wacky as that sounds, watch THIS video which makes a pretty good case for what I just said. It's totally wacked but undeniably interesting. Check this out...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmwyTHGFO8I

    ReplyDelete
  15. There are several things wrong with this comparison. Firstly, to place the globe map of Antarctica over the flat earth map can't be done without turning Antarctica inside out. The shape and size of Antarctica on a globe map is pure speculation. Aside from Cook and Ross who else has circumnavigated Antarctica and charted it accurately? Furthermore, most countries are similar on a globe map and a FE map except for Antarctica. That is totally different, so we should not assume that the globe map of Antarctica is accurate or will look the same on a FE map. I believe that the distance of 8,000 nat. miles is quite accurate as my calculations still put the circumference of the FE at approx 26,000 miles. The research stations on a FE map are between South America and Africa, extending outward on each side for a total of about 8,500 miles (which coincides with your numbers) thereby giving us a total circumference of the flat earth of approx 26,000 miles. The access points to Antarctica are mostly from Punta Arenas as it's the closest at 2500 miles. Capetown is 3800 miles. Going the other way from NZ to South America, there are no access points as this is the unexplored areas of Antarctica where no research stations exist and it's too far from the mainland. If NASA's sole purpose of existing is to churn out globe earth propaganda, then obviously they will lie about size, shape, etc of Antarctica. The way to prove the flat earth theory is not by Antarctica, but by other scientific and scriptural means which debunks the globe earth theory. Once convinced, then one could say that the flat earth map of Antarctica is the accurate one and the globe map is fake. You can find more on this at www.ItsHisStory.com/globe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well-- you're going out on a limb further than I'm choosing to go, which is fine if that's what you want to do. You're right that Antarctica has to be turned inside out which is what my map above does. And you're right about nobody but Cook and Ross circumnavigating Antarctica. You're right about access points. But your circumference of 26,000 miles is to low. How did you get that? It ought to be around 60,000 miles. I'll look at your website its itsHisStory.com and see what you're doing. Thanks for the reference but I'm still interested in a circumnavigation confirmation.

      Delete
    2. To get a 26,000 mile circumference I used their measurement of 20,000 km from North Pole to South Pole which is about 12,500 miles. Using this on a flat earth map would be 26,000 mile circumference. Using distance measurements from Sydney to Cape Town on a flat map and allowing for the water on either side it works out close to that. Cook and Ross had sailboats which could meander and get blown off course during storms so I don't think their measurements were accurate, and as you said 60,000 miles in 3 years could mean 20,000 miles total, but that's IF it is even accurate. There must be a reason why no one has accurately measured the circumference since and I could find no credible information anywhere on this. Which makes sense if the earth is indeed flat and the rest is fake. You can email me directly from my website if you like and we can discuss further.

      Delete
    3. What?!!!

      You DO realize you're posting to a blog where some pretty saavy people visit right? So talking about the distance from N to S pole is something I've never considered. You have to take into account that flat earthers deny the existence of a south pole. So right there, we're in new territory.

      Forgive me but I'll have to review your post again in the new week after I'm sober. I've been beer binging this weekend and playing Don't Stop Believin to prep for my next gig. North to south pole has been measured eh? That's news to me. Wow. Thanks for your posts here and let's continue this publicly. I'm all into public discussion.

      Delete
    4. 2 things, John Stewart...
      One, the FE map is so whacked out when it comes to scale. Take another look at it and you'll notice that Australia is almost as big as Asia, a fact that I think we can safely say is 100% not true.
      Second, your math skill are terrible. Circumference is equal to Pi times the diameter. If the distance from the N to S pole is 12500miles then the total diameter of the circle would be twice that, 25000. Multiply this by 3.14 and you would get about 78000. And that is a huge difference from the reality!

      Delete
  16. http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=468 Shows the distance to North Pole and other cities. When I said 20,000 km to North Pole, that is the distance on a globe earth. Why shouldn't a flat earth be about the same. The continents look to be about the same size on both maps, and about the same distance from Antarctica. For those reasons I think 26,000 mile circumference on both maps is probably quite close.

    ReplyDelete
  17. But there is no south pole on a flat map. The best you might do is obtain miles from an Antarctica research station to the North pole, or close enough to the North Pole to get an order of magnitude estimate. Since research stations probably aren't listed, I began with Punta Arenes, Chile, to the North Pole.
    http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=574

    That turns out to be 10,000 miles. They say it's another 2500 miles to the south pole from Punta Arenas.

    The Earth globe is said to be 25,000 miles in diamater and we usually think of that being around the equator. Of course, it would be the same diameter going around the globe from south to north and back south again on any line of longitude.

    Given the numbers your website gave me, 2500 from south pole to Punta and 10,000 from punta to north pole = 12,500 so times 2, you get 25,000 mile diameter which is consistent. Essentially you end up right back at square one since the official online figures will always do that.

    If the Earth is flat, there is no south pole. And the distance from Punta Arena to the Antarctic coast would have to be measured with no south pole assumed. I guess we can assume that if we confirmed the distance from Punta Arena to somewhere north of that, we could do that.

    The problem as I understand it, is that those north/south miles will work out ok-- but the miles have to be stretched out increasingly further, the further south you go. Going north/south or confirming north/south miles cannot be used to verify or deny any circumferential data since there is no theoretical stretching out of miles that is being hidden from us. The only exception might be that the north/south distance between the southernmost tips of the continents and the beginning of the Antarctic ice wall might be much further than we're being told.... in which case we should find evidence of that in blogs by workers flying to research stations. I'll look into that but I haven't detected any anomalies that way so far that I can recall.

    I'll review your posts again from the beginning to see where we're going wrong. Give me a chance to draw or illustrate what you're saying and I'm saying... and I'll compare those diagrams. Words can't cut it.

    You wrote for instance quote
    I believe that the distance of 8,000 nat. miles is quite accurate as my calculations still put the circumference of the FE at approx 26,000 miles.
    unqnoute

    Right there is a problem. The circumference of the SPHERE of earth is said to be 25,000 miles. So how "in the world" would a flat earth max out at a circumference of 26,000 miles? As I say, I'll start again at the beginning to see where you're likely going wrong. The bottom tips of the continents, to be sure, are going to be streteched out on a true flat earth map-- and you might be making assumptions based on a cartoon like illustration of a flat earth map rather than a true cartographic and confirmed map. I tried detecting flat earth going from one end of Australia to the other vs. one side of the US to the other-- and I DID find a percentage of discrepency consistent with land in the north vs. the south. The problem is most area is water in the south.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you are right here. If you were to look down on a globe from above then the equator would become the circumference of the Earth at 25,000 miles. It is therefore impossible that by 'unfolding' the bottom half of the globe you remain at the same circumference. That's how I interpret it anyway.

      Delete
    2. Yes, you are right here. If you were to look down on a globe from above then the equator would become the circumference of the Earth at 25,000 miles. It is therefore impossible that by 'unfolding' the bottom half of the globe you remain at the same circumference. That's how I interpret it anyway.

      Delete
  18. Rick. The problem is always trying to get an accurate measurement and who's figures to trust. However, even if one is off by 2,000 miles, does it really matter? I can't see us being further off than that. But I cannot see the circumference of a flat earth being 60,000 miles because then the math doesn't work. It is also not possible to calculate the diameter by using flight data because we don't know how accurate that is and what it is based on. The only way to accurately measure it would be to sail around Antarctica or do it from space, but since satellites don't exist that's out as well. To me, it really doesn't matter if I know the exact diameter or circumference of a flat earth, the only reason I tried to come close was to determine how high the dome was and even so, the dome is not necessarily as high as the circumference anyway. It could be lower or higher.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Okay, you're either a few steps ahead of me or on a different path-- I'll have to consider the dome aspect of things in coming days & weeks. You've obviously looked at the problem. Dismissing satellites at the same time is impressive. I dismiss them too. Your concern with the dome throws me for a loop-- and I have some nice breaded cod in the oven so I can't concentrate right now but thank you for your contribution to my increasingly popular thread here and promise to give it more serious consideration in coming days. How about that, readers!? The DOME!

    One point- you say it doesn't matter if you know the circumference of flat earth. This is problematic for me since this entire blog is based on that very determination. Given that, we march on! Talk to you soon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rick. Thank you for your responses and it has been great chatting with you. I will check back time to time and post if I find anything more that we haven't discussed. And to see if you have done the same. The dome is a very interesting concept to pursue because from my research I believe Admiral Byrd did find the edge of the dome as I outlined on my website at ItsHisStory.com and this is why everything about Antarctica changed right after that. The Antarctic Treaty was signed and until today no one can do anything more than limited tourism and research there. Doesn't sound like our capitalistic world to me, especially since he came back and bragged about all the natural resources there. The reason I believe that the dome is real is because that is what the Bible teaches and I believe that the Bible is the absolute true word of God, so if God made a dome, then there is a dome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John, what do you think of the ancient aliens theory (Discovery Channel series & Zacharaih Sitchen etc) ?

      Delete
    2. Rick, I measure everything to the Word of God which I consider the absolute truth. If it agrees it has merit, it it doesn't then it doesn't. No mention of aliens in the Bible, just the devil and demons which could pose as aliens. But they are not from some distant planet.

      Delete
    3. Actually, the aliens pose as the devil, demons and angels-- not to mention gods, Jehovah and Jesus. It's the other way around! Try that on sometime just for fun and you'll see what I mean.

      Delete
    4. If there is a 'dome' over/around us, then with all the pollution created by vehicles, burning coal, methane gases escaping from thawing Siberia, Alaska and the bottoms of the oceans, we would ALL suffocate. Be poisoned by these toxins. I used to live in L.A. 30 years ago (and frequently visit) and the air was worse than in Jersey. But, yet, when one travels 60 miles from a Metropolitan area, the air is fresh/clean. A domed habitat would not have that. The air should/would be the same anywhere/everywhere.

      While in L.A. I worked for Hughes Aircraft R&D Satellite Division. To this day I can't discuss things I worked on. However, why do the world governments spend Trillions of combined USD designing and building satellites?

      A dome is a semi-circle, usually. That would mean it's height would be +/- 6,250 miles. Some of the things I worked on went beyond that altitude. We saw pictures back then of partial Earth areas. Including zoomed in areas of vehicles on roads. Again, what's the purpose of this 'lie'?

      Delete
    5. Cool where are these pics ??
      How come nasa doesn't have any pics ?
      Cool story Joe . .

      Delete
    6. Cool where are these pics ??
      How come nasa doesn't have any pics ?
      Cool story Joe . .

      Delete
  21. Don't you find it interesting that in 1774 cook made a 3 year and 8 day exploration that was funded by the Government (so we may never really know where he went). The interesting thing is that he reportedly traveled over ... wait for it .... 60,000 miles. They make a point of reporting the distance! You decide.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I tried to study Cook for awhile-- The problem is that his total journey involved more than a circumnavigation so the 60,000 number in the narrative mght be applied to that extra travel. I still can't determine his exact Antarctic circumnavigaion mileage by itself although this is probably an important point of investigation. I'd have to get into the details of his log instead of just the modern versions of his story. Thanks for point that out. I'll look into it and maybe even do a separate blog post on it. I've noted it in an earlier post here...
      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/search/label/Cook%27s%20voyage

      Delete
  22. The circumnavigation of Antarctica has already been made in solitary from Fedor Konuykhov and was long 11,470.1 nautical miles, much less than would be needed if the earth was flat and Antarctica was the very long crust of this fabulous "pizza world."

    http://yachtpals.com/boating/good-hope

    Dateline 01:06:00 UTC 7 April 2008
    Position: 45 ° 49.32 'S 19 ° 20.64'E
    Course: 82 ° Speed: 7.4knots. Distance traveled since start: 11,470.1 nm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My first answer: No, 11,470 is consistent with a globe. It's the opposite of what you wrote. Much MORE would be needed if Earth was a big pizza pie. From the flat earth point of view, IF Fedor made a journey, he certainly did NOT circumnavigate but went in some sort of short circle.
      -----
      2nd answer: I just looked at the link-- and he's participating in the Antarctica Cup Race which I've already determined must be some sort of hoax.

      Quote
      Day 72: Fedor Konyukhov, the Russian adventurer trailblazing an inaugural sailing record around the Antarctica Cup Racetrack, chalked up another milestone today. After passing through Gate 14 within the circular 3-lane racetrack around Antarctica, the 56 year old became the first solo yachtsman to to sail non-stop from Cape Horn (GATE 8, 67E) across the South Atlantic Ocean to the junction of the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean (GATE 14 20E) keeping below latitude 45° South.
      quote

      Rick Says-- I don't consider participation in Antarctica Cup to be a "solo" voyage anymore since all those trips are part of a possible grand conspiracy of trickery.... the Antarctica Cup.
      -----------
      3rd answer: Is the Antarctic Cup the prize for the Vendee Globe race? Or is it another race? I either forget or didn't know in the first place. This is probably worth looking at in that regard. Here are my previous entries on Vendee as a probably hoax.

      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/search/label/Vendee%20Globe%20-%202009%20route

      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/search/label/Vendee%20Globe%20-%202012%20promo

      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/search/label/Vendee%20Globe%20-%20satellite%20tracking




      Delete
  23. Hi Rick

    You may like this Live AE Map of Earth Ocean Currents.
    You can also change to Wind Currents.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/azimuthal_equidistant

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not able to see that particular version on my old browser but I think I know what you're pointing to-- where you can see currents in circles. I've watched the Youtube versions on this. It's another element that could be useful to and Antarctic rim trip-- to be sure. Thanks.

      Delete
  24. Rick are you still currently posting??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Occasionally. Click on 'home' in the header for the latest post on this blog.

      Delete
  25. I think it should be painfully clear to Flat Earthers that this does not work. It's a great attempt to save the current Flat Earth map, but It's not enough. We have another Theory that Works and keeps N,S,E,W the same. On the FE map North changes to west for example and does not match real world direction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does north change to west? (Can you upload a diagram link?)

      As well, can you link to your Theory that Works? †hanks.

      Delete
  26. Hello,

    May I ask where you got this map and information? I would seem it was it would be ultra top secret if true listing nations?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll try to find the original source. The map is widely available on the net now on a variety of pages. I added the research stations and lat and long markings etc. The general idea of what a flat earth map would look like is more important here since various such "azimuthal projections" exist.

      Delete
  27. Thank you, I find it interesting one of the locations is claimed by the Rothschild's? I believe the Holy Bible and it states the Earth is in deed Flat. I hate the feeling of living in the Matrix everyday!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which location is claimed by Rothchilds?

      Delete
  28. Hi Rick

    Best wishes. Earth is flat...

    Julian. South Africa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Julian, since you're closer to Antarctica than me, would you do me a favor and sail or fly around it just once? Let me know what stops you make, how you calculated your speed, and how long it took. Thanks a bunch. (Just kidding obviously). Be careful down there, in South Africa. Let me know if you trip over any of those stone circles built in 300,000 BC that Micheal Tellinger talks about.

      Delete
  29. How can we use S. Africa, well into the southern hemisphere, to prove or at least raise the question of flat earth? I did a mileage comparison in Australia that showed that distances are longer by account than by spherical calculation-- maybe the same thing can be done in S. Africa. Here's a map
    http://www.theodora.com/maps/new9/south_africa_provinces.jpg

    At 34 longitude, roughly, we see Capetown and Port Elizabeth. Capetown is 19 Long. and Port Eliz. is 26 long, more or less. At 34, each degree of longitude should be about x miles on a sphere and y miles on a flat earth.

    Calculated and reported distances can be researched. Google results show 480 miles. (747 km)
    http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=distance+from+%22cape+town%22+to+%22port+elizabeth%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    Here's a page where we can compare the apparent shape of S. Africa on a 2D projection of a globe and an azimuthal flat earth projection. The latter shows longitude lines stretched out as we go toward the rim.
    http://www.progonos.com/furuti/MapProj/Dither/ProjAz/ProjAzNP/projAzNP.html

    Given this as a start, I wonder if I can push myself to complete the calculations and research. Is there a big enough difference, theoretically and practically, to matter? Will I be accurate enough? Does the slight difference in latitude matter? All these questions come into play.

    Is there a whole other approach to the problem in S. Africa? For example, can the rim be approached from S. Africa in the time they say? Can we take 3 points on the rim (or Antarctica coast) to prove the coastline is either concave or convex? Is there a possible way for S. Africa to expand on its research station on the coast of Antarctica to make it into a resort? Why haven't the Africans migrated to the coast of Antarctica given its proximity?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Rick, I like your theory! on another note i was just tracking a flight from Perth Australia to Port Louis Mauritius and not even half way across it just disappeared of the radar. Apparently all flights across the ocean under the equator will vanish of GPS until just near their destination. This is both disturbing in the sense of the Globe vs Flat earth debate and the fact that those flights are not tracked! I believe totally in FE and now I have just seen with my own eyes more proof!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah, I've noted others witnessing disappearances too, in south hemisphere-- various excuses given. This is consistent with fraudulent GPS and non-existent satellites. It's crazy. Thanks for your like.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just the map I was looking for. So I guess Felicity Aston must have skied like 25,000 miles, not 1,084 like the Disney/NASA shills claim? Good for you, Felicity: by my calculations that's over 400 miles per day, which makes much more sense.

    Now what we need is a video of a flight from, say, Soyabean to McMurdo: I'm pretty confident what it'll show is ocean, Africa, ocean, Australia, ocean, ice, rather than the expanse of white shown on the 'fake' map.

    Good work Rick! Beers are on me. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hi typer, I haven't looked at Felicity Ass-ton yet. She's full of smiles on a video of her doing a speech about her travel there-- the same smiles I see on the "ass-tronots" faces when the speak in front of a group. It the kind of smile that says "I can't believe I'm lying to all of you pretending it's real-- and I'm getting away with it".

    A flight from Soyabean to McMurdo requires that I get the name of that station correct. I just labelled it Soyabean to more easily recall it. Its actually a long Russian name. You're right however-- that's what I'm trying to do-- find connecting flights between stations and personal accounts of workers in Antarctica about what they experience in time and sight.

    Beer is good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I memorized as Soyabean is actually a Japanese station-- Syowa or Showa depending on the map you look at. I like SYOWA... here's my recent post about it. NASA has their dirty paws all over it for studies in gravity waves. I guess they're still trying to figure out how to get to the moon.
      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2016/06/syowa-station-japan.html

      Delete
  36. Hmm, lively thread, Rick! I missed these contributions.
    Seems like they are somehow linked to this post
    http://www.weekendcollective.com/conspiracy-series-is-the-earth-flat/

    I don't believe the Aston story for one moment, she's an ex- BAS scientist in any case.[59 days 1084 miles [MBE, Polar Medal 2015...]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpyrn49wHB0
    nor all the other sources cited by Garrett Griffin in that blog post.

    Geoshifter found the Antarctica Cup similarly amusing
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_tDPhbqnbc

    It's somewhat off-topic in determining the distance around Antarctica, but one thing which catches my eye is that one doesn't see images of these Trans-An travelers being welcomed when they reach the Scott station. Surely, surely, someone would come out to greet them or invite them in for a nice warm cup of coffee? Here's another improbably one, with a nice agenda attached, Felicity again...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspersky_Commonwealth_Antarctic_Expedition


    http://kasperskycommonwealthexpedition.com/progress/index.cfm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the fast food and coffee problem was solved by Burger King-- Penguins love it.
      http://s33.postimg.org/y7ky2i1v3/antarctica_burger_king.jpg

      Delete
  37. See what I mean?
    http://web.archive.org/web/20101124034849/http://kasperskycommonwealthexpedition.com/latest-news/drinking-tea.cfm

    Well we had a lovely welcome from the staff of the South Pole station. Right at 90 degree south is the Amundsen-Scott Research Station which is a big American research facility and the staff that work here came out to cheer us when we arrived at the ceremonial South Pole and since then we have camped in a camp area which is maybe 15 metres from the actual South Pole.
    Where are the pictures? It could have been filmed anywhere.
    http://web.archive.org/web/20101027193814/http://www.kasperskycommonwealthexpedition.com/progress/index.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  38. Why can't someone with an airliner (and some big balls) simply fly south and keep going and see where they end up? That really is all that is needed is it not? Would they really be shot out of the sky? What would really happen? On a flat Earth Antarctica wouldnt be that wide, so the edge of it would surely become visible fairly quickly? At least fast enough to send the evidence before they shoot you down. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no need to fly over it. Just measure the rim with clear landmarks. Of course nothing will stop these FE fanatics from saying "there's another 36k miles hidden"!

      Delete
  39. In the US Navy i was stationed at NAS Moffett field.Ca.This is where the Antarctic flights orginatef to over fly the south pole.They were trying to build a data base for the ozone hole theory.Well they made alot of claims about over flights thatore than likely nevet accrued
    This would susgest to me that in tracking down the pilots of those flights you might prove Lot og what you're going to try to-do. Without the expendatures of moneies or the risk of lifes.Im sure that many pilots are sitting on small pieces of the puzzel without realizing it.Also don"t forget the manu Stanford University students.phds ect who praticipated in these flights.Inorder to properly get a mosaic of the Antarctic thete had to be many different flight paths.This tells me either theres alot of ingormation to be had or theres a big lie on the ozone hole to expose.I dont suspoe NASA Ames to be much help but Standford University might atleast supply you with a list list of grad and under grads who participated in the flight.Please remember once your a Stanford Grad they will always know how to contact you always.Pilots however are a different story.But there is a ever growing list of whisleblowers out of NASA Ames that might yield something.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I had to look up NAS-- Naval Air Station. Link for audience here....
    https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+NAS+moffat+field&btnG=Search&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0

    quote
    This is where the Antarctic flights orginatef to over fly the south pole.
    unquote

    my comment... amazing-- how does SantaClara/MountainviewCA connect with Antarctica??? Now we know!

    quote
    in tracking down the pilots of those flights you might prove Lot og what you're going to try to-do
    unquote

    me... aha. thanks for the tip.

    you... m sure that many pilots are sitting on small pieces of the puzzel without realizing it.A

    me... yes... the same method of "need to know" cuts all individuals off from the grand scheme

    you... Also don"t forget the manu Stanford University students.phds ect who praticipated in these flights

    me... phds.. yes... guys who have the ability to understand...

    you... big lie on the ozone hole to expose.

    me... I haven't zeroed in on that yet-- maybe I'll play with it in the coming weeks and months. thanks.

    you...I dont suspoe NASA Ames to be much help but Standford University might atleast supply you with a list list of grad and under grads who participated in the flight.P

    me... aha.

    you... Please remember once your a Stanford Grad they will always know how to contact you always

    me... hmm... I'm a UW alumni and I'm confident they lost track of me... how does Stamford word different?

    you...Pilots however are a different story.But there is a ever growing list of whisleblowers out of NASA Ames that might yield something.

    me... hey, great feedback... thank you much. Will work these leads as I find possible.. and of course-- my many readers on this particular blog post will as well.



    ReplyDelete
  41. HELLO RICK,The map you have come up with is astounding!! BRILLIANT!! This is quite possibly very close to the truth. On your map you have the Antarctica surrounding the earth that we inhabit. On the flat earth model we see the world as a disk surrounded by a 400 ft wall of ice. This makes absolute sense as the spinning ball map model is not at all possible & is fraudulent. WHAT IS ASTOUNDING ABOUT THE MAP YOU HAVE DRAWN IS----The Antarctica surrounds our earth. THIS TIES IN WITH ADMIRAL BYRD-- who said in his famous interview after several explorations of the Antarctica--There are huge amounts of land & mountains going for thousands of miles which hold natural resources which have not been explored or discovered. HE was then sworn to secrecy by the government to never discuss the matter any more. The places he was discussing are now forbidden territory & there are Advanced civilizations which inhabit these areas--which can run rings around our technology. You have with this MAP shed some more light on something the secret governments do not want us to know about---so they are covering it all up with the spinning ball map on the world to confuse people into looking up into the sky for things that are not there. ( a very cleaver diversion) That way people will never consider the possibility that the real hidden secrets lie in the outer regions of the ANTARCTICA where there are an enormous amount of things going on that they do not want the rest of the world to know about.Admiral Byrd had a profound experience in 1947 where he was taken to a special place in the Antarctica whilst flying in his plane with other crew members.. He was again forbidden from any further discussion about this experience. He kept his word until just before he died & he gave his written account of what happened& what this advanced race said to him. You can look it up on google Admiral Richard E Byrd - Hollow Earth Video Interview - YouTube ( there are more blogs on the subject as well).. I am not making this up--this is only for enlightened people who are interested in searching for the truth & are not interested in branding people as needing to consult the local psychiatrist for mental assessment. (this is the classical way they deal with the truth or just start using filthy language or profanity to describe the person passing on the forbidden knowledge to people who are interested in knowing what is really going on)How long it took you to work this map out is another subject worth knowing. Again thanks RICK -brilliant!!

    ReplyDelete
  42. thanks but you would do well to understand that the rim concept isn't mine nor are the maps themselves-- only the part where I calculate distances of the stations and place them on the ice wall perimeter is my original work. I've yet to confirm the longer distances other than to note that lots of internet research has not produced verifiable data or diary/blog Antarctica worker experiences to confirm the longer distances. Distance on a flat earth should be about 4X longer from station to station than as calculated on a spherical earth.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Assuming that the earth is flat, then the globe has to be pushed flat in order to get the correct result. Assuming also that they calculated the fake earth dimensions based on real measurements, then we can also assume that that there is a relationship between radius or diameter and the flat earth. In that case we can also assume that they calculated the area of Antarctica based on that ratio. An area of 14*E6 km2 means an average radius of [14*E6/pi]^(1/2) = 2111 km which is located on sin-1(2111/6371) = 19,35 degrees from the southpole aka 70,65 degrees from the equator. If the average rim on this flat earth is located at 90+70,65 = 160,65 degree on the flat earth from the northpole then that has a relative flat radius of 2*pi*6371*160,65/360 = 17.863 km which means the rim has an average circumference of 2*pi*17.863 = 112.239 km.

    ReplyDelete
  44. That's about 70,000 miles which is in the correct order of magnitude for our projected 60,000 miles. Thank you for that mathematical approach Gerard... although I confess that I'm going to have to review your analysis more to understand it. Interestingly, you DID INDEED come within an order of magnitude of my own estimation!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I have done some additional calculations, this time concerning the position of the sun related to positions on earth. The distance between Sanaa (Jemen) and Bangkok (Thailand) [almost on same degree from equator] is 6053 km.

    First Sanaa:
    Sun rises 6,00 hour
    Sun sets 17,34 hour
    Time 9:30 = 9,50 hour
    Time sun is up = 17,34-6,00 = 11,34 = 11,566 hour
    Halve time up = 11,566/2 = 5,783 hour
    Time that has passed = 9,5-6,0 = 3,5 hour
    Time till 90 degree = 5,783-3,5 = 2,283 hour
    From Sanaa sun is at 9,5 hours at tan-1(3,5/2,283)=56,88 degree east

    Second Bangkok when time Sanaa is 9,5 hour Bangkok has the following time 13,5 hour
    Sun rises 6:13 hour = 6,216
    Sun sets 17:51 = 17,85
    Time = 13,5 hour
    Time sun is up = 17,85-6,216 = 11,634 hour
    Halve time up = 11,634/2 = 5,817 hour
    Time that has passed = 13,5-6,216 = 7,284 hour
    Time passed 90 degree = 7,284-5,817 = 1,467 hour
    Time still to go = 5,817 - 1,467 = 4,35 hour
    From Bangkok sun is at 13,5 hours at tan-1(4,35/1,467)=71,36 degree west

    This makes a triangle looking from 2 places on the earth, with a distance between them of 6053 km (side A) with the mentioned angles on the left 56,88 degree (angle b) and right 71,36 degree (angle c). The remaining angle at the sun = 180-56,88-71,36 = 51,76 degree (angle a). With A/sin(a)=B/sin(b)=C/sin(c) it results in:
    B = 6053/sin(51,76)*sin(56,88)=6454 km
    C = 6053/sin(51,76)*sin(71,36)=7302 km

    This results in the hight of the sun (hs)
    with b and C: hs= 7302*sin(56,88) = 6116 km
    with c and B: hs = 6454*sin(71,36) = 6116 km

    6116 km = 3822 miles (if this is true I cannot measure and cannot verify).

    I have done this calculation for several locations, but resulting in several other answers. But I select this calculation for the following reason:

    Difference between Sanaa and Bangkok is 3,5 hours aka 6053 km almost at the equator. This suggests that the sun (in a flat earth position) travels at 6053/3,5 = 1729 km/hour. As the radius of the earth is 6371 km placed in a flat earth situation the sun would travel at the equator at 6371*pi*2/24 = 1667 km hour. This speed is almost similar and would suggest a correct analysis of the situation. In a flat earth situation the sun would travel on a 1729 * 24 / 2*pi = 6604 km radius at a height of 6116 km. I did read that someone else did give some evidence that the sun might be at 3000 miles, which seems to be an approximation of the forgoing result.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can use this calculation where-ever you like....

      Delete
  46. Are you posting these results to your own flat earth blog or another flat earth study? Because if not, I'll repost your work to a new post here to see if we can get readers. I haven't seen this approach before. The speed of the sun at 1667 km per hour is consistent with the rotation of the earth at the equator of 1035 miles per hour if it's 25,000 miles around.... so it's a nice alternative theory-- given your geometry. Great job. Would you be able to do a similar speed calculation for the moon? And do you think that the speed and height calculations for these apparent bodies is consistent with our perception of the size of said bodies when above vs. on the horizon? Thanks Gerard.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I am thinking about writing an article (dutch) on this approach of the flat earth and sun. I have not finished that article yet, working on it. I did also made the same type of calculations based om moon figures. Surprisingly the distance to the moon would be around 4200 km. This suggests that the moon rotates on a lower plane then the sun. It could be an explanation for how the sun and moon can cross each-other resulting in eclipses. If you use the previous calculation elsewhere, please link also to the article. When finished I will give you the link here as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that's actually the first time I've considered the moon (on a flat earth model) being lower than the sun. I'm not an expert on all the elements of FE theory but I've done some pretty extensive reading and that's a new one. The correlation to eclipses is indeed possible. Why would the moon be bigger on the horizon than overhead, using this model? Thanks again.

      Delete
    2. I have put the article in here:
      Platte aarde: wat is de afstand tot de maan, zon en zuidpool, meaning flat earth, what is the distance to the moon, sun and southpole, with a dwawing of the possible dimensions of the flatearth and distance to the sun and moon
      For now I cannot answer the question on why the moon looks bigger. Maybe it has to do something with in what kind of substance or thing the moon is transported... If it is transported in something like a glass, maybe from our point of view at the horizon that glass may work like a prism and enhancing the object as it approaches the horizon. This is guessing, but maybe yes.
      http://www.123hoe.nl/overig/platte-aarde-wat-is-de-afstand-tot-maan-zon-en-zuidpool

      Delete
    3. I'll translate it using babelfish and study in coming days.

      Delete
    4. I have at last found some data on the position of Mercury and Venus and did the same calculation as for the sun and the moon. Venus would then be at 5239 km and Mercury at 3937 km and would mean a difference in plain of sun 6116, venus 5239, moon 4200, mercury 3937. This is not expected as i must confess. This calculation is based on time, but maybe it should be based on longitude and latitude also. There might be a angle difference between the loops of the objects which might lead to that mercury has a bigger distance than the moon. If so then it lines up with some maps of the firmament... 1 moon, 2 mercury, 3 venus, 4 sun. based on info from http://theskylive.com/mercury-info and http://theskylive.com/venus-info

      Delete
  48. Some time ago I also wrote this article. It shows that the horizon which we see isn't the same as the real horizon. In this article I put a line at where the real horizon might be, but looking at the sun it even might be higher. This is mirror-working as from our view of point the sightlines go into 1 point. That is to much information and so all the mixing of colors becomes a mirror (in my opinion). If you look at it trough a telescope you transfer your eye forward and can see further on this plane. If it has become a mirror then it is a good explenation on why ships disappear from below and it is also a good explenation on why sometimes you see things in reverse (mirror) as you see the top of a ship mirrored under the belly of that ship.
    http://wetenschap.infonu.nl/diversen/174404-de-werkelijke-horizon-ligt-soms-verder-dan-de-zichtbare.html

    ReplyDelete
  49. The Earth System Research Laboratory has timelaps movies of the southpole station. Please look at the movie of march 2013 and goto timelaps-time 0,13/1,13. At the right bottom you can click for a full screan view. What do you see.... http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/spo/movies.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see the shadow of the building the camera is on and some tracks that disappear, in the snow.

      Delete
    2. Look at the sun at march 2013, 0,13/1,13

      Delete
    3. Aha... yes again we see the black dot but this time we know it can't be an artifact of the camera due to too much light because the sun sweeps by the first time before with no dot, then a tiny black dot and finally the big dot at 0:13.

      Delete
    4. hello Rick, what does it mean? What is the black dot?

      Delete
    5. Good question. It's inexplicable. I don't have a theory about it. I just noted it for now.

      Delete
    6. If you look at footage of the sun from other south-pole stations you also see the black dot. At this point I am considering the fact that the army have successfully added an artificial sun or some kind of reflector in orbit. This would for instance result in a long day on a flat earth at Antarctica. If this isn't the case then a flat earth would not be possible as it would take too long for sunset-sunrise in the summertime.

      Delete
    7. Black dots on dome cameras are a result of a more intense point of light as opposed to a more spread or uniform point of light. Had the exact same artifact from my first gopro. In ambient bright light no black dot, but when the sky was clear and the sun was seen, there was a black dot.

      Delete
  50. Hello...I just wanted to leave a comment to say WOW! Fascinating! and all your time and research is mind boggling...as well as others in this thread. I first started looking into FE about 7 months ago...just out of curiousity...never even imagining I would condider it true, in the least. LOL I watched and read so much I was obsessed....then oddly enough, I ended up on the fence about it which startled my own self immensely...I've been teetering on the fence ever since. After reading this thread and seeing your maps with the stations laid out...I can officially say I have fallen off the proverbial fence for good. LOL Thank you SO much! May God keep Blessing you in your research for the truth. What a time to be alive! The veil is lifting all over the place. Wow. My most used word lately...WOW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't accomplished my mission however-- which is to prove the accumulated distances between the stations is closer to 60,000 miles than 15,000 miles. I can't verify anyone's trips between any stations despite all the travel between them taking place, ostensibly. I'm currently hung up on the possibility that stations are being faked.... first pointed to by Jungle Surfer.

      Delete
  51. At this moment I have been comparing the position of the moon with high and low tides at that place. The biggest pull of the moon at that place on the water-level would off course be at a 90 degree angle. If that is so high tide should be when the moon is on that angle. Lets see:
    Tide predictions: https://www.worldtides.info/
    Moon predictions: https://www.timeanddate.com/
    both should be on local time:

    Porto Portugal
    moon up: 13,16 = 13,26;
    moon under: 23,54 = 23,90;
    halvetime 90 degree = (23,90+13,26)/2= 18,58 = 18,35 min
    low tide: 8,22/20,35
    high tide: 2,00/14,31/2,51
    high tide is at 14,31 but should be at 18,35..

    Dakar
    moon up:12,27 = 12,45
    moon under: 24,13 = 24,216
    halvetime 90 degree = (24,216+12,45)/2 = 18,333
    Low tide: 2,26/14,28
    high tide: 8,41/20,57
    high tide is at 20,95 but should be at 18,333.

    Grenada
    moon up:12,14 = 12,233
    moon under: 24,13 = 24,216
    halvetime 90 degree = (24,216+12,233)/2 = 18,225
    Low tide: 24,42/13,32
    high tide: 7,19/19,15
    high tide is at 19,15 but should be at 18,225.

    In total this means a 4, 2 and 1 hour difference.

    If there would be a difference in time then that difference should be equal in time (as thinking of a delay). As the moon should be the biggest pulling-force on the water (next to the earth) then it should rise up the highest at where the moon is located. Forgoing doesn't support that fact. In that case it might be interesting doing this analysis for the tide-difference based on the distance to the north-magnetic pole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For your information: I have compared the location of these places and the times it is high and low tide. On that info I have done statistical regression resulting in some interesting data.
      If comparing tides time to the location (NB degree north and longitude LT) it gives the following data:
      high tide vs NB F-test = 0,173 T-test = 0,589
      high tide vs LT F-test = 0,016 < 0,05 test fails
      low tide vs NB F-test = 0,468 T-test = 0,967
      low tide vs LT F-test = 0,282 T-test = 0,751.

      From this it could suggest that the tides go over the earth more likely on a north-south based relation then on a east-west relation due to the moon. Anyone who want's to see the data used, please contact me.

      Reykjavík, Iceland; Skopun, Faroe Islands; Den Helder Holland; Ireland; Saint-Gilles-Croix-de-Vie, France; Hammonds Plains, Canada; Ponta Delgada, Portugal; Devonshire Parish, Bermuda;
      La Orotava, Spain; Bahamas Picos, Cape Verde Coffee Gully, Barbados

      Delete
  52. Good stuff, I had an idea and just threw in "distance around Antarctica" into google and this web site came up. So looks like I'm on the right track.

    I'm fairly new to all this subject as I've only been looking at it for six months or so and am having to self educate quickly time permitting, to catch up.

    Nice one Rick, to coin a phrase, I'll be back. . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just before I go, I understand that someone studied documents from Scott and Shackleton which showed that that this "ice wall" has not receded or alerted over the last 100 years.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/11/24/scott-shackleton-logbooks-prove-antarctic-sea-ice-not-shrinking/

      Is just one link.

      Delete
    2. I looked at that article and it's not about the ice wall but rather the amount of ice in general. The ice was is supposed to be a specific wall, like the Trump Wall-- only around the outside limit of Antarctica where no man can go any further. I've never seen anything about the ice wall itself growing taller, deeper or bigger. It just occurred to me, however, that we could concievably now dig a tunnel through the ice wall to "get to the other side"-- perhaps another "earth pond" a la Math Boylen's vision for unlimted honeycomb network of "earth ponds". Big earth moving machines dig tunnels all the time, as for example the Chunnel in England/France/English Channel. This is a new idea-- I've never seen it expressed before. I'll dub it "The Antarctic Ice Wall Chunnel". When people tell the age old joke "why did the chicken cross the road"-- no kid thought to ask "wait... a chicken crossed a road without getting hit by a car-- HOW did that chicken cross that road?". I'll look into HOW we could cross the Antarctic ice wall-- via tunnel-- with an earth moving machine used to do the original chunnel. This may be what the big station at Mawson is for.

      Delete
    3. How did the chicken cross the road (usually occupied by fast moving vehicles that would have killed the chicken).

      Answer: The chicken used an underpass walkway... like the one I cross 7th St. with where the canal cuts under the roadway too.

      Delete
  53. captain,

    amazing this "earth pond one" map.

    did even you see vedic maps from another "ponds"?

    http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/05-16/cosmos8.png

    http://image.slidesharecdn.com/universalstructurepresentationnotes-160724065346/95/universal-structure-presentationnotes-22-638.jpg?cb=1469343805

    basically, there would be another ponds, and this earth is "Bhärata-varsa".

    here a brief introduction:

    krishna.ie/images/docs/sailing-to-jambudwipa-20151221-2006.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I glanced at that complicated set of ideas. So if we have a Vedic situation, then how far around the perimeter should Antarctica be would you say? 15 or 60K miles?

      Delete
    2. at this moment, no clear response...

      however, what this math says to you?


      Bhärata-varsa has a total land area of 72,000 miles and sits in the southern region of the larger area of Jambüdvipa (800,000 miles). Bhärata-varsa itself is further divided into nine sections of which our Earth is one.

      so 72000/9 = 8000 => earth = 1/9 Bhärata-varsa

      more info:

      the region of Bhärata-varña which we know as Earth is 8,000 miles from north to south and is completely surrounded by the sea


      So according to Märkeëòeya Puräëa and Viñëu Puräëa, as well as other Puräëas, Bhärata-varña has a total area of 72,000 miles and is divided into nine areas of which our Earth is but one part measuring 8,000 miles.


      The ice regions could indeed possibly present some type of physical barrier that prevents us from entering Jambüdvipa . Märkeëòeya Åñi says that the regions of Bhärata-varsa are mutually inaccessible, so obviously some kind of barrier exists to prevent us going further.

      We know, therefore, exactly where Earth is, but not exactly what we look like in relation to the other parts of Bhärata-varsa. One thing we do know for certain, however, is that our Earth is measured as 1,000 yojanas or 8,000 miles from north to south

      Delete
    3. So if it's 8.000 miles from the north pole center to the south ice wall rim, let's consider that a radius. A circumference with a radius of 8,000 is 2pie*r which would be 2X3.14 = about 6 and 6X8000 for 48.000.... which is closer to 60,000 than 15,000-- my own reference points for flat vs. spherical. Thus the Vedic system would lean toward a flatter earth I think.

      Delete
  54. But you forgot to take into account the difference in miles, the Antarctica in the first picture circumnavigated is only roughly 11,000 miles however when you take into the size of the continents you've put inside one that's smaller than them that you now made the relative size of the circumnavigation increase around 60,000 extra miles. How do you seriously account for that? Please address me on Facebook if you wish. My name is Kimberly Hughes, and I'm no genius, but it doesnt take one to look at the numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  55. My maps of the island Antarctica and the rim Antarctica are not the same scale. If I had an island Antarctica to on the same scale as the flat earth map, I'd have to include all the continents. I didn't want to do that since my mission is to circumnavigate. I hope that explains it. Thanks for visiting.

    ReplyDelete
  56. At this point in time I am considering the fact that the earth from north-south-north circumnavigation might not be 360 degrees but actually 400 degrees. Some time ago I did see a flight registration of people going over the north-pole 90 degree, but it did not show the direction of the way the north-pole lies change. This can mean that they give us the opportunity to go to the north or south-pole but it actually hasn't reached it for real. If the flat-earth has in comparison to a globe 400 degrees instead of 360 degrees, then we are not aware of at least an area at the north-pole with a radius of 2*pi*6371*10/360= 1111 km. At the rim of the south-pole this distance would be added to the known radius and so the average ice-rim circumnavigation would be 2*pi*6371*170.65/360*2*pi=119.226 km. The circumnavigation at the south-pole or maybe the dome-rim or the size of the pond would be at 2*pi*6371*200/360*2*pi= 139.731 km. If the 400 degree flat earth is true instead of the 360 degree projected on a globe then admiral Byrd might just have found that.

    ReplyDelete
  57. That's interesting but off-topic relative to my main point in this particular blog. Thanks anyway Gerard.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I have been studying this topic for only a few days now.(extensively) And this is by far the most positive mannered blog I have come across related to the flat earth debate. My point is, I believe an accurately documented circumnavigation of Antarctica would definitely be the one true tell of Flat Earth or not. With the millions and millions of views of hundreds of YouTube videos, blogs, and streams throughout the web related to this topic. I definitely believe the general population believes this is a definite possibility. With that belief a $1+ donation to the cause and peace of mind would be greatly worth it for any individual believer or non believer to once and for all settle all disputes on this matter. With a privately funded a public proof of a circumnavigation, measurement, and uncut film documentation of Antarctica...

    Any thoughts, plan of actions, possible expenses it could amount to, and proof of trust in the account holder/charity org?

    Thanks curious j

    ReplyDelete
  59. I've been calling this blog a "virtual" circumnavigation with the idea that I could prove the circumference distance while sitting in my captain's chair at home having coffee during any spare hours I had. I still hope to accomplish this without having to actually go. However, it occurred to me upon Trump's inaugeration, and given Trump's reference to flat earth and his attitude to getting results in general, that I would initiate a feeble attempt to proclaim on that day, my own intention to travel the route by cruise ship with a lot of other people who might be interested in that mission. I posted that intention here....
    http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/rick-potvin-launches-effort-to.html

    A day later, I was reminded by Felix, a regular poster here, that the Akademik Trishnikov was currently sailing with the intent to circumnavigate. This mission, said to be for ecology and global warming, follows a route fairly close to the Antarctica coastline for pretty much the entire circumference-- with a crew of 60 researchers. They've completed 1/3 of the way around, they say. I'm trying to evaluate their mission in light of my own interest these past few days. It occurred to me that I might charter that ship for yet another go around myself with a similar sized passenger list of flat earthers to see what we can do to prove circumference. Here's that post.
    http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/treshnikovs-circumnavigation-in.html

    Fund raising, I guess, would be part of the process but I haven't drilled down on those internet crowdfunding methods being used these days yet. I could possibly contact the Treshnikov mission people or watch reports to see what this trip cost them and go from there. As far as proof of trust in the account holder, that's a whole other issue I haven't gotten to yet but now that you mention it, maybe I'll start considering that. Feel free to update your advice on that here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, so I want to apologise for wasting your time. Please know I didn't intentionally mean to. I have seen the bottom of this rabbit hole, and urge you to continue enjoying life the best you can, as I will do. Answers,are not what you really seek.

      Thanks curious j

      Delete
  60. We are organising an expedition with a cruise ship to sail along the coast of Antarctica to find out the lenthd and direction of travel and to prove if earth is flat or a globe. Join us

    ReplyDelete
  61. My email is luvozproductions@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that this? http://www.luvozproductions.com/

      Delete
  62. Flat earthers and global earthers lets make history and find out ourselves what's is really happening in Antarctica.

    We are organising an expedition by chartering a cruise ship to cruise along the coast of Antarctica to discover if it's an island as depicted on a globe earth or it's a 70.000 mile wall along the edges of a flat earth.

    Join this historic expedition in the comfort of your state room or please help us raise the funds trough crowd funding.

    Who is curious?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More details, a web blog and discussion would be a good thing for you to consider I think. Who is "we" and what ship will you charter for how much?

      Crowd funding would be a good idea for this. I've been looking into which ship to charter and am currently watching the circumnavigation by the Akademic Trishnikov which is on its second leg sailing from Mertz Glacier toward Bellany Island. The crew is Russian of course-- but I haven't found the cost of chartering her for the year or two we would need. http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/treshnikov-approaching-antarctica-coast.html

      I'm in contact with the Treshnikov-- see their facebook page here...
      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/im-in-contact-with-treshnikov-now-en.html

      I've had trouble authenticaing them however...
      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/it-now-appears-that-swiss-antarctica.html

      More on the trip...
      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/treshnikovs-circumnavigation-in.html

      My first post about this on Trumps inaugeration day...
      http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/2017/01/rick-potvin-launches-effort-to.html

      Delete
  63. Rick about the Antarctica trip at this stage we just need few names to put on the application to see if we get permission. Do you want to put yours down? Anyone else?

    These are some of the organisations we will have to apply too. There are four more

    Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs & action

    Australia
    Australian Antarctic Division
    203 Channel Highway
    Kingston , 7050
    www.aad.gov.au

    Rhonda Bartley
    Tel: 0362323618
    eia@aad.gov.au


    Office it Ocean and Polar Affairs (OES/OPA), United k Department of State
    2201 C St., N.W., Room 2665
    Washington , 20520

    Mr. Evan T. Bloom
    Tel: 647-3925
    Fax: 647-9099
    bloomet@state.gov



    Foreign and Commonwealth Office
    K.2.55 King Charles Street
    London , SW1A 2AH
    0450009000 tony
    Ms Jane Rumble
    Tel: 7008-2610
    polarregions@gdshy.gov.uk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow-- that's actually fairly amusing that you would think to go ahead and execute those contacts. Good work. Yeah, put my name in there and I'll see what I can do to get into this groove -- the ACTION groove. You're obviously a person of action. I mostly drink beer when I do my research from my basement at home. But I admire your suggestion. It might kick my testosterone into gear again-- and maybe get me girls.

      Delete
  64. Just spoke to the Australian body and she said to sent an email. If we want to go south from 60 degrees we must feel few applications and she made it sound difficult. Why? What's below 60 degrees?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the beginning of the end of the world, don't you know? Past that, there be dragons. (at least in the olden days). Now, there is the great OUTSIDE world where we would be approaching the rim, the dome, the wall-- whatever is out there. I have to review my notes on 60 but it is indeed a significant line beyond which not even the sailboat races Vendee Globe go, I don't believe. That's good work there Harry. Your forwardness is admirable. It reminds me of how I used to be before I became scared of everything.

      Delete
    2. I think the Antarctic Treaty defines 60 as a line past which you need permission from the Antarctica Treaty Commission or some such body.

      Delete
  65. 😂😂😂. Live your comments.

    So it's Rick Potvin USA? The others said we call the trip: Truman Discovery Tours. 😂😂😂. Welcome Truman no 5.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand the reference to Jim Carry's Truman Show but I'm not familiar enough with that movie to know if this project fits it, really. It's obviously at least loosely connected however what I propose isn't quite what Truman did. It's more along the lines of going around what Truman did and then making an inference-- a startling inference that's vivid and colourful and easy for everyone to understand-- but an inference nonetheless.

      I am in Arizona but I was born in Port Arthur, Ontario, Canada, now called Thunder Bay. Maybe Rick Truman's Discovery Tours would work. That way, we differentiate and yet associate at the same time. I'll take the stage name Truman in honor of the movie. Would that work?

      Delete
  66. Yes that's my company. Luvoz Productions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In answer to your earlier question about 60 S...

      quote
      The parallel marks the northern limit of ... the Antarctic Treaty System.
      unquote
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60th_parallel_south

      Southern Ocean - CIA
      https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world.../print_oo.html‎
      The Southern Ocean extends from the coast of Antarctica north to 60 degrees south latitude, which coincides with the Antarctic Treaty region and which ...

      Delete
  67. It's better if we don't cause any suspicion I think. We just call it a tourist cruise around Antarctica. Better if they don't know the real purpose of this trip. What do you think? If we tell them we are looking for the wall on a flat earth if it is the case we will never get permimission. What do you think. It's just us organising a tour. But they will find out anyway with our posts. It will also be hard to charter a cruise ship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't thought it through that far yet. I'll think on it some more before answering. If you're following


      I haven't thought it through that far. I'm currently following the Treshnikov's mission to see how things work out for them. See my latest posts at http://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com


      Delete
  68. Rick, thanks for this blog. All I wanted to know was the length of the coastline of Antarctica. I had heard some whispering about flat Earth and had seen a map and thought nothing else of it rather than Interesting. But this blog of yours has a lot of stuff to contemplate. And raises more questions than answers.

    Why has no-one crossed over the continent by foot or aircraft? Why has no one circumnavigated it in more recent times? Of all the great achievements left to do on Earth, why is no one trying to go around the Earth top to bottom?Why do so many countries have Stations there?

    And then it makes me ask also...

    1: How is 93 million miles calculated as the distance to the Sun?
    2: Measuring a distance based on where light beams come from a cloud is like measuring the refracted light waves from a prism to get an origin and all it will do it tell me where the light starts to refract rather than the distance to the source. Bearing in mind, in flat Earth the source is under the dome.
    3: I have seen Mars through a telescope. If this is outside of the Dome in what way does it or the other Planets play a part to us? How does this relate to the Dome and its edge in Antarctica?
    4: Would other Earth Ponds see the same Stars outside their domes as we do? Mars, Saturn, Jupiter?
    5:Is there any footage of looking In to the interior of Antarctica (opp the direction of the Sun or North as it may be) from either Ground level or from Height? It would be interesting to see if we could possibly see a demarcation line from a Dome. (Keeping in mind, if this is a high tech dome, like in Hunger Games then it wouldn't be seen until you touched it)
    6: If Satellites do not exist in Space, it would mean Each Shuttle launch would require a Launch Station we know about to get the shuttle up and out of our sight and a Secret Launch Station to relaunch it back into the air, so we can watch it come back in to land. Reminds me of the movie Contact with Jodie Foster with a Secret 2nd site built. You wonder if a lot of work at an Antarctic Station was tunnel related? Why not 2nd launch site related?

    And then related, if we have seismic activity in all parts of the planet, could such activity create a gap under the dome? Or would this dome go Deep into the ground?

    My biggest puzzlement is related to gravity (or whatever you want to call why we have an up and down). For flat Earth to work the idea of gravity needs to be completely rethought. Or the Below part of FE would need to be long so our being pulled to the center of mass doesn't see us get pulled sideways when we live further out from the N pole. And then This would mean, trying to go Out from center (which would also be the equal of going Inland on Antarctica) would see the Force pulling you back in more and more until you couldn't go any further - dome or no dome.

    Anyway. I have rambled long enough. Thank you for the blog!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just saw this now-- I'll respond over the coming week. Lots there.

      Delete
  69. Michael, you're driving me crazy. Just kidding. I'm already crazy. Thanks for your points.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Encountersnepal.com is professional and Lengal Trekking Company in Nepal
    and Base Located Trekking Agency,
    and Most top Package is Trekking in Nepal
    With fair deal.

    ReplyDelete
  71. How is it possible to directly fly from Vancouver, BC Canada to London England (and the reverse trip) in approximately 9 hours airtime in either direction if the earth is spinning??

    ReplyDelete
  72. The globe theory is that the atmosphere sticks to the earth like velcro and that the plane swims through the moving air-- that moves with the earth from east to west-- faster than the earth (and the velcroed atmostphere) moves. Good question for globists, of course. Thanks for it. Have you flown that route by the way?

    ReplyDelete
  73. The complete blogs are really inconceivable and definitely everyone will share this information.
    Seattle Tacoma Airport arrivals
    Washington Dulles Arrival times

    ReplyDelete
  74. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  75. A Decent attempt at trying to map out Antarctica by bases on the ice ring, BUT I notice you have the flat earth map 90 degrees off. I have never seen a flat earth map with the continents in the locations you proposed. PLEASE EXPLAIN. because doing so will give you those red numbers you. A true flat earth person is smarter than to accept anyone's word for it should you (prove)either model geocentric or heliocentric. I think Your Model is flawed either by design or legit miscalculations. If legit or a disinformation attempt, we will debunk it if presented as flawed in any manner. GOOD LUCK!!! as we are not easily fed information without evidence to back it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just eyeballed it. It's not intended as accurate but rather as a concept right now. I'm surprised I'm off by 90 degrees... that's a lot. I tried to put Rothera south of south America which it is and I tried to make it so McMurdo and Scott are south of Australia-- which they are. There are problems, naturally, with the space in between which is what you might be referring to. But there are lots of problems. I had hoped to inspire others to recreate this concept and do a better job since my map is only a trial approximation.

      Delete
  76. The BBC are getting paranoid about the Flat earth movement and NASA hoax. Today they had a program about the space shuttle program and earlier this week interviewed Shackleton's great nephew having crossed Antarctica to the South Pole using 4 petrol vehicles!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sir Ernest Shackleton's grandson becomes first ... - Daily Express
      www.express.co.uk/.../Sir-Ernest-Shackleton-grandson-Antarctica-family-car‎
      Apr 20, 2017 ... PH • GETTY. Sir Ernest Shackleton's grandson has become the first person to travel across Antarctica. Patrick Bergel battled snowstorms, ...

      https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ernest+shackleton%27s+grandson%22&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&oq=%22ernest+shackleton%27s+grandson%22&gs_l=heirloom-serp.3..0i30.62420.62983.0.63589.5.5.0.0.0.1.159.386.1j2.3.0....0...1.1.34.heirloom-serp..3.2.227.0xBPKIOwNWw

      Ernest Shackleton descendant completes Antarctica mission | Daily ...
      www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Ernest-Shackleton-descendant-completes-Antarctica- mission.html
      Apr 19, 2017 ... ... commemorate Shackleton's heroic Transatlantic expedition of 1914 to 1917. Ernest Shackleton's grandson crosses Antarctica in a family car ..

      Sir Ernest Shackleton's Grandson Becomes 1st Person To Cross ...
      www.nairaland.com/.../sir-ernest-shackletons-grandson-becomes‎
      Sir Ernest Shackleton's great-grandson becomes the first person to cross Antarctica in a family car after recreating the legendary British ...


      https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ernest+shackleton%27s+grandson%22&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjG-eT12PTTAhVS9WMKHe0VD6oQ_AUIBQ


      Patrick Bergel battled snowstorms, treacherous terrain, dangerous crevasses and temperatures which plunged to -28 for the epic adventure.

      He covered more than 3,500 miles behind the wheel of a Hyundai Sante Fe which completed the perilous journey to the South Pole and beyond travelling at an average speed of just 16.5mph.

      Intrepid Patrick undertook the ultimate road trip to commemorate the centenary of Sir Ernest Shackleton’s heroic Trans-Antarctic expedition of 1914-17.

      http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/793905/Sir-Ernest-Shackleton-grandson-Antarctica-family-car

      In contrast to Shackleton’s three-year expedition, Patrick took just 30 days to cross the frozen continent - a journey which had only previously only been accomplished by special vehicles fitted with tracks instead of wheels.

      This was a proper expedition with a challenge to accomplish that nobody else had done before
      Patrick Bergel

      http://www.google.com/search?q=patrick+bergel+shackleton&num=100&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjSnKKE2vTTAhUD4WMKHZ6rCygQ_AUIBQ

      http://www.google.com/search?q=patrick+bergel+shackleton&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=vid&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWpIKV2vTTAhUPw2MKHfipAjc4KBD8BQgG

      Delete
  77. how stupid flathearters are?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Rick do you have an email I can reach you at?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah people have already made the point. YOur flat map doesn't show accurate distances at all. NY To LONDON vs. Pretoria to Canberra for example should be less than 2X the distance from well established navigation data over the centuries and modern flight data all corresponding.

      Let's put it this way. The distances can't be any MORE than what is well established. Right? It could be we have not found somehow the shortest path yet. Right Rick?

      Ok so then it could be even less distance from Canberra to Pretoria in particular since it's the longest run and hence has greatest chance of that kind of error existing.

      But on YOUR map...the distance is 4X roughly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      C'mon Rick...that's not right. Your map is thoroughly bogus. Where did you get the data of 60,000 miles to go around Antarctica? I've never personally done it but I read less than 12000 miles even sticking to the coast.

      Anyway sticking to the point..your map doesn't work. Produce one that does and is flat or your theory is a joke.

      Delete
    2. I thought it was a joke too-- until I started considering all the anomalies associated with a trip around Antarctica. Then it became less and less jocular. (Is that the adjective for the noun?) The map is a concept that accomodates those anomalies in a radical way to be tested and considered. Thus this blog. And thus your post about accurate distances. You have every right to be upset and I thank you for your critical feedback. It's what I'm here for. This isn't a religious cult after all-- it's a search for truth. If my work turns out to be a complete waste of time-- over 3 years-- I certainly have the ability to shrug my shoulders, walk away and ask myself "what's next?".

      Now about those nagging distances: I just happened to have run across an updated flat map based on accurate spherical world distances... let me have my coffee and breakfast, do some other run-of-the-mill errands here in Phoenix today... and I'll prep that updated map JUST FOR YOU! I have to find and review the video of the guy who did this work but I've been mulling it over for about 3 days now... and it seems quite interesting and exciting-- especially when just slightly inebriated on my favorite ancient Sumerian alien created beverage (beer). I might even try to reinstall what "they" say are research stations. I'll certainly include some basic lat and long. lines. Maybe your flight paths that you cited above.

      And about that 60,000 mile perimeter. That's the point of my planned voyage-- to test for that-- because you say yourself that you"ve "read" that it's 12,000. Well-- these days, you can "read" just about anything can't you? The point is -- is what you're "reading" truthful?

      If it were easy to figure this issue out, I wouldn't be blogging on this topic. But like Jack Kennedy said about the fake moon landing he perpetrated- "we don't do things because they're easy, we do them because they are hard". What JFK didn't realize was that faking the moon landing to this day is getting harder and harder for NASA what with their hair-sprayed funny-hair women astro-nots handing by wires in the fake ISS. Similarly, as we get more serious about the possibility of a flat earth, it gets harder and harder to prove. Because it's hard to prove anything. My auto tech said my left read tire was bulging and separating. I looked myself, 3X last night. I couldn't see where it bulged and separated. But he said it so now I have to prove it and change it instead of sailing around Antarctica. My wife's teeth are falling out despite my dentist telling me that a $5,000 laser gum tissue treatment would work. It did for awhile but then there was recidivism. We only bought time. EVERYTHING is hard to prove.

      You say "produce a flat map that works". That's hard. But as I said, I lucked out. I forgot about it. You reminded me. I'll get on it over this coming week. Thanks for rubbing my nose in it. No, really. It's polite critical attacks like yours that inspire me.

      Delete
  79. Some points to consider/debate

    A/ IF this World is flat, then there is no North Pole or South Pole - instead there is a "central pole" and a "perimeter line". This makes compass readings confusing - For example if you are positioned North of the Central Pole you would have to go South to reach what we know as the "North Pole".

    Assuming the North Pole is Central, Then wherever you are on the World a compass will point to the centre (what we know as magnetic North) and there will be no specific South Pole. Despite the mainstream theory of a 'Globe' this points more towards a flat world scenario

    B/ IF the "perimeter line" is real (ie flat Earth) then it would seem that there is 'anecdotal evidence' of land beyond the perimeter. This would suggest to me a number of possibilities. Firstly a series of other Worlds, perhaps in some sort of honeycomb/hexagonal formation - for there to be life (as we know it), in these 'sectors' each one would need it's own 'Sun' or it would be a World of Ice and darkness . Alternatively, it could be that we are indeed living on a globe but we are actually a flat plane at the top of the planet, at the centre of a 'gyrosphere' or at the bottom, on the inside of a "Hollow Inner Earth" - this would help to explain the dome/firmament/Van Allen belts as being the inside of the "Outer Earth's" crust.

    What is also interesting is that 'we' have never drilled beyond 7.5 miles into the Earth's crust (Kola Superdeep Borehole in Russia) - are we drilling in towards the centre or drilling out from a hollow inner?

    Anyway, moving on, little is known about what lies on the Antarctic land mass and even less is known about what lies below the water line - how far does the Ice go below the water and is there a way through and beyond the perimeter line? could a submersible plot a path through to 'escape' from this world - or even have some sort of drill to try and forge a path to what lies beyond?

    It seems to me that we are possibly being held in some sort of prison/holding cell, on the other hand perhaps our whole world from central pole to perimeter is in fact Atlantis?

    I have other questions/theories but will wait to see if this garners any response before adding anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Gleason map shows the circumference of Antarctica is 24,000 miles.

    ReplyDelete
  81. On Gleason map, each of the "rectangles" from the longitude and latitude lines are exactly the same area though the are different "sizes" on the map. The 3000 miles across the USA is covered by 3 rectangles similarly across Austraila is 2500 miles and covered by 2.5 rectangles. Each rectangle is therefore 1000 miles. We simply look at circumference of Antarctica and count the rectangles and see it is 24,000 miles around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, wouldn't that mean every circumference on the map is 24k miles? I mean, up where the USA is, they might be smaller but there would be 24 of them around the circle, thus 24k miles. And everywhere is 24k miles going by that, as each circle has 24 squares in them.

      Delete
  82. Uhhhhhhhhh..... ok. Interesting idea there Joe. I'm wasted on a beer right now-- but will be sober in the morning. Please include a diagram if you can with your next post. I'll review your idea very soon as a matter of importance. Thanks for your insight.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Bottom line, they're hiding it. They're not hiding it because they want to hide the globular Earth, now are they? Alrighty then. Get a fleet of drones, circumnavigate the damned thing, get an accurate measurement, and be done with it. Chances are, everyone making such an attempt will be coopted, every drone intercepted and/or hacked, and no information being allowed out of the mysterious black hole that is Antarctica. The bullshit factor is through the roof.

    ReplyDelete

Hi, I'm Captain Rick of the Virtual Circumference Voyage of Antarctica. I intend to prove definitively if Earth is flat or a sphere by paying careful attention to how many miles we cover as we travel "around" Antarctica. Flat earth theory says it's 50-60,000 miles. Spherical Earth theory says it 14,000 miles. Join me and ask any questions that you think would help our mission.

Latest Entries