Yes, on a flat plane that happens. Picture yourself on a basketball court, size yourself down to where the court is as large as the earth, you would be much smaller than an ant. And when you look to the ends of the court you will not see them. Kind of like walking away and your legs disappear first. A flat plane, the horizon will appear to be eye level, yet all that water is under your feet. It's perspective how the ground lifts to your eyes, it really doesn't it's just perspective of the human eye. If the boat was lost because of the curvature, then any elevation from that perspective the horizon would drop, not rise. Because the boat is going over the curve.
Are you kidding me. Did you not watch the footage of "Operation Highjump", they had an old ice breaker, the ship still got stuck and Admiral Richard E. Byrd had lost men because of it. If your not going to attempt to fly there, which they say they cannot fly over Antarctica because of how cold it is. To get anywhere that man has not been, you will need an ice-breaker. And it could end up being that you don't need it, but better to have and not need, than need and not have.
I doubt it but regardless I'm confident the funding could be obtained. Anyway, surely all of your fellow flat-Earthers would be rushing to support the expedition that will prove them right?
That's not logical. Right triangles and all that. A squared plus b squared equals c squared. So if at 100 feet above the plane I lost the boat at 12 miles...that's 100 ft squared plus 63360 squared equals 63360.08 squared. Meaning that I can see the boat at a distance slightly longer than 12 miles. Why when I was at sea level did I lost the boat at only 3?
If you can name an ice breaker that can slam through that...I'll be very impressed. Yes there is a lot of ice at the edge of Antarctica, but it is a continent. Either a ring as you believe, or a island continent as I believe. Either way...it's a landmass.
Since you left my post alone, I thought I would just bring up your avatar once again. Notice the water droplet takes its natural spherical shape. I am sure you are just messing around.
Antarctica cannot be traversed by an icebreaker. An icebreaker needs water underneath the ice to work. Antarctica has been traversed by an airplane. In fact, Admiral Byrd flew over the South pole in 1929 in a propeller plane. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/byrd-flies-over-south-pole
Not to mention that there are tons of flights to the South Pole for tourists in the upper middle class and up. https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/ https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017 http://www.polarcruises.com/antarct...-pole-and-emperor-penguins/south-pole-flights http://www.icetrek.com/trips/south-pole-flight Now here be a bunch of folks who fly in and out of the South Pole on a regular basis and all the tourists who do it. You'd think that at least one of them fellers might have said "Hang on a minute. Thar's something might peculiar goin' on 'round these here parts." and posted it on social media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Paulus_Skiway This is the airstrip at the Anderson-Scott Polar Research Station. They fly the Lockheed LC-130 in and out of there on a regular basis. Several Flights per day in fact. The regular resupply missions are dubbed by the USAF as "Operation Deep Freeze" (although my uncle called it "Operation freeze yer balls off"...but not when my mother was around). Now. Several flights in and out per day. Wouldn't you think that someone might have gotten wind of this conspiracy to fleece the masses into believing in a globe-shaped Earth. And while we're on the subject. Why? What would be the point of it all?
Oh that's horse[bleep] and you know it. Everyone knows that the test nuke wouldn't even have rattled their China Cabinets.
Can you provide evidence that any plane fly's "OVER" Antarctica. For some flight paths it would be a shortcut on a ball. I guess they would rather go the long way around.
Planes flying below 72 degrees latitude need special survival equipment on board, and no commercial carrier would want to stock planes with all this stuff just to save a bit of fuel. It would limit the number of seats available. Still ignoring my water droplet post?
Wow...Just wow. You are so into the Conspiracy that you doubt something as mundane as the resupply of antarctic bases? That there is Antarctic Tourism? And besides, you're claiming that planes don't fly over the Antarctic because of it's too cold. What about the Arctic which is just as cold? We have planes that are designed to fly over the north pole to drop bombs on Russia and those were developed back in the '50s.
Why would you expect us to sit down and watch a two hour video and ask us to disprove it? A brief list of the highlights would be nice.
If flat-Earthers were able to function in society, they may make enough money to buy a plane ticket and see for themselves. Even a short flight would downgrade their insanity from believing its flat to convex!
There is no such thing as gravity.........that's funny. Don't feel bad though, some people believe in Santa Clause.
