At first, I was wondering why there was an Antarctica post. However, reading the comments definitely did make sense.
Admiral Byrd really did say, when he reached the Trans-Antarctic Mountains, that there was a vast land beyond. Knowing that the mountains were the last mountain range before the Ice Wall, and knowing the general coastline of the Ice Wall, "official," geographers edited maps to show that Antarctica had a big mountain, and then a massive Ice Field beyond. This generally makes sense on a round earth.
With one issue. Even with the advent of space-based satellite systems, exploration of the interior was limited, and still is. They insist that somehow, year-round, temperatures in Antarctica somehow rival Mars, while the North Polar region somehow is, on average, 30+ degrees warmer. And yet, winter temperatures manage to not dip much lower than the average. They base these measurements off of satellite data and about 10 interior weather stations. The continent has a polar climate, ok. But it doesn't explain numerous geographical and meteorological anomalies.
In regards to the fault the anon finds with the above image, I can't help but agree. From a logical standpoint, it should be very easy to get the exact same quality over East Antarctica and West Antarctica. Satellites follow very specific, fine-tuned orbits (supposedly), so why can't they go over both sides at the same time and get imagery?
What it looks like like to me is, everything from the Ross Ice Shelf to the Weddell Sea has been well-mapped at some point. But the other 180 degrees of Antarctic coastline has only been slightly mapped, and virtually none of the interior.
Ever wonder how satellites can fly over the south pole but never once catch a glimpse of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station?
"Oh, it's just because they can't show that far south on Google Maps!"
What about Google Earth and other globes? They don't show a black circle around either pole anymore. Yet still no south pole stations.
A common misconception is that satellites fly in mostly equatorial orbits, and that's why they can't photo in high detail the polar regions. That is BS. Common practice nowadays is to send satellites in a polar orbit, in such a way that they cover the whole planet every 16 to 17 days. This allows for polar as well as equatorial photos.
But, explain how we can get a vivid image of SATURN'S FRICKING POLAR HEXAGON, but we can't get a SINGLE THING, even CGI, of the South Pole.
Total BS. They are hiding more than you know. The truth will shock the world.
Q 928's last two lines read:
Risk of ‘conspiracy’ label the deeper we go.
Truth will SHOCK THE WORLD.
Don't double meanings exist? How about triple? Angela Merkel being Hitler's sperm matters little in the big scheme of things, but free energy? non-round Antarctica?
Agree. The flat earth thing is a red herring to distract from what's there. I think it is the ruins (or, like the pyramids, not ruins) of an ancient city with monuments or buildings that would be visible from space.
Very refreshing to actually have a person understand the post in the way in was intended. Just look at all the other replies and imagine how I’m smacking my forehead at the way they react.
At first, I was wondering why there was an Antarctica post. However, reading the comments definitely did make sense.
Admiral Byrd really did say, when he reached the Trans-Antarctic Mountains, that there was a vast land beyond. Knowing that the mountains were the last mountain range before the Ice Wall, and knowing the general coastline of the Ice Wall, "official," geographers edited maps to show that Antarctica had a big mountain, and then a massive Ice Field beyond. This generally makes sense on a round earth.
With one issue. Even with the advent of space-based satellite systems, exploration of the interior was limited, and still is. They insist that somehow, year-round, temperatures in Antarctica somehow rival Mars, while the North Polar region somehow is, on average, 30+ degrees warmer. And yet, winter temperatures manage to not dip much lower than the average. They base these measurements off of satellite data and about 10 interior weather stations. The continent has a polar climate, ok. But it doesn't explain numerous geographical and meteorological anomalies.
In regards to the fault the anon finds with the above image, I can't help but agree. From a logical standpoint, it should be very easy to get the exact same quality over East Antarctica and West Antarctica. Satellites follow very specific, fine-tuned orbits (supposedly), so why can't they go over both sides at the same time and get imagery?
What it looks like like to me is, everything from the Ross Ice Shelf to the Weddell Sea has been well-mapped at some point. But the other 180 degrees of Antarctic coastline has only been slightly mapped, and virtually none of the interior.
Ever wonder how satellites can fly over the south pole but never once catch a glimpse of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station?
What about Google Earth and other globes? They don't show a black circle around either pole anymore. Yet still no south pole stations.
A common misconception is that satellites fly in mostly equatorial orbits, and that's why they can't photo in high detail the polar regions. That is BS. Common practice nowadays is to send satellites in a polar orbit, in such a way that they cover the whole planet every 16 to 17 days. This allows for polar as well as equatorial photos.
But, explain how we can get a vivid image of SATURN'S FRICKING POLAR HEXAGON, but we can't get a SINGLE THING, even CGI, of the South Pole.
Total BS. They are hiding more than you know. The truth will shock the world.
Q 928's last two lines read:
Risk of ‘conspiracy’ label the deeper we go. Truth will SHOCK THE WORLD.
Don't double meanings exist? How about triple? Angela Merkel being Hitler's sperm matters little in the big scheme of things, but free energy? non-round Antarctica?
Some people on here still have very closed minds.
The Globalists are hiding something BIG in Antarctica
Agree. The flat earth thing is a red herring to distract from what's there. I think it is the ruins (or, like the pyramids, not ruins) of an ancient city with monuments or buildings that would be visible from space.
Dude, you have a 1/100,000,000 mind.
Thanks! That means a lot to me!
Very refreshing to actually have a person understand the post in the way in was intended. Just look at all the other replies and imagine how I’m smacking my forehead at the way they react.
Yeah. Belittling you, attacking you personally. Very unbecoming of an Awakened crowd.
With you 100%