The Antarctic Treaty was signed on December 1, 1959 by 12 countries, but did not enter into force until June 23, 1961.  There are now 50 nations that have signed or accept the treaty.  This treaty that supposedly prevents us from finding the “edge of the earth meeting the dome of the firmament” did not come into existence until years, decades, or even centuries after the explorers I cited.  This pretty much tells any thinking and rational person all they need to know about the credibility of the “flat earth fantasy”.  “If” the earth were flat someone would have been to the edge by now.

Here is the actual text of the Antarctic treaty https://www.nsf.gov/geo/opp/antarct/anttrty.jsp

In Reply #163 we read:

In any case, shortly after they closed off Antarctica, the US started this nuclear program ...

Shortly thereafter they hastily created NASA and the "space" program, etc. ... 

As I docuмented, the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 but did not take effect until June 23, 1961.  NASA was founded on July 29, 1958, nearly three years before the Antarctic Treaty took effect.  Just some more of the "careful and accurate" research that proponents of the "flat earth" are so proud of . 

Also, the treaty doesn't "close Antarctica" nor does it preclude private scientific investigation.  There is a link above to read what the treaty actually says.

Glad to hear it, Stanley, but I just posted the question of water curving.

So now I'm curious - are you blonde?

--

You've probably heard the story of the blonde flight attendant who got stuck in her hotel room. It had two doors - one went to the bathroom and the other had a sign saying "Do Not Disturb".

--

A passenger asked a flight attendant why their flight was delay two hours. "The pilot heard some weird noises and saw smoke from the engine and it took us a while to find another pilot willing to fly the plane."

I'm open to believing that centuries-old scientists (most of whom where catholic and who described some variation of FE) were WAY more knowledgeable than our current, social media indoctrinated, public school educated, fast food eating, tv watching avg american.  Seems to me that most people ignore FE simply due to intellectual laziness and also fear of the unknown.

All Catholic scientists starting from St. Bede (born 673 AD) believed that the earth is a globe.  This includes other Doctors of the Church like St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas,  and St. Robert Bellarmine.  The Catholic university system included teaching spherical earth as a main part of its curriculum throughout the Middle Ages.  One can still read the most influential of the books used in these astronomy classes, De sphaera mundi published in 1230 http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/sphere.htm .

While sphaerical earth was never a religious dogma, it was accepted by all educated Catholics from medieval times onward, including the greatest minds in Christendom.  This is my main reason for believing the earth is a sphere.  (The idea that Catholics used to believe in Flat earth is a falsehood introduced into modern thought as anti-Catholic propaganda.)

Before the Medieval period we have records of a few Church Fathers who believed the earth was flat and a few who believed it was a globe.  There was no consensus among the Fathers and most were silent on the subject.  If anyone is interested in more details and references, please see my posts in the appropriate subforum.

Oh, I have more!!!

--

The flight attendant asks a passenger if he wants a drink.

The passenger asks what are my options.

"Yes or no".

Could the liquid in their glass curve?

The Church model at odds with Galileo and Copericus was a stationary spherical earth.  This form of geocentrism corresponds to the dominant historical Catholic belief.

Honestly, a lot of the debate is due to semantics.  Sphere/flat/globe can mean many things to many people.  I define "flat earth" (and I might be wrong) in a catholic way - a sphere shape, flat terrain, with a "atmosphere dome".  You could call it a "flat earth with dome" or a "globe shape, with flat earth" or a "sphere shape earth with flat terrain".


The point is, I reject the atheistic definition of "planet earth" where earth is a ball and the terrain actually curves and the earth moves.

I am not aware of any precedent for using the terms the way you do.  Personally, I prefer to describe the earth as a sphere since that is the main Catholic practice historically.

You also believe in evolution, don't you? Or some sort of modified form of it? 

Honestly, a lot of the debate is due to semantics.  Sphere/flat/globe can mean many things to many people.  I define "flat earth" (and I might be wrong) in a catholic way - a sphere shape, flat terrain, with a "atmosphere dome".  You could call it a "flat earth with dome" or a "globe shape, with flat earth" or a "sphere shape earth with flat terrain".


The point is, I reject the atheistic definition of "planet earth" where earth is a ball and the terrain actually curves and the earth moves.

Same here, literally like every other culture in history. 

Which one looks more like a footstool to those here?

I don't need FE to prove that geocentrism is true, but it does help.  But the real reason is, i'm undecided on FE, but i'm also not scared to explore the possibility.  I'm open to where the truth leads.  I'm open to believing that centuries-old scientists (most of whom where catholic and who described some variation of FE) were WAY more knowledgeable than our current, social media indoctrinated, public school educated, fast food eating, tv watching avg american.  Seems to me that most people ignore FE simply due to intellectual laziness and also fear of the unknown.

Wow, honesty at it's finest. *This* is the most excellent approach, but how few employ it.