California Flat Earther admits partial defeat after trip to Antarctica
sfgate.com
sfgate.com
> “We have to go back to the drawing board to address the preponderance of evidence,” Whitsitt said of the 24-hour sun observation.
Why does it matter whether you're consistently going south or not? Even if you're not in Antarctica because the Forces-That-Be fooled you somehow, you're still somewhere on Earth with a 24-hour sun.
If you're somewhere on Earth with a 24 hour sun, but it's not anywhere near where the scientific establishment says the 24 hour sun should be, I don't think you'd jump to the conclusion that the standard scientific model of a round earth is correct...
If you suddenly discovered Mexico had a 24 hour sun, wouldn't that mean that most of what we've been taught in school was a lie?
The heliocentric model, our shared astronomic model, it's all a lie. Someone has been intentionally printing these globes all around the world that do not match observable reality, and telling kids in school that it does.
So you cannot say "there is not another shape that fits" because you would know nothing about how the universe works.
> Whitsitt and Campanella were right to assume they’d be under attack from their community for confirming the existence of the 24-hour sun. For days, Whitsitt has been arguing on social media[0] with conspiracy theorists who are accusing him of faking the entire trip.
Although even their model should not allow for a 24hr sun during the Northern Hemisphere winter, in December.
The big deal about a 24hr sun is that almost every flerfer is on the record saying that a 24hr sun is impossible in Antarctica, and making up conspiracy theories about governments preventing people from going to Antarctica, etc.
> Flat Earthers stress that the 24-hour sun does not exist, as in a model where the Earth is flat, the sun must rise and set each day.
But I'm sure that between any three flat earthers are four different theories, and the article could have easily gotten that slightly wrong.