Seth

Hmm, seems like you are refusing to accept things and want to play games. How about the official line? Certainly clarifies the access issue and the fact that people are going there in significant numbers: Antarctic Tourism - Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition (asoc.org) CURRENT TOURISM ISSUES What makes Antarctica a particular concern is that there is no regulation of tourism at present. Apart from an obligation to conduct prior Environmental Impact Assessments - which tourism operators are required to do - there is essentially no constraint on where you can go, what you can do, and how many of you can do it. The practical consequence of this is that tourism is already exerting pressures on the Antarctic environment, and the increasing commercial interest is changing the nature of the Antarctic political regime. Tourism operators have good intentions. Our case is not that there should be a prohibition of Antarctic tourism. It is a legitimate activity. But its legitimacy is contingent. Tourism must be subject to some constraints, and it must not compromise Antarctica's established designation as a natural reserve, devoted to peace and science. If it is not to become a destructive facet of human activity in Antarctica, it cannot increase endlessly and it has to accept some limits on the types and locations of activities.

That is nothing to do with hiding things when the scientific community they are there for the purpose of actually finding stuff. It's one of those arguments based on pure speculation and should be accompanied by some sort of dramatic music. It's also that thing about absence of evidence is not evidence of absense - it's speculation through a legitimate restriction. I for one am glad that the masses are not ferried in in buses with McDonalds and Kentucky joints all over the place!

This is not true, none of it is compartmentalized. You can travel anywhere you wish, the treaty is a generalized block for what it can be used for. The Antarctic Treaty (1959) - British Antarctic Survey (bas.ac.uk) Is it illegal to go to Antarctica? - Combadi - World Travel Site Anyone can visit the continent. There are no territories. You can travel anywhere in Antarctica. That's an entirely different matter - it's hardly a popular tourist destination by volume, so the companies who provide tours need to charge accordingly. Safety is their major concern and the company insurance alone would be substantial.

Go back and read what I am replying to, the circumference of the globe on the 60th parallel is 10,000 miles. It's neither bold or inaccurate - basic math: Antarctic Circle - Wikipedia The circumference of the Antarctic Circle is roughly 16,000 kilometres (9,900 mi). The area south of the Circle is about 20,000,000 km2 (7,700,000 sq mi) and covers roughly 4% of Earth's surface. Most of the continent of Antarctica is within the Antarctic Circle.

Nothing wrong with mistrusting officialdom but all you are doing is speculating that the science expeditions and stations are all trying to hide the things you suggest are there. My belief based on disclosed data is that they would shout it from the rooftops if they found anything of note.

Erm yes they can. Thank you for the challenge, which I have no desire to do in the first place, provide me names of any person who has attempted and failed. Also, show me someone's account of how they got on. As for the 66th parallel I'm betting that your bet would lose. The antarctic circle is 10,000 miles in circumference and you are suggesting that it is somehow policed all the way around? Anyone could go there if they were reckless enough and nobody would stop them, they'd just let the cold and the weather do it for them. But even so, anyone can go there with permission to any part they wish - it's not as though they will be escorted during their stay. Fly to the South Pole (polar-quest.com) You Can Travel to Antarctica—and Here’s How (quarkexpeditions.com) Sailing Antarctica: Record-breaking voyage around the southern continent (yachtingworld.com)

I'm happy that there is no mining there and that millions don't get allowed in to trash the place. That's what people do whenever they visit in large numbers. There's no benefit to governments in not mining the place and the control is an instance where the benefits far outweigh the drawbacks. Anybody could get in a small boat with provisons and explore the place without telling anyone. It's not as though the perimeter is guarded - it's just not practical for anyone to do it, or safe. Of course this absense of people and uncontrolled access leads to all these wildly speculative stories but none of it has any substance to back it up. Lots of people work there or visit: The Antarctic Population - Who lives in Antarctica? (coolantarctica.com) There are around 66 scientific bases in Antarctica, of which about 37 are occupied year round, the remainder are open during the summer and closed down for winter. There are about 4,000 people through the summer months and about 1,000 overwinter each year. The US base at McMurdo Sound has up to 1,000 personnel at the peak time, this is the nearest there is to a town. With such a rapid turn-over of people, Antarctic bases are more like oil-rigs or military bases than towns. The figures for the 2016-17 season show that there were 44,202 visitors. A little down on the figure of 47,225 in the peak season so far in 2007-08, though rising again after falling to 26,509 in 2011-12. The drop was due to the fact that large ships are no longer allowed to visit Antarctica due to fuel spillage dangers.

Thank you for your video, it's 1 hr 11 minutes long, would you tell me some key points where he presents actual evidence. I am aware of the hopes and speculation concerning life and sadly aware of the ongoing failure to confirm it. It would be fantastic for any space agency to confirm life there so if your scientist has done so it would be highly significant.

That makes no sense. Every nation agrees a treaty and none of the governments are authoritarian - that leads to open and mutual support. The idea is not to take one of the last untouched areas of the planet and turn it into a hellhole of mining and industry. It isn't a matter of trust, there are numerous groups of scientists doing their own research and sharing theior data and findings. As for there being more than ice and land, without evidence you are engaging in wishful thinking. It's a big continent at the bottom of the Southern hemisphere and there are plenty tour companies who can show you around. There are also many polar satellites that provide weather data.

This isn't about the ferocity of the Solar storm at all, it relates to the pre-oribital insertion of the satellites themselves. The solar storm increased drag in that part of the atmosphere to a point where their orbits decayed. Just bad timing, wrong place wrong time. Solar geomagnetic storms could threaten more satellites after Elon Musk's Starlink | Space On Tuesday (Feb. 8), SpaceX revealed that likely 40 of its 49 newest Starlink satellites that launched last Thursday (Feb. 3) were affected by a geomagnetic storm on Friday. The storm increased the density in Earth's atmosphere, increasing drag on the satellites as they were released and attempting an insertion phase into orbit. This drag kept the satellites from entering orbit and they will now burn up in our atmosphere.

No, I mean to distrust the 'evidence' like those in the OP (because it is just crap) and to trust evidence from an agency that publishes almost every single item of data online (because it can very often be verified). You didn't respond about the procreating on Mars issue.

You are not reading the report correctly. The issues relate to no gravity and not reduced gravity. It doesn't matter that you would weigh less because things will fall downwards just like on Earth. I'd trust them a thousand times more than some of the stuff generated online. Anyway, it isn't a matter of trust and always a matter of evidence, My favorite quote about keeping secrets: “Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” ― Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack

The experiments to which you refer are problems experienced with zero gravity or micro gravity in orbit - Mars has gravity and it has no relevance to the study. Despite numerous exploration rovers, there is not a single piece of evidence pointing towards life now or in the past.

It is the explanation. It's how they are formed and I am actually quite baffled why you would suggest alternatives to such an obviously logical and clear explanation. You doubt it? What in heavens name prompts doubt? I know you won't find any alternatives to such a straightforward process. Now you are taking the explanation for the long term depth and formation to dispute the base fact. The ice is formed by non melting ice being compressed. It never melts so must be covered by the next fall, and the next one etc. Anything 'can be said' to be anything by anyone. Being said to be something, however does not make it so. Your suggestions are just bare assetion and again extremely illogical with no evidence. There is nothing to gain from withholding data and based on the number of papers written on the antarctic region, everything to suggest that copious amounts of data are freely available. Possibly, but the idea behind securing the land, limits the mining and plundering of these materials whether they exist or not. What point are you making here?

It's the only one that explains its structure and it really isn't something that can be classified as a theory. Snow settles in extreme cold and compresses over time. The actual formation of the continent itself ties in with continental drift and clear evidence of coastline breakaway - this is the part that has many varying theories, but not a massive difference between them. Maybe you know of ones that are less publicised. I don't get what you are talking about. Precipitation can be viewed and assessed from a myriad of weather satellites. Though there are numerous scientific stations on the continent, it is by no means a confined place. Only the extreme cold makes this a place that sets it apart.