RE: The final intractable problem for the Flat Earthers...24-hour sun at the South Pole.
“there is no way a person could be standing anywhere on a southern "wall" and see a Sun circle all the way around without going down-- “
I think the Antarctic sun films are from a specific or maybe a few different places commonly visited in Antarctica. There’s nothing logical about it having to be visible the same way from every spot on a supposed ice wall, if there is one, nor does the ice wall have to exist at all for a plane model to be plausible.
The ice wall really has nothing to do with it in my mind. Could exist or not & Antarctica could still be its own continent independent of it.
I see it as being from one specific location so let’s consider all possibilities that could explain what was seen at that location. If the same phenomenon is recorded at the same time from a different location then we would have a lot more interesting evidence to think about.
I haven’t sought much new info on this subject in awhile. I found it to be the most triggering divisive subject I’ve ever talked to people about so figured my free time would be much better spent studying the economic systems of control. But, I’m happy to give my opinion when I see potential for open minded thought & discussion. I definitely do not believe I know anything for certain
"There’s nothing logical about it having to be visible the same way from every spot on a supposed ice wall, if there is one, nor does the ice wall have to exist at all for a plane model to be plausible."
Every spot on an ice wall surrounding a flat earth disc with a sun circling over the disc as commonly portrayed (and nothing else can explain night and day well on a flat disc with a single sun as described in the Bible) would be always:
A: See a sun that is always relatively low to the horizon, even in summer.
B: See a sun that comes into view, rising on one side of a roughly 120-degree maximum arc, and exiting below the horizon on the other end of said arc.
A Sun that circled all the way around a person positioned on an ice wall at the edge of a disc would not be able to do the other things it must do to be fulfilling the other known elements of sunlight and darkness we see throughout the world.
This is kind of fun, isn't it cs?
Trying to think philosophically logical is almost always fun for me.
I think you are setting unnecessary constraints on your theoretical model.
Why does an ice wall have to be included in your thought model, if we have no proof an ice wall even exists?
There could still be an Antarctic continent similar to what we are taught if it were a plane. False flat models are easy to disprove, but disproving one does not disprove all potential flat models. It is a very common debunk tactic that is very flawed. They tend to jump from disproving one questionably sane persons model to claiming the debunk disproves all other models ever.
If there were an Antarctic continent on a flat Earth, someone would have sailed/flown to the non-Antarctic ends of the Earth and taken pictures of whatever the ends look like by now.
Why does there have to be an end?
Is there an end to space?
Are you really saying the Earth is infinite?
Why not? I was raised to believe space was infinite, & the powers that be seem to love to twist truths
LOL...ok. But the Earth is NOT "space." You're just toying with me now, bro.
No, I’m actually serious 😂 an infinite sea level type earth in all directions to infinity is one of my favorite possibilities to think about. Alien worlds might just be across the pond off the map somewhere. Not saying it’s my highest probabile possibility, but it is definitely one of my favorite models to kick around my brain.
You’re the second person in the thread to accuse me of not being serious!
I try to keep my mind open to all possibilities. A friend of mine recently told me he thinks I’m limiting myself thinking the earth might be flat. I asked him who has more possibilities to imagine, someone who believes the world is 100% a spinning ball or someone who can kick around either thought model without bias? Twice as much thought potential by my math.