no flights EVER go over Antarctica, whilst thousands fly over the North Pole each day; despite similar weather conditions.
Because there's more places to go over the NP than over the SP, as the Southern hemisphere doesn't have as many destinations where you could travel quicker over the SP.
For starters you are overstating the amount of traffic by a few decimal points. Second, no one really needs to travel from Australia to Argentina. It's not exactly a high traffic route.
Instead, we see those thousands of flights 'directed' over a common channel of travel (a high way of the air you could say); requiring planes to stop over in multiple continents, very much out of the way; and using MUCH more fuel.
This cost is offset by having a lot more smaller flights people are likely to travel on, opposed to one long route people are less likely to travel on. The airlines can sell tickets to all the these small flights and not have to worry about not having enough people to make the flight a profit.
Why inconvenience everyone to this extent? What is in Antarctica?
Ice and penguins. Unless you think The Thing is a documentary.
I suspect that there's little demand for flights from Western Australia to South America (with only one big city located in the West - Perth, while most of Australia's bigger cities are in the East, hence the only needed route is the one "scratching" Antarctica).
We have disproportionately more population located on the Northern Hemisphere, hence why the northern pole region is traversed more frequently.
Take a look at this map - you will see that the majority of Australia's population lives on the East Coast - there's only one airport in the North, and one in the South-West (Perth) - at the same time there are 6 airports in the East / South East.
This means that the main airports are located on the East Coast.
Any flights from Asia will fly in their vicinity because if there's a technical issue, they can land and fix / unload.
I suspect that there's little demand for flights from Western Australia to South America (with only one big city located in the West - Perth, while most of Australia's bigger cities are in the East, hence the only needed route is the one "scratching" Antarctica).
This is what I said. There is demand, just not from Western Austalia (from which a more logical path would be directly above the Antarctica). There is some demand for flights from Eastern Australia, where the majority of the population resides, and where most of the airports are located.
Routes from Eastern Australia to South America scratch the Antarctic continent, however, there are very few direct flights, as most of South America's population is located in the northern part of the continent, so a flight over the Pacific Ocean is equally viable (as above Antarctica), but less dangerous.
Australia has few citizens (24m). Most citizens are on the right (east) side of continent. Flights from the east fly above the edges of Antarctica, but most flights are over the big ocean (pacific), because more people in South America live in the north (up).
You either deliberately fail to see this logic, or have hindered comprehension.
It's not a matter of distance. It's a matter of demand for flights to a certain destination.
I mentioned West / East because on the West coast, there's only one big city - Perth. If you want to fly from Perth to South America, you will be taken to the East coast (ie. Brisbane), and you will take a different plane directly. Why? Because chances are that there will be few passengers from Perth going to South America, whereas there will be MORE from the East coast.
Why do you think it has no relevance? I explained to you that there are in fact flights over parts of the Antarctic continent, and the absence of flights directly above the South Pole can be attributed to economics (low to nil demand).
I agree there's something fishy about the South Pole, but I can't quite place what. One thing that gets me is the ancient Byzantine map drawn up by Admiral Piri Reis which was made from other sources (dating back to Alexander the Great at minimum) which show Antarctica not covered in ice, and with rivers and mountain chains which we, ourselves, didn't discover until the 1950s when Britain & Sweden went to explore the area.
So, basically, there's a chance life began near the south pole then spread up to Africa and beyond. It could also explain the story behind the great flood/Atlantis, etc.
You make some good points in OP and answers. I think Antarctica is fishy too, but i don't really see a way to get a sense of what's going on there on the internet. So i'm left with the impression Antarctica does hide some important things... along the impression i can't find out anyway.
Boring! I guess i will just upvote you hoping you find and post something interesting on the subject. Altough i know it will be hard to make happen, sadly.
Unlike flying over the North Pole, flights over Antarctica to get to another continent or country is obviously a ridiculous waste of time, money, and fuel.
Also, Antarctica should be preserved from mass human activity because our species has already wrecked the other 6 continents with massive amounts of pollution.
Not trying to debunk as I find this fascinating too, but, flights don't go over there because a rescue by boat would be near impossible. If you really want to you can though http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Good point, the north pole is pretty different to Antartica and more places are in the northern hemisphere? Just guessing now though TBH.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Admiral Byrd found something worth hiding too though.
Why is it being heavily guarded by military? As if we cared about pollution.... then we would be doing something about it in our own backyard. I think that is just a cover for something else we are not being told.
You're greatly underestimating the size of Antarctica compared to the Arctic. Also, weather conditions at the South Pole are far more harsh than up north.
It's not impossible to fly, it's just that there's only one place to make an emergency landing that would give the passengers a chance at survival.
Also, that record high temperature was at one location the furthest away from the South Pole. Check out the diagram in that article. So unless you propose that airplanes only fly over one outpost, your argument that "Antarctica is warm" is false/moot.
Pretty sure you don't get frostbite in the Sahara ;)
Also, with there being multiple flights over that region a day, and having many Air Force bases in the area, emergency crews can easily be scrambled.
Anyway, your whole post and comments seem to border on an "argument from ignorance". You're "fishy" about Antarctica because you're too lazy to research anything about it. I can't force you to learn, so I guess you'll just have to continue being "fishy" about a large continent that's covered in ice.
Why do planes CONTINUE to fly over the Sahara; hundreds of times each day?
Why do planes CONTINUE to fly over the North Pole: thousands of times each day?
Because they're directly between departing and arriving locations. And it's worth the economic risk. Use your head.
defended with military force to protect the sovereign Antarctica Treaty System, are never crossed
Defended from what? Tourists? It's not like there's a permanent flotilla surrounding the continent. You can go down there any time you want, but it's at your own risk.
Planes...NEVER fly over it
That's already been addressed and debunked by other users.
I assume this is the end of our debate, as your position seems untenable.
By this logic planes should travel a direct route from Australia to South Africa; because there are thousands of flights each day. MORE than the Sahara.
How many people do you think would buy a direct flight from Australia to South Africa a day? 100? Probably fewer. Now you know why those flights are so rare (although they do exist).
Planes are not ALLOWED to in Antarctica
Yes, they are. I don't know why you're ignoring that fact.
look at all the military treaties there, everyone all acts like we got beef in the real world yet we all also co ordinate together to secure the border to the south.
It's on some of the oldest navigation maps known to man, shown accurately without the ice. This map is even more surprising in it's portrayal of Antartica.
In a century of constant warfare, almost all of the countries of the world agreed on one thing: that you shouldn't be allowed to explore Antarctica. They were also really quick to get drone regulations passed so you can't fly drones on their 'guided tours' there, nor can you actually locate a magnetic south pole via a compass.
Antarctica is also the only 'continent' that doesn't appear on the United Nations flag, which just so happens to show the Flat Earth map.
The truth is Antarctica doesn't exist as a continent, the Earth is Flat, and the more this information spreads the more you'll see these disinfo topics attributed: concave earth, hollow earth, moon hologram, and the ever favorite among disinfo artists: lizards.
Tour operators will either prohibit the use of UAVs altogether or only allow them to be operated under strictly defined conditions
They don't define the strict conditions (earlier versions banned UAVs completely) but go on to state that all requests to use UAVs must go through an "Annual Environmental Impact Assessment by a relevant Competent Authority/government agency".
52 comments
20 jacks1000 2015-10-28
Because there's more places to go over the NP than over the SP, as the Southern hemisphere doesn't have as many destinations where you could travel quicker over the SP.
6 muhelos 2015-10-28
I don't have a globe at hand, but wouldn't an Australia to South America flight be quickest over Antarctica?
3 thing_on_a_string 2015-10-28
the chances of survival if anything happened to the plane over Antarctica...
there zero chance of any diversion to a safe airfield if anything malfunctions.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
-1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
6 Durzo_Blint 2015-10-28
For starters you are overstating the amount of traffic by a few decimal points. Second, no one really needs to travel from Australia to Argentina. It's not exactly a high traffic route.
This cost is offset by having a lot more smaller flights people are likely to travel on, opposed to one long route people are less likely to travel on. The airlines can sell tickets to all the these small flights and not have to worry about not having enough people to make the flight a profit.
Ice and penguins. Unless you think The Thing is a documentary.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
3 DaneelR 2015-10-28
You make a good point:
http://digital-vector-maps.com/world-maps-detail/1547/Globe-Map-Antarctica-Centered-Adobe-Illustrator.htm
However,there are a few routes that scratch the "western" part of Antarctica:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PolarRoute.png
I suspect that there's little demand for flights from Western Australia to South America (with only one big city located in the West - Perth, while most of Australia's bigger cities are in the East, hence the only needed route is the one "scratching" Antarctica).
We have disproportionately more population located on the Northern Hemisphere, hence why the northern pole region is traversed more frequently.
-2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 DaneelR 2015-10-28
Well done taking that out of context. I said there's little demand for flights from
WESTERN AUSTRALIA
http://www.aunztravel.com.au/images/site/au-map.gif
Take a look at this map - you will see that the majority of Australia's population lives on the East Coast - there's only one airport in the North, and one in the South-West (Perth) - at the same time there are 6 airports in the East / South East.
This means that the main airports are located on the East Coast.
Any flights from Asia will fly in their vicinity because if there's a technical issue, they can land and fix / unload.
-2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 DaneelR 2015-10-28
Again, take a look at the second picture I provided:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/PolarRoute.png/600px-PolarRoute.png
There have been flights over parts of Antarctica.
Do you have a link with said thousands of flights daily from Australia to South America?
1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
1 DaneelR 2015-10-28
Yeah, I posted it 11 hours ago.
Do you have a link with said thousands of flights daily from Australia to South America?
-2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
4 DaneelR 2015-10-28
I did check it out, I found no trace of thousands of flights from Australia. Please - provide a source for this claim.
-1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
1 DaneelR 2015-10-28
No.
This is what I said. There is demand, just not from Western Austalia (from which a more logical path would be directly above the Antarctica). There is some demand for flights from Eastern Australia, where the majority of the population resides, and where most of the airports are located.
Routes from Eastern Australia to South America scratch the Antarctic continent, however, there are very few direct flights, as most of South America's population is located in the northern part of the continent, so a flight over the Pacific Ocean is equally viable (as above Antarctica), but less dangerous.
-1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
4 DaneelR 2015-10-28
Ok, I will ELI5:
Australia has few citizens (24m). Most citizens are on the right (east) side of continent. Flights from the east fly above the edges of Antarctica, but most flights are over the big ocean (pacific), because more people in South America live in the north (up).
You either deliberately fail to see this logic, or have hindered comprehension.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
4 DaneelR 2015-10-28
It's not a matter of distance. It's a matter of demand for flights to a certain destination.
I mentioned West / East because on the West coast, there's only one big city - Perth. If you want to fly from Perth to South America, you will be taken to the East coast (ie. Brisbane), and you will take a different plane directly. Why? Because chances are that there will be few passengers from Perth going to South America, whereas there will be MORE from the East coast.
That's how economics works.
-1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 DaneelR 2015-10-28
Why do you think it has no relevance? I explained to you that there are in fact flights over parts of the Antarctic continent, and the absence of flights directly above the South Pole can be attributed to economics (low to nil demand).
0 DaneelR 2015-10-28
Do you have a source for that 1600 flights a day from Australia to South America ?
11 shmooly 2015-10-28
Read Fingerprints of the Gods.. Hancock draws an intriguing hypothesis regarding Antarctica's past.
TL DR; 'The Lost Continent' ring any bells?
2 ShakesJr 2015-10-28
This is where I would drop my chips. Flat earth? Nope. But something that would flip the history books on the history of our species for sure.
9 KizzyKid 2015-10-28
I agree there's something fishy about the South Pole, but I can't quite place what. One thing that gets me is the ancient Byzantine map drawn up by Admiral Piri Reis which was made from other sources (dating back to Alexander the Great at minimum) which show Antarctica not covered in ice, and with rivers and mountain chains which we, ourselves, didn't discover until the 1950s when Britain & Sweden went to explore the area.
So, basically, there's a chance life began near the south pole then spread up to Africa and beyond. It could also explain the story behind the great flood/Atlantis, etc.
2 Gogkti 2015-10-28
You mean Britain and Norway?
1 KizzyKid 2015-10-28
Apparently It was Britain, Norway, and Sweden, and for some strange reason I always manage to forget Norway was a part of it.
5 Icaria25 2015-10-28
You make some good points in OP and answers. I think Antarctica is fishy too, but i don't really see a way to get a sense of what's going on there on the internet. So i'm left with the impression Antarctica does hide some important things... along the impression i can't find out anyway.
Boring! I guess i will just upvote you hoping you find and post something interesting on the subject. Altough i know it will be hard to make happen, sadly.
8 yellowsnow2 2015-10-28
Admiral Byrd said there was a huge amount of resources there including a lot of uranium. Maybe that has something to do with it.
Killer mutant penguins or something :)
4 FortHouston 2015-10-28
Unlike flying over the North Pole, flights over Antarctica to get to another continent or country is obviously a ridiculous waste of time, money, and fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
Also, Antarctica should be preserved from mass human activity because our species has already wrecked the other 6 continents with massive amounts of pollution.
5 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
10 barrygateaux 2015-10-28
it's because no one needs to fly over it, and it's out of ETOPS range, so too dangerous.
the only countries that need to use the southern route are new zealand, australia, and argentina. going over antarctica would take them off course.
http://i.stack.imgur.com/hIg1i.gif
more info in discussions here
http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/4310/what-if-any-regularly-scheduled-airline-flights-pass-over-antarctica
and here
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2372669/
9 IntellisaurDinoAlien 2015-10-28
Not trying to debunk as I find this fascinating too, but, flights don't go over there because a rescue by boat would be near impossible. If you really want to you can though http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
5 die-microcrap-die 2015-10-28
A little bit off topic, but that site gives me a vibe of coming out of starship troopers and the Truman show.
2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
11 IntellisaurDinoAlien 2015-10-28
Good point, the north pole is pretty different to Antartica and more places are in the northern hemisphere? Just guessing now though TBH.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if Admiral Byrd found something worth hiding too though.
13 metabolix 2015-10-28
Why is it being heavily guarded by military? As if we cared about pollution.... then we would be doing something about it in our own backyard. I think that is just a cover for something else we are not being told.
5 76one 2015-10-28
You're greatly underestimating the size of Antarctica compared to the Arctic. Also, weather conditions at the South Pole are far more harsh than up north.
1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 76one 2015-10-28
Why does that sound fishy? It makes total sense to me.
Again, it just sounds like you're underestimating the size of Antarctica and the conditions down there.
1 That_Guy381 2015-10-28
People live in the Sahara. No one lives in Antartica.
People live close to the North Pole (Barrow, AK, Nuuk, Greenland, Murmansk, RU)
No one. And I mean no one lives anywhere close to Antartica.
-1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
1 76one 2015-10-28
It's not impossible to fly, it's just that there's only one place to make an emergency landing that would give the passengers a chance at survival.
Also, that record high temperature was at one location the furthest away from the South Pole. Check out the diagram in that article. So unless you propose that airplanes only fly over one outpost, your argument that "Antarctica is warm" is false/moot.
1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
0 76one 2015-10-28
Pretty sure you don't get frostbite in the Sahara ;)
Also, with there being multiple flights over that region a day, and having many Air Force bases in the area, emergency crews can easily be scrambled.
Anyway, your whole post and comments seem to border on an "argument from ignorance". You're "fishy" about Antarctica because you're too lazy to research anything about it. I can't force you to learn, so I guess you'll just have to continue being "fishy" about a large continent that's covered in ice.
1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
0 76one 2015-10-28
So if planes fly over a large desert and aren't found again...why are you surprised people don't want to fly over Antarctica?
2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
0 76one 2015-10-28
Because they're directly between departing and arriving locations. And it's worth the economic risk. Use your head.
Defended from what? Tourists? It's not like there's a permanent flotilla surrounding the continent. You can go down there any time you want, but it's at your own risk.
That's already been addressed and debunked by other users.
You know what they say about assumptions ;)
2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
1 76one 2015-10-28
How many people do you think would buy a direct flight from Australia to South Africa a day? 100? Probably fewer. Now you know why those flights are so rare (although they do exist).
Yes, they are. I don't know why you're ignoring that fact.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
0 76one 2015-10-28
Care to address the questions instead of talking about Internet points? I find it odd you've changed subject so suddenly.
1 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
3 whatisauthority 2015-10-28
look at all the military treaties there, everyone all acts like we got beef in the real world yet we all also co ordinate together to secure the border to the south.
3 calledawarnobodycame 2015-10-28
Love to know whats under that ice. Its a mysterious place for sure. Whatever happened with that drilling project to the lake underneath the ice?
3 DJNoRequest 2015-10-28
Lake Vostock
3 calledawarnobodycame 2015-10-28
Thanks, a great read.
2 totallyabsurd 2015-10-28
antarctica dry valleys ...
http://mentalfloss.com/article/23863/vacation-mars-antarcticas-dry-valleys
saw these on an David Attenborough documentary , thought some of you may be interested .
Seems so weird .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Dry_Valleys
2 make_mind_free2go 2015-10-28
sure is something going on, but sorry, it's off limits.
1 SIMONBELMONT20 2015-10-28
Look into hollow earth theory.
0 metabolix 2015-10-28
I was just thinking about this yday. What if there is more land and it is being kept from us! :D
1 DaneelR 2015-10-28
You are so right, maybe the earth is flat and antarctica is actually a big ice wall surrounding the disc?
/s
2 metabolix 2015-10-28
Rulers used to lie all the time about new found lands (or size of lands wrt each other), it could be the case ...
7 IntellisaurDinoAlien 2015-10-28
It's on some of the oldest navigation maps known to man, shown accurately without the ice. This map is even more surprising in it's portrayal of Antartica.
0 high-priest-of-slack 2015-10-28
In a century of constant warfare, almost all of the countries of the world agreed on one thing: that you shouldn't be allowed to explore Antarctica. They were also really quick to get drone regulations passed so you can't fly drones on their 'guided tours' there, nor can you actually locate a magnetic south pole via a compass.
Antarctica is also the only 'continent' that doesn't appear on the United Nations flag, which just so happens to show the Flat Earth map.
The truth is Antarctica doesn't exist as a continent, the Earth is Flat, and the more this information spreads the more you'll see these disinfo topics attributed: concave earth, hollow earth, moon hologram, and the ever favorite among disinfo artists: lizards.
0 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
2 high-priest-of-slack 2015-10-28
Here:
They don't define the strict conditions (earlier versions banned UAVs completely) but go on to state that all requests to use UAVs must go through an "Annual Environmental Impact Assessment by a relevant Competent Authority/government agency".
Looks like civilians won't be getting through.
-19 rieekan243 2015-10-28
Oh my god, GENIUS!!!
Whoa, like whoa whoa whoa!!! This means there are aliens there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10 [deleted] 2015-10-28
[deleted]
-2 Icaria25 2015-10-28
Someone has to work those shitty jobs after all. I hope this is the reason, the alternatives are being 10y old or severely FUBAR. ( u/rieekan243 )
-8 DaneelR 2015-10-28
OP will try to claim that the Earth is flat, most likely.
8 KizzyKid 2015-10-28
OP claimed nothing; you'd just rather dump a theory you disagree with on his lap so you don't have to bother thinking any harder about Antarctica.
"There's something fishy going on down there..."
"SURE! The earth is flat!"
"No, it could be used a nuclear testing ground without public knowledge by people involved with the treaty."
"Oh, so now it's aliens? Nutjob!"