Except that you can test for yourself how the universe works, and you haven't.
Are you anywhere near a port or busy beach town? It's SUPER easy to see what Columbus saw with boats disappearing bottom-first over the horizon as they travel away.
How does a geocentric world model explain boats looking like they are sinking rather than just getting smaller as they move away from a port?
How do you know what I have and haven't tested?
You can recreate the effect you are talking about over a small body of water, it literally has nothing to do with curvature. The ol' dilemna - Earth is too big to see the curve, but boats go over the curve. 😛
https://media.nostrie.com/-MiWT93MKqM/boats-curving.mp4
The issue with the claim that its curvature is you will constantly find yourself shifting the goalposts to find another reason other than the obvious one.
It's all well and good to think it's stupid, which I get - I made fun of it for years before I ever looked and listened to what they had to say. If you don't actually understand the positions, then how can you be so sure? Can you steel man the flat earth and geocentric positions?
> "You can recreate the effect you are talking about over a small body of water"
Um, no, you can't. If there's no curvature, then there's no hiding the bottom of the boat before the top. It's just that simple. I see nothing in your video that is evidence otherwise. (Not to mention the scale would be wrong.)
I can't shift any goalposts on a single claim. A claim that I am confident making, by the way, because I used to live near Long Beach and saw ships pulling out of LA's largest harbor daily. They always went 'over a hill' on the horizon, and never, ever, just kept shrinking until gone.
I won't try to 'steel man flat earth and geocentric positions.' It's not worth my time... But I can stand by a statement I've made and encourage you to verify, not trust, like I would to any would-be bitcoiner.
I mean, the video shows exactly that. You're suggesting the bottom of the rc boat isn't disappearing first? Even the guy conceded that point. This doesn't have anything to do with scale, it is done over a short distance to eliminate the variable of curvature. You can also recreate this effect over a flat, solid surface too, you could try it yourself. Boats are just one example, lasers are more definitive. Look up the FE CORE laser tests.
The only time there is curvature in a body of water is in your imagination, because it never exists at any scale - whether it be a glass of water, a pool, or a lake. Somehow, you think it's different in an ocean, but you have no photos of the curvature because it doesn't exist. This is simple cognitive dissonance that most people can't or don't want to overcome. It's the same as thinking that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning, everything would be flung in one direction at a 1000mph, even though we feel no motion. Completely ridiculous once you reconcile the absurdity.
If you cleared the slate and pretended you woke up for the first time today, then the default position is the Earth is stationary because we feel no motion. The claim that the Earth is moving is a positive claim, since it opposes our everyday experience, which means that evidence has to be provided for the claim.
The reason science came up for this was that it is all relative motion. After the MMX experiment failed to provide a positive result, Einstein stole most of 'his' work and combined with the work of Lorentz, created relativity, and then refining it further after more failed observational experiments into special and general relativity. Indeed, there are no experiments one can do to prove the motion of the Earth, which is why relativity exists in the first place - to explain away the lack of experimental results.
Where has that ended up? Oh, yeah, 'dark' matter. Something that cannot be seen or measured, but it 'has' to exist or else the whole theory is dead in the water. This is theoretical bullshit, no wonder many physicists are distancing themselves from that shitshow.
What you don't understand because you haven't examined the topic is there are dynamic and kinematic equivalences between the models, and that it is just a matter of how one chooses to interpret the observations.
I understand most people don't care about the topic, but having a hard opinion on a subject without examining the other side is no different to people who claim Bitcoin is a scam, but have put zero effort into understanding it.
The video shows nothing like what I'm talking about, only a few waves lapping the tiniest bit of the bottom.
The big ship in this video is like what I'm talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UySV0UeGfjU
That's the top 1/3rd of a ship.
I saw huge cargo ships with their hulls clearly visible and then hours later as they move out you can just see the cargo containers and then eventually just the very top level of containers as they disappear 10-15 miles away. (On a clear day.)
I saw the same effect in Bangkok and Oslo as well, very different conditions.
As for the laser tests, I've seen them done myself and they definitely get blocked. Period.
If you don't care to look, what are you trying to show me here? I have spent hundreds of hours on the topic, you're not showing me anything new. These are FE 101 arguments, I've moved passed these a long time ago. If you want me to help you work through the cog-dis, I would be happy to though.
If you think it's curvature, go find some footage which shows the curve from overhead, or at a side angle to that ship. Water doesn't curve homie, never has and never will. What you are looking at are optical effects due to atmospheric distortion, and these have been recreated in many ways to prove the point. You don't even need a horizon to do so.
https://audio.nostr.build/be639febb18fb415f8dfbcd45f878aee34fa395930ffd2032110d6d43cd9f709.webm
"As for the laser tests, I've seen them done myself and they definitely get blocked. Period."
Why are you lying dude? I literally posted a video of a laser being visible right at the start.
"Nah-uh!" 😂
They definitely don't, unless you're talking about the disingenuous "documentary" on Netflix that everyone tries to use as some sort of proof. Even honest globe proponents admit they don't get blocked because they can't explain the observations, and the argument has shifted to 'bending' light, which doesn't hold up when you can make observations of mountains from hundreds of miles away that should be hidden by a mile of curvature, and it is the silhouette that we can observe rather than a light. Just one example:
It's not just observations - line of sight radio transmissions have been done for hundreds if not thousands of miles, where the 'bouncing' of radio waves isn't done via the atmosphere, as has been
I see we just aren't getting anywhere because we don't trust each other's sources. Fine. How about we trust the commercial viability of an entire pair of flights that fly right over the south pole daily, each way, and has been doing so for decades?
Qantas QF 64 & it's return are daily flights that couldn't possibly be commerically viable if they flew over a flat earth. No matter if you beleive that the south pole is a perimeter wall or not, with no globe the huge distance between Sydney & Johannesburg would require more fuel than you could fill up the entire inside of the plane with!
Have any flat earthers explained (credibly) how the hundreds of people each day that take that flight were not really going over antartica like they thought they were, and didn't really arrive just a few hours (instead of days) like their tickets said they did?
For that matter, a flat earth would have flights over the north pole, like JL41 from Tokyo to London, go a lot faster than the curved path that they say they take. What are those flights doing up there for so long? Circling iceburgs to fool us all about the nature of the planet instead of commercially competing against rival flights?
Let me guess, you were unsuccessful in finding photos of that pesky curve?
It's not that I don't trust your sources, it's that you don't want to accept what you are looking at. You can literally go and verify those sources and calculations yourself. The previous world record photos are from a photographer that has nothing to do with the FE subject, and they are over hundreds of miles which is literally fucking impossible given the claimed radius and rates of curvature of the earth. It's very, very simple to check it, the problem is cog dis always gets in the way. This is like when I had to walk my friend step by step to show him they were manipulating data in 2020 and lying to us, and it took hours for him to start accepting certain things didnt add up, and thanks to that, he never took any stab juice.
See, this is how it always goes. First it was bouncing lasers off the moon, then you moved the next thing before moving onto the next thing. Now you're rehashing the fabled flights which have been discussed a thousand times. You don't want to examine anything for yourself, but I must explain all of this to you. I'm not complaining, just pointing that out.
First of all, no flights go over the Arctics, and none of these things are exclusive to a globe. Can you tell me how you verify ground speed over water when you're in a plane? Is it GPS? Does GPS use ECEF coordinate systems? Do planes fly assuming a stationary, non rotating plane? I know pilots, both private and commercial, I have gone over this with them too.
On the topic, it's just a coincidence that there are not an equal amount of times zone in the north and south? If I gave you a ball to divide into 24 equal sections, it would be a simple task. Yet, that's just another coincidence which would be better explained on a flat model, seeing as time zones would get larger in the south. And what do you know, there are only 14 in the Southern hemisphere. The explanation given from the globe side is hilarious. You don't need to try explain it to me, I've heard and seen the points before, but it's another thing for you to think about.
The issue is presuming that people who spend most of their time examining this topic aren't informed on the different arguments. Don't you think this would have been easily debunked by now? I thought so when in first fell into the topic.
Do you have any exclusive evidence the earth moves around the sun? Surely there must be one single bit of evidence you could point to which couldn't be explained from a geocentric point of view, right? Let's see how a PHD physicist fares in a conversation with a flat earther on the topic.
https://rumble.com/v2vx4nu-witsitgetsit-vs-phd-physicist-geocentrism-debate.html
> Let me guess, you were unsuccessful in finding photos of that pesky curve?
Of course I can't find photos of something that you think should exist but does not. What a silly concept.
> Water doesn't curve
Damn, drops of water and waves must not exist then. I've been so blind!
> You can literally go and verify those sources and calculations yourself.
That's my line.
> this is how it always goes. First it was bouncing lasers off the moon, then you moved the next thing
This is what must happen when you refuse to accept the evidence for the previous thing. Either that or we stop talking.
> Now you're rehashing the fabled flights
That's it? Your entire rebuttal to the subject of those flights that absolutely do exist is simply smearing them as "fabled?"
If they're mere fables then the millions of people that flew them must be in on the conspiracy?
> Can you tell me how you verify ground speed over water when you're in a plane?
You just divide the miles by the time. Each jet has it's own top speed rating. None of those commercial jets have one fast enough to make up the difference of an extra 10,000 miles or whatever it would take to make the antarctic flight on a flat earth.
> it's just a coincidence that there are not an equal amount of times zone in the north and south
Why in the world would the southern hemisphere need an equal amount??? No one lives down there! Time zones are a political boundary and there are far fewer countries in the southern hemisphere.
> Do you have any exclusive evidence the earth moves around the sun?
Nah, Galileo made some great points and I've never heard them properly rebutted. What I've observed of the nature of the solar system (and yes I have a nice telescope) lines up perfectly with Galileo's model.
So there are pictures which shows us seeing further than we should be able to, and your response is nahuh?
Surface tension on a water droplet isn't curvature dude 😂. If that was the case, are you suggesting the center of 'gravity' is in the middle of the water droplet? Honestly I'm amazed you actually tried to use that as an argument.
Did you not read my whole response? You claimed the flight goes over Antarctica, which it objectively doesn't. I went to flight radar and got the path for you.
Next, you ignored my question about how you establish airspeed vs ground speed. And now you're demonstrating that you don't even know tail winds exist, or how much difference they can make on flight times. What is ECEF and his does it relate to GPS? Are there coordinate transforms which occur when calculating flights and sailing routes?
Ah yes, political boundaries. I didn't realize the sun subscribes to those. Are you unable to understand that a sphere divided into equal 15 degree or 1 hour sections would necessitate that they are all equal, above and below the equator. Yeah, political boundaries, yet they somehow have to reduce the number of timezones in exactly the way that would be expected on a plane. How awfully convenient.
You, like most, don't seem to even understand your own model and the claims made. Galileo? What in today's model relies on his work to function? Maybe I should start with the basics. Without deferring to Google, can you define gravity in your own model? Can you elaborate on the fine tuning problem? How about the anisotropic measurements of the CMBR, how do you reconcile those? What about the fact that the tychonian model has less epicycles, making it a simpler and more viable alternative to the current model?
You got a telescope, does it have auto tracking? Calibrate it then point it at Jupiter. Now note the claimed distance. Now, without refocusing, send your telescope to the moon. Now, explain to me how it's in focus.
> So there are pictures which shows us seeing further than we should be able to, and your response is nahuh?
No, my response to that particular claim would be:
A. How do we know how far that ship really was?
B. How do we know the video wasn't doctored?
C. Look at those waves! They lift your ship up and down but if the ship was really as big as it looks, they'd just be lapping upon the hull. That ship simply can't be what & where it appears to be, and that should be obvious.
> Surface tension on a water droplet isn't curvature dude
You didn't specify what the force creating the curve was. Going forward I'll assume you mean gravity-specific curvature.
Of course that brings me to one of the root reasons I strongly believe that everything large in the solar system is a sphere... The explanation of mass as a basis for gravity simply makes tons of sense. It's easy to conceive mass clumping together in the weightless vacuum of space and creating objects like planets. It's not so easy to conceive a bigass flat disk that somehow has mass pointed downwards. What's causing gravity to flow in that direction? It doesn't make any sense. Nor do orbits, the fact that water balls up when dropped, and a thousands other observed phenomena!
So many mathematical formulas wouldn't work either, like good ol' e=mc^2. We literally would be set back to the absolute stone ages if flat earthers' ideas of how the universe worked were accepted in mathematics. Suddenly, nothing would work anymore as you change the formulas to reflect that 'reality.'
> You claimed the flight goes over Antarctica, which it objectively doesn't
Dude, you realize that weather causes pilots to change all flightpaths drastically, right? Check again some other time. I've seen a different path take that same flight very close to the pole.
> you ignored my question about how you establish airspeed vs ground speed
No, I told you why that line of reasoning is stupid. Stop trying to measure apples to oranges when you should be thinking about how many miles away the orchards are.
> now you're demonstrating that you don't even know tail winds exist
Lol, same again. A cross-pacific flight gains or loses about 2 hours depending on the direction... So a 1 hours average in, let's say, a 7,000 mile flight path is simply not enough to account for the massive, massive, MASSIVE distances (100,000 miles?!?) that flights around the south pole would take in a flat earth!
Modern airlines simply do not have the fuel capacity to get anywhere near it if you flatten the globe. Tailwind arguments are just bikeshedding.
> Ah yes, political boundaries. I didn't realize the sun subscribes to those
Oh boy. You were the one that brought up the lack of time zones that exist in the south. No one brought up Lattitudes, just time zones, which are inherently political boundaries.
> 1 hour sections would necessitate that they are all equal, above and below the equator
Those are lattitude lines. Politicians didn't care for them very much.
> yet they somehow have to reduce the number of timezones in exactly the way that would be expected on a plane.
I have no idea what you're referring to here.
> can you define gravity in your own model? Can you elaborate on the fine tuning problem? How about the anisotropic measurements of the CMBR, how do you reconcile those? What about the fact that the tychonian model has less epicycles
Typical unnecessary technobabble employed only when you're being backed into a corner. There is no good reason to use these words in this context.
In Florence there is a great museum to Galileo showcasing things like his telescope and all kinds of gravity experiments he conducted. I think they said for every experiment on display there were 50 more back in storage. When I was in my late 20's I went backpacking around europe and spent a few weeks in Florence, absolutely in love with that museum and the town. I'll never forget all the different ways he found to measure & affect a ball rolling down a track. That was true science.
I honestly don't know what half the words you just used mean but I do feel I understand gravity better than most after seeing those experiments. A bunch of wooden tracks and metal balls that tell us plenty about the nature of this existence of ours.
Calibrate it then point it at Jupiter. Now note the claimed distance. Now, without refocusing, send your telescope to the moon. Now, explain to me how it's in focus.
Easy. Focal points in a telescope are not linear, they are exponential.
That means it takes less turning of the knob to focus from the moon to jupiter than it does from someone standing 10 feet away to someone 100 feet away. I find myself refocusing wildly between all terrestrial objects but objects inside the solar system are pretty much the same focal distance, and interstellar objects are just pinpricks of light anyway so it's impossible to say how much you need to refocus for those.
In response to the distances question, here is the website for the photo which held the longest distance ever photographed record - I think it has been beaten out since.
https://beyondrange.wordpress.com/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/
Pull up a curvature calculator and check the numbers for yourself, and then try to explain how we are observing something that should be obscured by over 1km of curvature.
Next, you couldn't even be honest and concede that surface tension isn't an example of water curving based on gravity, which is obviously what we have been discussing this whole time, or how else are you claiming that large bodies of water are curving?
Mass attracting mass was superseded by relativity, which claims that gravity is the warping and bending of space time. Once again, flat earthers have to educate globers on the very things they cling to like a religion.
What causes things to clump together? Electrostatics, because everything is electric.
You're straw-manning the FE position by calling it a disk. No one claims that, but you think this because you have never even listened to the other side. What causes a downward bias on the inertial plane? Electrostatics, which are a much stronger force than gravity claims to be. Electricity and magnetism is another topic, but you obviously hold the mainstream position on what that is, even though you nor a physicist could define what a field is, or explain magnetism. Gravity is an effect of electricity.
> So many mathematical formulas wouldn't work either, like good ol' e=mc^2.
Why not? Go ahead, explain why this wouldn't work in a geocentric model.
You're once again working off assumptions, like light travelling, which is what the formula relies on. The perceived rate of induction (which is what light is, a coaxial circuit) changes depending on the medium light travels through. So, explain to me where the energy comes from for light to speed up once it has passed through a glass object?
Funny how the people who came up with our entire electrical grid understood that light doesn't travel, but that it is an aether perturbation modality. That, however, has little to do with FE but relates to the topic of magnetism, dielectricity and the aether.
Tailwinds vary in direction and speed depending on the altitude. Uninformed claims. You're also avoiding mentioning GPS, which uses an EARTH CENTRED EARTH FIXED (ECEF) coordinate system, and is the basis of how all calculations with regards to flights and sailing are done.
> Oh boy. You were the one that brought up the lack of time zones that exist in the south. No one brought up Lattitudes, just time zones, which are inherently political boundaries.
Firstly, I messed up what I was saying by inverting the reality - there are many more time zones in the South.
> Those are lattitude lines
I'm not talking about latitudes, time zones are along longitudinal lines my guy, from North to South.
> I have no idea what you're referring to here.
One a globe, these should all be exactly the same. You're not grasping it. Will you watch a skipper who has sailed over 100,000 nautical miles and competed in races around the world explain this issue to you? It's a 20 minute presentation.
For example, the US lies on the same LATITUDE in the North as Australia does in the South. They are roughly the same distance across, yet the US has 4 time zones and Australia has 2.
> Typical unnecessary technobabble employed only when you're being backed into a corner. There is no good reason to use these words in this context.
LOL! You almost did the thing and called it a word salad. No, dude. These are the fundamentals of physics and what modern science is centred around when it comes to cosmological models. But, once again, you haven't spent any time on the subject so you couldn't possibly know anything about the very thing you BLINDLY believe in. I was just proving that point, and I wasn't expecting you to know those things.
To give you some context, the cosmic microwave radiation (CMBR) was measured 3 times at different Lagrange points by "space" agencies. Each time, they found that the Earth had a unique position based on the distribution of the cosmic radiation, which was anisotropic, meaning that it had a preferred direction which all points back to the Earth. It was dubbed the axis of evil. They can't explain it, it "must be wrong" or "it's inconclusive". It has been measured independently on 3 separate occasions. It is objectively is very conclusive.
What they come up as explanations are things like multiverse theories to explain the issue. What's the simplest, most obvious explanation those results? The Earth is fixed in a 'special' position, at the center of everything. Robert Sungenis has a documentary on this which you can find on YT called The Principle. For reference, he's a geocentrist but doesn't think the Earth is flat.
> That was true science.
I tend to agree that what people did in the past was much closer to resembling science than the theoretical horse shit spewed out by paid off retards today. Mental circle-jerking morons that can't even define basic things like fields and magnetism - in reference to 'scientists'.
All of that which you just described has been superseded in your own model. It is completely irrelevant today.
> I honestly don't know what half the words you just used mean but I do feel I understand gravity better than most after seeing those experiments.
Most people don't know those words. That's the whole point. You understand gravity better than most though? Then explain it! You referred to mass, then you referred to Einsteins equation within the frame of relativity. Newton's gravity (mass-mass) was replaced with general relativity because of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment.
You're only making my point for me - most people have no idea what they believe, because they have spent no time on the subject, even in terms of what the mainstream 'experts' tell you to believe.
This is why it's so painful to discuss this in a meaningful way with people who willingly choose to remain ignorant on the subject.
On the last point, the focus is manual on the telescope and it required no adjustment between Uranus and Jupiter, and the moon. That was through a Celestron CPC 1100 if I recall.
> find myself refocusing wildly between all terrestrial objects but objects inside the solar system are pretty much the same focal distance
... which suggests that the celestial bodies are not at the claimed distances apart.
The globe model is as fiat as it gets, most people are not ready for the conversation. However, just like Bitcoiners don't go back to being fiat maxis, there is no such thing as a "former" flat-earther. It only trends in one direction, and it only grows day-by-day.
geocentric Alpha. 🤌
you looked at The Principle yet?
Yes sir, I mentioned it in my response here.
isnt it funny how they call all the good things "axis of evil"?
It's crazy how the whole thing is treated. Those fuckers lie like their lives depend on it.
By the way, I got about 40 pages into Rene's book in PDF format and it is fucking awesome, but I hate reading on screens so I'm still waiting for the printed copy to arrive so I can dig in. I think it's going to take at least a couple of reads to comprehend it all.
good stuff
OMG I love flat earthers so much. keep it weird bro. I believe in you.
Most people don't care to understand the implications of these things, which is fine. But lets not pretend that the majority of what we believe is based on modelled, pseudo scientific nonsense that doesn't represent reality - at all.
I have to give you credit, you've studied down this rabbit hole so far that you make convincing arguments. I just want to give up at this point and let you suffer the consequences of all that misdirection from the truth, but there are so many other fun phenomena that prove the world is a globe that I just can't seem to stop thinking about them...
Like how about the way Eratosthenes calculated the earth's size waaaay back in 240 BC by measuring how shadows fell at different latitudes? Why are shadow lengths different if we're on a FE?
Or how about the simple way nighttime works? My family in Bangkok often sees the sun rise as I see it set and wouldn't the easiest way to cast that huge shadow be us living on a globe?
Or network propagation times? We can all measure distances around the planet in milliseconds by using a simple ping command... And no one seems to notice any pings that take longer than pinging the far side of the globe from themselves.
One thing you were right about though, I don't have a firm grasp on your model of FE. I know some think it's a simple disc & there is a huge boundary wall in Antartica instead of a pole. Others think it goes on forever. Some believe space exists and others don't. Some think other planets are spheres and only we don't have one. What exactly is your chosen model?
It would work the same way on a flat surface, too. Almost everything would work the same way, it largely comes down to interpretation of observations that differs, where I think the views don't align.
There is an effect called coffee cup caustics which quite adequately would explain the sun within the model. On the physics front, the models are very much equivalent, but when it comes to theoretical models of how it all works and looks, that tends to be speculation because only so much can be verified in person. Private citizens cannot explore the outer regions, only guided tours are allowed and it could cost 6 figures or more, plus the ol gov reserves the right to take your money and deny your application.
The disc thing is intentionally put out there to mislead people and make it seem absurd. We definitely observe round bodies in the sky, it can be argued whether or not they are spherical, but that wouldn't necessarily mean the Earth is too. This is a pretty good video that combines the unifying expression and shows a lot of how the model could work, and these geometric patterns work exactly the same way that magnetic fields do, within the non-mainstream explanation of magnetism. The plane (Earth) is the same as the plane of inertia in a magnetic field. It is known that the earth has a downward bias with a negative charge, and there is an measurable equipotential (steady) increase in electric charge the further we get off the ground. It is why lightning discharges on the Earth, always taking the shortest route and expressed in the same pattern. We can manipulate electrostatics in a way that can explain the phenomenon of gravity in a much more plausible and understandable way than through relativity, which is based on mathematical equations rather than repeatable experiments.
While I agree there are compelling arguments on the globe side, I consider the evidence stronger on the other side when it is properly examined, at the very least, a lot of it falsifies the globe model as it is taught. I'm open to it all being a simulation of sorts too. The oddities such as intentionally edited videos of the alleged 24 hour sun from Antarctica should arouse suspicion in any skeptic, because if it was true, there would be no reason to edit and lie about the footage. A 24 hour sun in Antarctica would be a big problem for FE.
Ultimately I try not to force my view, but I encourage curious people to give the topic an honest look, because it could change your entire outlook on everything as it did for me and many others.
Sorry about the delay, yesterday was a madhouse around here.
I tried to watch your video but honestly my eyes just kept glazing over from all his Jargon. FEers are going to have to make their explanations more palatable if they want to be heard.
> A 24 hour sun in Antarctica would be a big problem for FE.
I've been to Juneau, Alaska where the sun was only down for about 2 hours at night, at the height of summer, and locals there say they've been up to Barrow where there is literally no nighttime between May & August! Like this chart says: https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/@5880054
As you know, globe earth easily explains that phenomenon and says the opposite is happening in Antartica. How could that be true with FE?
> there would be no reason to edit and lie about the footage.
I have no idea which footage you're talking about, but I'm quite sure footage of the midnight sun is available from thousands of sources over many decades.
Your Eratosthenes meme is funny, but that source of light obviously isn't 94 million miles away, like the sun is. Those shadows would be very similar if done with sunlight.
A proper Eratosthenes experiment is very easy to do yourself, like this highschool teacher did on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_P0kbGsMrY
He saw the obvious angle change only 300 kilometers away. Maybe this would be an easy experiment for you to try yourself to reproduce.
It's funny that you said "Private citizens cannot explore the outer regions, only guided tours are allowed" because the number of tours to Anatartica, both cruises around and hikes to the mountains and polar station are becoming more and more common. Why would they take thousands of normies a year to a place that they are trying to hide?
I've been following a Youtube Travel volgger for years before she climbed Antartica's highest mountain. Eva Zu Beck did plenty of vlog episodes down there and she was an absolute nobody, without 1/10th the YT following she has today. This page should have all those Antartica videos: https://www.youtube.com/@evazubeck/search?query=Antartica
Are you suggesting that's not Antartica? Or that this polish chick who lives in her car is in on the conspiracy? Seems like it has to be one or the other.
"What's popular is rarely true, and what's true is rarely popular." I'm interested in the highest truth and nothing more, doing my best to eliminate emotion from the facts.
