 Hey everybody, today we're debating Flat Earth versus Globe Earth and we're starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate. Thanks so much for your patience, folks. We've got all these tech issues, but you've always been so loyal. I want to say thanks so much for being so kind to us, hanging in there with us. And we are excited for this debate. It's going to be a lot of fun. Really thrilled to have you here. Want to let you know if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more debates to come. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, we have Joel Patrick and Hunter Avalone debating LGBT and the Bible this Friday. That's going to be a lot of fun. So do want to let you know, folks, if you enjoy debates, there are plenty more to come and hopefully we'll see you there for that one. But one also lets you know for our guests who I cannot thank enough because they have been so kind in terms of both me rescheduling over the weekend. Very embarrassing. And then, you know, ultimately, I have to say I appreciate plain truth, but I especially appreciate Sean G because Sean G has put up with multiple delays. He has been just pumped for this debate. And so thanks so much to both of our speakers and especially Sean G. And with that, though, want to let you know first, both of the speakers, I put their links in the description for you folks. That way, if you're listening and you're like, hmm, I like what I'm hearing. Well, you can hear plenty more where that came from. Please click on these speakers links in the description so you can hear more. And with that, we are going to get started. So it's going to be flexible 10 minute opening statements. And then it's going to be open conversation. So we're going to have Sean G go first. He's representing the globe position. And I would let you know before we do let both Sean and plain truth out of their cages for the night. We're going to have a Q&A at the very end. So if you have a question, fire it in the old live chat. And if you tag me in the live chat with at modern day debate, when you ask a question will make it easier for me to make sure I get every question into that list that we'll try to work through at the end. And Super Chat is also an option in which case you can either make a comment during the Q&A or a question. And then, of course, the speaker would get a chance to respond to it. And Super Chat will also push your question or comment to the top of the list during the Q&A. So with that, very excited. And again, I can't say thanks enough. These guys that we really appreciate the me here, especially huge thanks to Sean for being patient with me. And so with that, Sean, the floor is all yours. Thank you, James. Can I jump in real quick? I'm sorry. Can I, can I take it back now? You want to go first? Yeah, because I pulled over, I pulled over on the shoulder. So I'm ready to go. That'd be best. Gotcha. Oh, that's right. And so you bet, Sean. You bet, Sean. So the voice that you're hearing right now is plain truth. So he's representing the flat earth position, and he is going to start right now. Thanks so much for being here, though, guys. I really do appreciate it. Yeah, you bet. And thank you, James. I do appreciate you were indulging my delay. Sean, again, thanks for being here as well as indulging my delay with work and all of those good things to my fans out there. I'm like, I'm like your beautiful prom date. I am well worth the wait. So here we go. All right, my claim is that. First of all, let me start over. My claim is very simple and I offer it as an alternative explanation to the primary explanation for the observation of objects beyond the horizon over a large body of water. This explanation is best summed up by Michelle Fowler and astrophysicist in a video presentation debunking flat earth on the channel Big Thing, where she gives this explanation. Anyone can go out to a large lake with a pair of binoculars. And if there are boats on that lake, the observer will notice that boats or ships far enough away appear to disappear from the bottom up. That is, they seem to disappear from the bottom up. The explanation for that apparent disappearance is that those vessels are going over the curve of the earth. My alternative claim is this. Due to the refractive quality of the air through which a person is making the observation, there will occur an apparent disappearance of either boat, ship, oil platform or island. A little history. When I began to make observations with my P900, I was convinced the mainstream understanding of the so-called shape of the earth was incorrect. And so I set out to make observations to test the alleged claims of both sides of the debate. I had no preconceived ideas of what exactly I would find, nor what exactly I should look for except for one thing. The mighty P900 could bring back into view boats which had previously been believed to have disappeared over the curve or horizon. This was my first debunk. That claim is invalid. The P900 does not. Nor is it able to bring back into view an object that has been obstructed by something else. Hear me again. The claim that anyone can bring back into view, say a boat after it has gone over the curve with a powerful enough lens is blatantly false. That is not what the P900 can do or does do. What the P900 can do and does do is extend the observer's eyesight farther than is optically possible. The human eye has limitations and one of those that can be used is sharpness or perception after a certain distance, otherwise known as acuity. When a person loses sight of a boat traveling away from her, she is, with the aid of an artificial oculus, able to extend her eyes reach to that object. Where was the object prior to that? Simply put, in the distance. My first preconceived idea was debunked. Hereafter, let no one make the inane claim that the mighty P900 can bring back a ship after it is gone behind the horizon. On with my history. My first aquatic observations were made on the Chesapeake Bay in Havarta, Grace, Maryland, around about July 2018. I have published that video a couple of times and some of the earlier episodes on my channel, The Plain Truth. And James has already said that he's put that link in the description box for you. So if you want to check out any of my content, you know where to go. In that first capture on the Chesapeake, I encountered my first exposure to what I would brazenly wordsmith as the aether band. Everybody drink. In that video, I saw numerous watercraft at a variety of distances. And as I panned by what I would affectionately call the Red Roof House, I saw, I saw a floating cork. That's all I knew to call it, because I didn't know what it was. And since it never broke the band, but stayed hidden deep in refraction, all I could say was, I saw a glaring light floating above the waterline. Now, of course, I know what I was saying. I was watching a boat motor laterally across my field of view. And since then, I've captured many more of these images, but with more definition in these subsequent captures, boats, ingress and egress through the medium. It was these observations would help, which helped me to begin to formulate my hypothesis that it is not the curve that makes it appear as though boats are disappearing bottom up. Rather, it is their transit farther away from the observer and further into the band of refraction that answers for their apparent disappearance. Since July 2018, I have spent countless hours on both the Chesapeake and Pacific Coast observing and capturing more and more evidence that this is in fact an effect of the medium, which presents the observer with an apparent phenomenon. This effect is best categorized as a mirage. A mirage is basically the optical illusion due to the excessive distortion of light traversing adjacent layers of air, whereby distorted, displaced or inverted images are produced. It is therefore a mirage, which is interpreted as Earth curve, whether the mirage is inferior, superior, towering, stooping, magnifying, diminishing, or whether the mirage is as of yet unclassified, as I have argued in previous videos and as I will argue in today's debate. It is a well-known phenomenon, mirages, but here, too, for it has been misinterpreted and it offers me the option, the opportunity to present my alternative explanation for the apparent disappearance of boats from the bottom up, which is due only ever and always to the aether band. Everybody drink. There you go. Thank you very much for that opening statement from Plain Truth, who, as I had mentioned, is on your right, looks remarkably like Mona Lisa. We will now switch over to Sean Gee. Thanks so much, Sean, for being with us and the floor is all yours. Thank you, James. I'm here to basically explain that Travis's aether band is only really just describing atmospheric optics in an everyday situation that science is very clearly shown to be what we call the index of refraction. Yes, miraging does obstruct objects to a certain degree, but it does not take away from the curvature that we do experience in everyday situations and observations. I'm here today to present not only clear footage that will show exactly what my argument is about. It was also footage that me and Travis were able to take together, so there is no confusion on what's going on in the situations. I'm also going to show that Travis has no disagreement on everything there is to do with the description of refraction and how it works, how boats and other objects will appear at certain elevations. The only thing that Travis will disagree on, because it does go against what he wants, is the fact that when things are obstructed, it is due to curvature as well. That's all I really need, James. Thank you. You bet. Thanks very much, gentlemen. And as I had mentioned, thanks so much for that heads up in the live chat. Because this is our third stream, because of those first two misfires, I have put both of the speaker's links. They are now officially there. So encourage you as you're listening and you're like, mm, mm, mm, I like that. You can get plenty more where that came from. Please click on those links in the description to hear more from these guys at their own channels. And so thanks so much, gentlemen. The floor is all yours. All right, Sean, do you want to go first or? Yes, yes, sure. Travis, so obviously we've gone through this quite a few times and one of the relevant questions that I've always asked you is how do you verify that only this easter band is what obstructs these objects? Well, it is the repeated observations of the same locations, whether it's a house, whether it is markers of topography or the island or lighthouse platforms. Repeated observations show different levels and expressions of these mirages, whether they're inferior or superior or whatever else there might be. So because of the limited amount of my ability, that is I cannot go out at the same time I'm making the observation. I can't go into the band and make observations and then give that kind of data back to someone else. That kind of stuff is going to be very helpful in the future. But basically the repeated observations where the refractive index changes, I can make and log and have data to provide to show that I have extended observations and I also have limited observations. So it's the contrast with those images. So what you're saying is that with the data you can determine whether or not the situation is your easter band or not, right? That's correct. And so as I said in my opening, as I said in my opening, honestly I admitted the fact that I believe that the mainstream understanding of the shape of our world was incorrect. But as I went into doing photography, I didn't know what I was going to find. So the only thing that I had in my back pocket was what you've seen on videos and that is P900 can bring boats back up over the curve. But I hope I made it clear in my opening statement that that was debunked. I mean, and I've made that statement clear and I've actually shocked a few followers by saying that, and they're like, I've never heard a fighter say that. I'm like, well, you hear them once say it now. So I didn't have any preconceived ideas. So when I was making my observations, that began and I'm like, what am I looking at? What am I seeing? How am I supposed to understand this? And so that I believe gave me a fresh start. Okay. Well, I'm not sure James, if they're able to see what I'm sharing right now. It's one of the images I wanted to present Travis, you know this image. This is the image of the one of the cargo ships that passed through the Anacapa Island channel. In this situation, would you say that there's a low level of refraction? Well, that's, that's a key, right? Because one of the things that I've tried to get clarity on from your side is what does that mean? Low level of refraction. High level of refraction, medium level of refraction. So, but to answer your question, I would say that there is a significant amount of refraction. Yes. And in your definition of refraction, what is that? How do you define refraction? It's simply, right? Simply the distortion of an object through the medium. Okay. So we can have refraction without a mirage, correct? Yeah, you and I have had this discussion. Yeah. Yeah, but, yeah, but we're on a platform where the discussion is needed to be said again. Okay. Well, actually with my opening statement, I made it very clear that mirage is what I'm calling all of these observations. So what you're looking at right now is a mirage. There's distortion. There's displacement. There's elevation. There's different, and as I said as well, I believe that what we're looking at right now either has been misclassified or has not been classified as a mirage. And that's what I'm here for. Okay. So in what you're saying is that there's a guess. So basically what's happening is, is that everyone would understand that refraction, it happens regardless of what you see a mirage or not. You're seeing in refraction. The photo that we're looking at Travis is obviously one you've seen before, correct? Yes, I have seen this. Yes. Okay. I'm zoomed in a little bit more onto it. Would you be able to identify, I know you're driving in it, but at how much above that ocean, that physical body of water right there, you would see miraging happening? Well, my interpretation of what I'm looking at is that we've got a magnification of this cargo ship. And the water as well has been what I would say, ramped up. It has been raised up refraction so that it appears to us the way that it does. But so you're saying that in this image, the ocean, the horizon is ramped up? That's correct. Do you remember your elevation when you took this picture? Well, you know how hard it is. I'm sure if you've ever tried to get even your iPhone or your phone to give you a correct elevation. I've been five feet above the Chesapeake waters. And when I checked my elevation with my phone, it says that I'm 10 feet. Well, I'm not. So accuracy is a little bit touchy, but I would say I would say no more than 15 feet. And I've usually logged it in as 10. Okay. So in this and what we're looking at now is obviously a screenshot of a video you took in the video you took you you expressed the fact that you were using a vessel finder. What did the vessel finder say your elevation was? Oh, I don't know that I took a vessel finder of this of this particular one. I didn't do it to all of them. I did it to some, but not all. I don't know. I don't know. In the audio of the video that you sent me, it does have the audio you saying that you were using vessel finder to find its distance. And also your elevation. I did take it into my account to do it myself. In this situation, we know that the cargo ship is about 17 miles away from you. Along with in another picture, you'll see soon. The Santa cat, the Santa Cruz Island, Santa Cruz and Atacapa. I'm sorry, both. Right. Well, Santa Cruz, it really depends on where you're at on the, on the shoreline. But I would say probably 20 miles. Okay. I'm popping up on the screen right now. You're where your observer is. And just so you know that I did that, the mileage and the distance for you where the middle line, this middle red line is going to be the place of where the cargo ship is to be approximate. Just so you know, Travis, and everyone else understands that I know this because I used the vessel finder and that will give you a accurate reading to where these vessels are actually are in the distances. When we look at that picture, Travis, you're saying that in that picture, there's a high level of miraging. I kind of asked where it would be at. Are you stating that the miraging is in the physical body of water we're looking at? No, the miraging would be in the air above the physical water. Okay. So every, the miraging is going to happen above the physical, above the physical body of water, correct? That's what you're stating. That's correct. Yeah. Okay. So then in your idea of what the ether band does, you're saying that ether band is what's obstructing the rest of this cargo ship. Well, the ether band is the medium through which we're looking and it is the cause of the effect. So it's not the ether band that is blocking. It's the mirage. The mirage is the effect of everything that constitutes the ether band, which would be air pressure, humidity, temperature, wind, everything that goes into what you would be comfortable classifying as a refractive index. Okay. So in this image we're looking at, what is the, what would you, would you agree that what we're looking at is a hazy day? It's, I would say because I usually, yeah, I don't know. This was, I believe that this was earlier in the day and It was at 321. Okay. Do you have a time stamp on that? Yeah. Okay. That's fine. I, you know, I, I shot all day while I was waiting for you to show up. So, you know, that's, that's fine. So usually when you, when you see the coloring of this, of this image like this, I'm using the dust and dawn setting. And that's usually, that's usually because the lighting is very, very poor. So if we want to attribute it to Hayes, that's fine with me. Well, I also do have the other images that you sent me that have, are that the regular shot, I guess you would without the, that Hayes, I can find that if you want me to. I mean, otherwise, I don't need it. Okay. Okay. So in that, I wanted to play the video that this, the screenshots came from, that is actually in that, that, that clear view that you're, you're just discussing or not with the filter you were using. And in this, I wanted to kind of illustrate what I'm saying. There's three things actually that need to be addressed in this. I'll go ahead and pause it so we can address this point right here. Yes. Yeah, no problem. Sorry to interrupt. For some reason, zoom, as I mentioned, I have no idea. Like this is like, it just surprised me. And I don't, I think it's because they just did an update. I've never seen it before where right now zoom, when I try to do a window capture, it for some reason just gives me like a completely blank screen. So I've been so far, I've been like pulling in like picture, like the, I've done screenshots and like pulled those in, but right now. Okay. If you want to take a screenshot of what's showing right now, that'd be perfect. I don't really need to play through this. You bet. I will do that. Also in this little hiatus, James, I just sent you an email of an image. If you want to just have that at the ready. I'll consider that Travis. Give me one second. Yeah, I don't need it right away. I just wanted to let you know that I sent it to you. The unusual thing is usually like just the perfect software, but for some reason today, I'm just baffled and taking these screenshots. Okay folks, thanks for your patience. I'm loading up the picture that is currently coming through zoom that Sean is wanting to share with everybody in that for some reason zoom is just being kind of difficult today. But don't worry. I can at least get you that picture. And I had taken a screenshot of it and I'm loading that instead. So right now you were seeing the screenshot from the video that Sean was wanting to show everyone. All right, they can see that now. Perfect. In this picture that I wanted to talk about, there's actually three body three physical objects that we can look at that are really important in this. We see the oil tank or the oil platform, which is at about nine miles. Travis jewelry. This one is actually. I'm sorry. Go ahead. This one's actually 13 miles. I apologize. Yeah, I was going to, I was going to ask you which, which platform did you identify? This is a grace. And how do you know that that's grace? I have a, a oil platform layout. And with the, with the Anacapa islands on the right side of this picture and the, the vessel path that they take through that channel, I can deduce that that is grace. Well, I would not, not to be too nitpicky, but the, the Anacapa island is its own archipelago. So the Anacapa islands are actually to the left. The one that's to the right that you're referring to is Santa Cruz. No, because of your orientation and where you were, it's grace. I can tell that because when the chips come through the channel, well, when the chips go through that channel, and again, I can show you exactly how I know that because also it will, I can't because of the way the zoom is working, but remember Travis, this is a video. And after about three minutes, you pan across Anacapa Island. You pan across Santa Cruz Island to find a fishing vessel. Then you track that and you track it back across Santa Cruz Island and across Anacapa Island. That's how I know. Okay. Well, let us stand for the record that, that I, I disagree with you. Okay. Well, if there's a way we can figure out how this video thing can work, James, you can see Travis, this is your footage. This is, you have your files. Okay. Well, I'm, I'm letting you know that I'm letting you know that in this footage, you pan and you track across Anacapa Island and you track across Santa Cruz. I'm not disagreeing. I'm not disagreeing with your description of my panning to the left and back to the right. I am disagreeing with your assessment that that is grace. That is not grace. Okay. Well, I can bring up a picture map. That shows you exactly how I can. That's great. I can show you numerous other images of this exact same problem is Travis. Okay. Yeah. I can show you numerous images of this exact same platform. It is not grace. Grace is farther to the right. Then is Gilda. This is Gilda. I'll bring up that. If you, I'll show you what exactly I know. Yeah. What I, that's, that's fine. But what I, what I did was I went over. I've actually found this periodical where this guy was doing marine studies. And he had all of the coordinates of the platform. So I've been. And just looked back over my location where I was. And so I'm just by right now that you're looking at Gilda. James. This is one of the ones that I want to, I would need to show for this part of the conversation. That shows exactly where everything is set up. And how I know which one it is. Okay. I have three pictures. And what I can show is, I'm not sure if you're able to show that one. I have three pictures. I can show, I've got one that's a map with three red lines. Yes. Okay. The Santa Barbara channel one. Gotcha. Okay. One second. And I'll get that one. I mean, ultimately, ultimately, it's either here or there. If you, if you want me to concede that it's grace, I'll concede it for the sake of argument. So if you want to just simply go on with making your point, I really don't want us to lose time and. Well, the main, the main thing is that I want to be very clear on where we're at and what we're looking at. So there's no confusion in the conversation about it. Now that's my main, the main thing I want to, to get across to everyone. So in that, James, I think the last one we were just at is probably perfect again. The, the last picture with the platform and the tanker in it. Okay. So now that we know, we've verified the distances for these, these objects, the platform, the cargo and the island, which really doesn't make any matter to this conversation right now. Cause my point would be come across right now. Travis, where is the horizon in this image for you? Travis. I accidentally muted myself. Okay. So if the cargo ship weren't there, we would have an apparent meeting of the sky and the water. So my answer is going to be where the water ends. So the physical body of water. Well, it's an apparent, it's an apparent presentation of where the water is. So you're saying that the water that we're looking at is not there. Okay. This is a mirage. Okay. If the ship were not behind the water, we would see the apparent meeting of the sky and the water. That is an apparent meeting. It is a refracted image when you get down closer to the water. As I've said before in our conversations, the horizon in these images is a result of refraction. It is a refracted image. It's distorted. It's displaced. It could be elevated. It could be lower. Okay. Well, and what you're saying, it's actually incorrect. And there's details to knowing that it's incorrect. There's actually a lot of detail in this image. There's actually, I'm not going to say, I'm not going to say this very much. There's not very much distortion, but besides for that, you're saying that the physical body of water is a mirage. And I have an issue with that because I'm seeing clear detail in the ocean. I'm seeing clear detail in the waves. I'm going to go ahead and go against what you're saying and say that that's a, we got a real good horizon going right there. And yes, it is the apparent horizon. And if the boat wasn't there, yes, the sky would meet the ocean and that would be the apparent horizon. Great. But we still do have a horizon here. And along with that horizon, we also have a lot of platform missing. We have a lot of cargo ship missing. And we also have a lot of that island missing in the background. The one thing that we can say for sure is that we do have a solid apparent horizon that we can focus on to make the decision or the conclusion on the distances of everything and why we are seeing the obstruction. We are seeing my question to you. Hang on. My question to you is, is can you show me the amount of miraging happening that is obstructing this vessel? And then once you've done that, I can pop up the vessel so you can see actually how much is missing and we can actually go against what your findings are versus what actually what I believe is happening and what is actually being obstructed. And we can kind of go from there. And basically what I want to do is I want to verify that you understand how to verify your observations with the Ether Band. Well, I've already told you how I verify my observations with the Ether Band. But that's the problem traps. We're in a debate. We're not having a one-on-one conversation in my stream. There are people out there that are looking at this to decide whether or not we live on a flat or globe earth. And I'm pretty sure, hang on, and I'm pretty sure they would like to know how to verify that that is not curvature so that we can they know that your method of finding this out is correct and they can follow you and continue on with their journey on what's going on. Yep. All right. So everybody out there in the listening audience, when I ask my question right now, you just say the answer out loud. Okay. How did I already answer the question as to how I make a determination that it is refraction that is causing and not curvature? Okay. Just let that sink in for a second. I've already answered this question. I do not make these assessments with one image. This is a single image that you are hanging your hat on, Sean. And the problem is I have hundreds of images of this same tangential observation with different presentation of this same platform. It does not always look the same. The same amount of the bottom or the base of this platform is not always visible. Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes it's less. Sometimes it's in an inferior mirage. So if you want to take one image and hang your hat on it, go right ahead. But I'm not going to do that. There's different observations of hundreds of observations you've made of these platforms. Would you say that there were different conditions, different times of day, different elevations? Yep. Yep. Yep. Not significant enough to make that kind of crazy difference. Okay. What were your elevations? Well, if I was taking the elevation on the beach, it could be sometimes with the water kicking up right against the base of my tripod. Sometimes the tide is out 20 or 30 feet. That's a 20 or 30 feet distance along the shoreline. But my elevation is probably six feet. So it could be anywhere from water level to 15 feet high. Okay. And the time of days vary from early morning to nighttime. So you don't take your pictures at the same time every day. Well, that's nearly impossible. Who wants to take time and time to take this picture at 929? Well, if you do it at the same time, then your observations become more accurate. But that's here and there. But what you have just described Travis is the exact thing that explains the globe and its obstruction. You said, and I quote, No. You're taking hundreds of pictures. You've taken hundreds of pictures. Hang on. Hang on, Travis. Let me finish. Can I please finish? You've taken hundreds of pictures. You're following up. You've made an invalid statement. Hold on one second. Just to be sure each person gets to speak. We had just heard from Travis, or plain truth, saying you've made an invalid statement. Well, let's go back to Sean G now. Over your time, your hundreds of photos, you've stated that obviously there are different times, different elevations. And in the way we understand the index of refraction, miraging, curvature, obstruction due to curvature, those things all equate with each other, with how science and how things are described. Now my question would be, the pictures that you keep saying are different, and you're getting different observations. Do you concede to the understanding that the index of refraction changes throughout the day? Yes. So you understand that you're going to get different observations throughout the day. That's correct, Sean. Okay. So throughout the day, do you find that objects, say platform or container ships, like the one we're looking at right now, seem to have things obstructed throughout your images? Have you, or better yet, have you ever had an image where one of these cargo ships, you see the whole vessel? I actually don't capture very many. So I would have to go back and review that footage. And as you know, it's very difficult to review all the footage that I've had. Yeah. But Travis? I will, hold on. Yeah. I apologize. I will say this, Sean. I will say that I do have, in those 17 days of captures, I do have footage of cargo ships where I can see the name on the hull. Okay. I get that. That's cool. But again, again, hold on real quick. It depends on which tangent I'm looking through right now, because they go all up and down that channel. So the images... Wait, wait, wait. What you just said, when you said they go all up and down that channel, you mean it's not just one single shipping lane? The distance varies? No, no, no. What I found when I was doing a lot of my marine trackers is that it gave me pretty much a consistent distance of 13 to 15 miles. Whenever I checked the location of the ship, it was always 13 to 15 miles away. It was never 12, it was never 17. But what I was saying was that from left to right in a 180-degree sweeping field of view, I could start to the very left where platform Gina is, and I could go all the way in the same shot to platforms H all the way up, which then has me aiming north towards Santa Barbara. I will not have a consistent presentation of the platforms. That is Gina is going to look different than Gale. Gale is going to look different than Gilda. Gilda is going to look different than Grace. And then when you get to the H, and then when you get to the H platforms, they're all going to look different. There's not going to be a... Simply because, right, simply because it's the nine o'clock hour in the morning, that refractive index is going to be different at each of those tangents. Absolutely. Which is exactly why when you said, Travis, that you have hundreds of pictures where these observations are changing, not just like the one you're looking at now. And then you've also stated that the index of refraction changes throughout the day. So we're under this clear assumption, or the clear understanding, my apologies, that your observations are going to change throughout the day due to the index of refraction. Correct? That's correct, John. Yeah. Okay, cool. I completely understand you're in a truck right now. So this is going to kind of be away from the debate. But Travis, does this mean that you will be able to show a photo of one of these vessels? I'm talking one of these container ships, not a shipping vessel, container ships, where you're seeing the whole hull of that boat or that ship, my bad cliff out there. As I said before, I do have images where I can see the name of the hull, the name of the ship on the hull. Okay, and with the distance, and you have the distance on those rooms, right? Not all of them, but I did it at once, you know, every once in a while. Well, that's kind of, yeah, that's kind of pinning it down. I mean, I looked on the vessel tracker, so I do know it's kind of hard to go back and find it. But we do know between 13 and, and it's 13 and 17 miles is that channel, the shipping lanes, so you understand. You can go into the Santa Barbara Channel City Hall rules and regulations, and it actually tells you the boundaries in which the fishing vessels are allowed to be at, the cargo vessels are allowed to be at, and the ferries can pass through. So it's actually 13 to 17 miles. But so obviously you can't do it now, but I'll hold you to that one. And I hope you were able to show that. But for now, the issue that I have is, is because what you're saying is that etherband is doing this, and that the fraction level is doing this, you still haven't kind of gave me a clear understanding of how you verify these things. You kind of just kind of meander to you that you have a hundred photos. But hang on, hang on, hang on. You said you had a hundred photos and, and different observation, different things happening, which kind of makes it harder for you to explain this. I don't really know why you did that to yourself. But again, I really, hang on. Whether or not it's hard. I don't find it difficult. Okay, perfect. Well, then can you, again, you haven't answered. How do you verify these things? Yes, I have. No, you said you had, you've taken hundreds of pictures in those hundreds of pictures. You've had different observations. Cool. Okay. But again, I asked, how do you verify that it's the etherband and not curvature? Okay. James, did you, were you able to get that image that I sent you? In email. Okay. Just take your time and pull that up whenever you can. So again, Sean, I, I don't Stop sharing, James. I don't base my, um, analyses of the images that I capture on one single image or on particularly one, um, object, like it seems like you want, it seems like you want to hang me out to dry on these cargo ships. Okay. But you have to, you have to consider the fact that the platforms are closer to me than the cargo ships. And the islands are farther away from me. So all of those things have to be taken into account, not just the cargo ship. Again, the refractive index is, I believe on, I know you guys might not like to hear this. I don't believe we can quantify it. I'm sorry. I don't think you can. Okay. So what you're saying is, is that there's no actual way for you to verify what you're saying. No, that's not what I'm saying. Oh, okay. Okay. My bad. My bad. Can you verify what you're saying? I mean, does anybody else out there in the listening audience, did anybody else out there just have this like, Sean, what the hell are you saying? He's already made the statement. I've already made the statement, Sean. No. No, that's not the one I sent you. No, no, this is the one I put up there. So, uh, if you'd like me to show the picture really quick Travis, I think I'm going to go with the location, height and distance. Where did the platform go? That's correct. Okay. I'm putting that on. So now the audience can see it right now. I think I have to give me a second for to catch up. All right. Is it not going to be in the zoom? Oh, that's right. So it's unfortunately. Yeah. I'm watching this screen too. I can see. I know what it looks like. So I can, I just was looking at the zoom. Yeah. Yeah. I see it right now. Travis. Okay. So this is the exact same phenomenon as the image with the, uh, cargo ship that you have, um, that is missing half of the cargo ship. Okay. So on the left, you have a, uh, a full of presentation of the platform Gina with a, an inferior mirage and then the horizon below that. Okay. So in the image next to it, the entire body of Gina is obscured by the mirage. The water has been, uh, uh, mirage up, whatever you want to call it ramped up, lifted up, whatever. Okay. Because that was the same location, same focal length, different day. And again, I have other images just like this of the same, um, uh, oil rig as well. I found one, uh, earlier today, um, as I was trying to put stuff together of the age platforms, um, same thing as well. Not, not as extensive, but enough for you to be able to tell what's going on. So if we are going to say in your image that you're showing me from, uh, from my footage, that the, that the horizon is physically blocking half of, uh, the ocean. Is that what you would claim here is, uh, blocking. Platform G. I would say in the image that I'm looking at on the, on the YouTube screen, I would say that I would throw that picture out because it's way too distorted. Um, James, if you want to screenshot the photo, we are not going to, we are not going to pass over this. No, there's no way about passing over at Travis. Here's the realization. There's no way to distort it. There's no realization shot. Okay. I'll do it right now. Okay. I see a, I see that I can show you the same question. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I play in truth. I do just, I promise we'll come right back to you, but I just want to, like we, we can come right back to this question. Let's just hear a couple of sentences from Sean. And I promise we'll come back to you if you want to try to pull him back to a point that you were trying to talk about. Yeah, I wanted to speak on the image we're looking at that. I mean, again, I don't know how you would know what we're looking at in detail is impossible. I could see, we can see the mirroring line. That's pretty obvious. And that's your top yellow line, Travis. Okay. Wait, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Hold on. I'm sorry. There's an image on zoom. Are you talking about the image? No, I'm talking about your image right now. You want me to, you want me to answer to it, right? That's okay. I just see an image on zoom. I'm just asking for clarification. Okay. Well, one, that's a problem. In the pic, you have two pictures there. You're not saying that you, that's the same picture, right? Or that one's just an illustration of what you see, right? Okay. That's both of those images are the same platform taken from the same location with the same. Zoom. So what you're telling me is you zoomed in and you were able to see that. However, it makes sense to you, Sean, I was, I was set up, right? Set up. So all you did was zoom in. Correct, to the same focal length, same focal length. OK, perfect. Well, then what you're saying is it is obstruction due to curvature. Here's why. No. Here's why. On the picture, here's why. On the picture on the right, all we see is the cranes that are coming off that platform. What you then said is that you zoomed in, and then what you're telling me is that you brought back that image into folk back into view. Is that what you're saying, Travis? Because that doesn't seem right. I'm not. OK, in the first picture. Sure, why there is a malfunction in your ability to understand the words that are coming out of my mouth. No, not at all. The picture on the right. Listen. OK, about this. How about this? The picture on the right, do you see a lot of miraging in that picture, Travis? Yes. On the right, not the one on the left, the one on the right. I know exactly what you said, Sean. I made a clear answer. Yes. OK, what part of the picture on the right is miraging? All of it? If, OK, Sean. I'm just asking questions, Travis. I know. I was trying to answer, you said, all of it. So if you are able to zoom in at the horizon, you will see an inferior mirage right at the nip of that horizon line. OK, so there is an inferior mirage just above that horizon. So are you telling me that you brought that platform back into view? No. Perfect. So what you were seeing is a mirage of the light being lifted and to your eye. You are not seeing a physical object. You're not seeing a physical platform, which means you are seeing an illusion. No, no, Travis, you just said that. You just told me you didn't bring the platform back into view. All you can see is a mirage. You're not seeing a physical object. You just stated that. No, no, hold on now. It appears to me that you have been filling in blanks in your mind that are not filled in in mine. So when I answer your question, come on. No, no, Travis, just so you understand something, could you keep saying that? When I talk, I'm giving you what I believe and how I look at things and understand things. What I just said. Your explanation for what we see is not the answer, it is your argument. So when I say something against what you say, it doesn't make it wrong because you don't think that. I didn't say that. I didn't say that. I just wanted to clarify that because you keep saying. You just wasted our time, John. I didn't say that. Go ahead, Travis, continue. I said that you asked me a question and in your mind, you have a conclusion drawn already so that when I answer your question, you think I mean the same thing that's going on in your head and I don't think that those two things are going to match up. You're right. Correct. I'm not trying to start a fight with you. I'm trying to say that we need to have clarification. So I'm answering your question. Perfect. I'm so happy. I'm so happy you said that, Travis. I'm happy you're happy. OK, perfect. Verify how you know these things because you still haven't answered that question yet. You just showed another picture. It didn't really do anything for the verifying of. I'm still waiting for the verification. OK, for hopefully the last time, I am able to verify my analysis that the obstruction of objects over distance of either oil platforms, boats, islands, whatever is due to refraction alone and not the curvature. And I'm able to do that by comparing more than one or two images because in certain images where there is less refraction, I see sometimes the entire object. And in other times, when there's higher refraction, sometimes the inferior mirage only takes up a third of the object. Sometimes it's a quarter. Sometimes it's half. And in this instance, it's four fifths. So the reason why I know it's not EarthCurve that's blocking the image on the right is because from the same location, same focal length, I have more oil platform. And the only reason for that, the only cause for that is the refractive index. How much of the platform do you get, Travis? Sometimes I get an entire image of the base of the platform all the way up to the top. What do you constitute as the base? The feet, whatever you freaking call the feet. The legs, the stilts that come off. OK, so you see at sea level of the beer. No, I don't actually know. I don't think that I ever know. Yeah, I don't really actually know. Don't don't get smarmy with me. I'm not. I'm asking. OK. No, I don't believe that I've ever caught an image of the oil platform's legs or stilts right at the base of the water because of mirage that happens at the surface of the water. So you're saying throughout the day, there's always miraging and you've never seen the feet. But you but you have hundreds of pictures that show various various amounts of these platforms. Correct. That's correct. Yes, that's correct. OK, I'm still going to go back to the verifying part. But so again, you've got that we can see this. OK, so you have to go back to the verifying part. No, OK, let me make this clear then. So let me show you how I verified this. James, did you screenshot the image I have on Zoom right now? Let me quick peek. I don't have it. But let me pull it in right now because there's this one. And then one more that shows actual verification and how things work. You got it. Let me know in that one. I'll be able to see when that one comes up. In the meantime, folks, very excited. We will have Team Skeptic taking on Flat Earth Aussie. And that's going to be this weekend. So hopefully you can make that. And I am loading that picture in for Sean right now. But do want to let you know we are pumped for that one this weekend. And right now we're trying. We're trying to set up a debate that is not for sure yet. But so far, we've gotten two out of the four people. It would be a tag team debate on evolution. And it would feature on the same team, G-Man and Nathan Thompson. So that's a maybe or we're still figuring out if it's actually going to happen. It depends on G-Man's schedule. But all right, I've got that photo. And it is showing for the audience right now, Sean. Thanks for your patience. Perfect. So Travis, the image that we're looking at right now is an image of one of the platforms to be exact which one. I actually don't know. Doesn't really matter. On this image, would you say that we're able to see the full platform to C-level? Or I'm sorry, I don't want to ask that question because you did verify that you don't seem at C-level. So what you're basically saying is that there is always a level of obstruction to these platforms that you're taking, correct? OK, so I just want to make sure. Are you talking about the image that I can see on Zoom right now? Yes. OK. Yeah, it's been my experience and my understanding that the horizon that I see is never at the base of the platforms, ever. OK, so the way I verify this is I take distances. I get your photos. And I do a lot of zooming in. For instance, I'm zooming into that photo right now. Travis can see it, people. But it's fine that you see what you see right there. Travis, in the photo that you're seeing that I've zoomed in right now, is there a verifiable miraging happening that you can show me? Yeah, you're looking at the entire image is refracted. I didn't ask if it was a refraction. I asked if it was a refraction. That's what a mirage is. That's what a mirage is. It's a refracted image. Well, we established this before we started all this part. We understand that everything we see, the fact that light hits your eyes, is refraction. Now, the levels of refraction are going to give you different optics. They're going to have miraging. So I'm asking, is there a level of refraction high enough that we have a mirage in this image? Yes. Where? The entire image, Sean. I already see, look at this. Okay, perfect. So Travis, the problem with what you're saying, no, no, no. I'm making, I'm trying to. The problem is, you have not listened. The problem is, you have not, again, your claim. You just said go ahead and now you're cutting it off. Yeah, because you keep saying this. Your claim means nothing to my argument. I don't think what your claim is, is correct. So if I don't agree with what your claim is, it does not matter. I read a definition from Wikipedia and then verified it with another website that had the same definition of a mirage, okay? Okay, Travis. You and I, hold on, hold on. Travis, do you understand that there are levels of refraction? Yeah. Do you understand that there are levels of refraction that do not create a mirage? No. Okay, that's the problem then. You need to understand, okay, perfect. Travis, when you take a picture, Travis, Travis, hang on, Travis, Travis, here you go. So if you Travis, if you get Travis, Travis, Travis. If you get out of your truck right now and take a picture, is refraction involved in that photo? Yes. Is miraging happening in that photo? Yes. You are wrong. I'm not wrong. So you're telling me, if you take a picture of your truck 10 feet away, there's miraging happening? Okay. Right now. It's a pretty simple question. If you get out of your truck, step 10 feet away from it and take a picture. Will you be able to say there's miraging in that happening in that image? In the definition that I gave for miraging that talks about distortion, displacement, yes. Now, whether or not we can be able to fine tune it, like can we zoom in and see specifically, no, because we're closer to that image. So the one thing that I've said over and over again in my streams is that the only variables that I can add to or take away from in these observations is my location by either getting closer to or farther away from my observations or elevating my position or lowering it. That's it. So it doesn't really matter the fact that you wanna try to catch me out on photographing something that's closer to me. Okay, we're not talking about getting closer to an image. Yeah, that's going to change the clarity, but there's still refraction. I'm still looking through a medium, just because we can this. Okay, so when there's miraging, you said there's distortion, correct? Yeah. And the image I'm showing on Zoom, I haven't zoomed in for you. So you can see it way clearer than everyone else, but they can see the same image. Show me where there's distortion because I'm looking at the cranes. Cranes look straight. I'm looking at the stilts look straight. I'm looking at the A-frames that come across those stilts. Those are straight. And I'm looking at the horizon. That looks, there's perfect detail in that, Travis. So can you show me where the distortion is in this whole image that you claim is a mirage? The entire image is distorted. No, that's actually one of your clear pictures, Travis. Okay. That's a clear picture. Simply because you deny my affirmative, doesn't mean that you're correct, Sean. No, it does mean I'm correct. Cause I'm looking at it in a way that has really good detail, good fit photo, Travis. The problem I'm having with that is, you're telling me that there's massive distortion. There's not. Cause you just showed it. I don't know that I've said, I don't, okay, hold on, hold on, hold on. We can go back into the tapes. Oh, okay. What is miraging? What is miraging? You read the definition. Yeah, go ahead. Absolutely, sir. Okay. We can go back into the tapes. I do not believe that I used the term massive. Okay, I'm sorry. That there's distortion in this image. Can you show me where distortion is? Point your finger anywhere you want, Sean. There's distortion there. You're looking through a medium. That looks like a pretty clear photo. No, it's not as clear as it could be, Sean. So then what you're telling me, Travis, that there is no index of refraction, that there only is mirage. No, no. Travis, do you have a level? I did not say that there's no, I did not say there's no index. I'm asking, I'm asking you. Why would you ask that? I didn't even imply anything like that. Because you said, and I quote, there are days that I go out there and I take images and you don't even see the legs. There are days I go out there and I see a lot more of these platforms, which means there is a level of refraction. We are clear on that. Right, right. And then I asked you, No, Travis, hang on, I'm not done yet. Do you understand that throughout a day, there are levels of refraction and we can pinpoint these due to the temperature of the water and the air? Right? I don't know that you can pinpoint it as much as you would like. Oh, well, we can be a lot more accurate to what we're trying to figure out, correct? Okay, well, you would have to have something that you have enough data to show me that that's true. You can make that claim all you want, but we're gonna have to provide for now. Okay, well, you can go ahead and, yeah, perfect. You can go ahead and verify this. I can send you the link. I don't know what you would like me to do since you're in your car and you can't really actually go to the sites. But I can tell you right now that the day that we were out there at four o'clock, Travis, the water temperature was 57 degrees and the air temperature was 73 degrees. So in this image, what I did is I went, I would like to have shown it, but I know there are two problems with the Zoom. I went on to a physics classroom that basically would show you what the levels of refraction and what light does in these meetings that you keep talking about. Well, at three o'clock, well, with a little camera that I'd be able to have, as a matter of fact, let me go ahead and, if I pull it up, James, you'll be able to take a screenshot of it and we can go from there. Let me find it real quick. Okay, there it is. This is the, well, Travis, you'll be able to see it, so it's perfect. But everyone else will be able to see it. This is on, I'll get the link for you guys in a second. But basically what you're looking at right now, Travis, is a, it's a way to experiment with how light works between these medians. And along with this, it also shows the amount of light that actually is reflected or refracted off the water as well. So you said that throughout the day, you take these numerous photos and you have numerous situations happen. I'm gonna go ahead and show you right now. Basically, the screenshot is, so they see what I'm doing. Can I ask a question? Absolutely. Okay, does this diagram or however you wanna say it, does that give you a reading? A reading? What do you mean? Well, like if you put in, if you put in, I just showed, I just put the protractor up that shows the angles at which the light travels. No, no, no, but I mean, no, I mean, if you put in like the air temperature and the water temperature, does it then show you? No, no, see, that's happy you brought that up. What we are looking at now is a, what you would consider standard refraction. When I say standard refraction, that means that the air, the refraction that we are working with is 1.0003 in the air and the water that we are working with is 1.33. So we do know that the levels in which we are using this, shining the light through the median. And all we are doing is finding out at what angle refraction happens. Because again, the angle at which the light hits your eyes is why you're going to get a mirage. What's the medium? What's the medium through which this- Air and water. And it's giving you what, so the- So see this little camera I have right here? Yeah, yeah. That's the sun. Right now where it's sitting at is what the sun does, is noon. When we look at this, we see exactly what the light does. So around noon, we're going to have very, very little miraging happening. The level of refraction is going to be low. Uh-huh. When we move it over more, now I'm going to move it to about here, I'm going to say that's about three o'clock. Three o'clock is about the time you took all, took the shots that we were talking about with the cargo ship. And at this site, we see that the level of index is at, I say about 70 degrees. So in this situation, what you're going to see is a high level of miraging happening. When you move the camera down, this is going to be around sunrise or sunset because we can only show one level. But what we see here, Travis, is a very low angle of incident. We don't see any miraging. The photo I just showed you, now I don't know what platform it is. I do know you took that picture at five o'clock. Which is around where this camera is at. There's a very, very low angle of incident, which means that we're going to have minimal miraging. For you to say that that whole platform is miraging, is not correct because of the way we know light works. Okay, can you show me? Okay, the problem with this, and I've said this from the very start, is you are showing a manufactured cartoon. This is not reality. I am showing you a, I'm showing you a, I'm showing you a model. This is what it is. You cannot verify this model. You cannot verify it. No, you can't. Yes, I can. Absolutely. Okay, move that camera up. Move that camera up a little. Okay, hold on real quick. So let me ask you this question. Why is there no reflective incident going off the surface? Right now? Yeah. Because the angle of incident is too low. The refraction level is, the index of refraction is very low. Okay, so raise up the camera until you get an angle of incidents with a reflective angle going. So how long? Two o'clock. Okay, show me a real life picture of that. Give me one half a second. I will do that right now. So the problem with the whole thing that you're doing right now is you're showing a laser beam. I'm showing you a representation of what I'm explaining to you. I know, but you cannot verify it, nor prove that that's actually what's happening. I can verify it. Here's the thing. Here's how I can verify it, Travis. You, you have, you have run all the files and hang on. In the files that you sent me, you sent me about 60 pictures, correct? I sent you a lot, yeah. Yep. And in the same way, you have hundreds of pictures. I have 60 pictures. And in those 60 pictures, each picture has a time of date that you took those photos. And in those photos. Yeah, I don't care about that. I'm not done talking. I know, I know, no, you don't care. Listen, you've interrupted me when I've tried to. Yes, but here's the thing. But you don't, but you may not care, Travis. But the problem is that everyone else who understands that there is an index of refraction and there are levels of refraction that create miraging and the time of date and the temperatures matter, distance matters as well, to verify whether or not you're having a situation that you have obstruction due to small levels of refraction or high levels of refraction or do to curvature. You are taking this deal. The ways we're able to. I promise Travis will give you a full, well, let's give Travis a chance to respond in just a second. If you want to finish this point that you're on and then let's give Travis plenty of time to, okay, go ahead. Okay, absolutely. The main way we're able to verify that this, we need to understand how light works is that not only can we verify this over the ocean with the time of days, temperatures, and the air and the water, we can also go over the land and see the same effects happening, the miraging happening with the same conditions due to temperature variations in the atmosphere. Travis, the reason I'm making this very clear is that you are conceding to the fact that there is a level of index of refraction and in that level of index of refraction, it states very clearly how we are able to tell whether or not we are seeing a high level of miraging or no miraging at all. But in all we are talking about, refraction is involved in every photo because refraction does not constitute as miraging. Miraging is an effect of the way the index of refraction gets to our eyes. Not, they're not the same thing. They don't happen interchangeably. It doesn't work that way, Travis. Refraction is everywhere all the time. Let's, okay, great. Thanks so much. And then go ahead, Travis will give you maybe a few, maybe like two minutes to try to make it cover as many points as you can. The claims that I have made in my streams, as I have looked through the various websites, Andrew Young's, for instance, others that are EDU sites where they talk about the levels of the index of refraction and what they believe light to be doing. They always show you a cartoon of what they believe light is doing. But when they come to a real life photo, it doesn't look like their cartoon. They cannot produce anything in real life except to say, see this cartoon? Yeah, you see how these light rays are bending? Yeah, okay, see that picture? Yeah, that's what it's doing. No, it doesn't look that way. When Sean was going up and down with his camera on that diagram and giving you an angle of incidence, that is one light ray, so to speak, hitting the water and then going up at an obtuse angle, depending on the angle of the camera. Now, are you trying to tell me that the image of the oil platform that you're showing is angling at an obtuse angle? Shouldn't that oil platform? Okay, shouldn't that oil platform be exhibiting the same kind of angular presentation of a tangent line bouncing off of the surface of the water and then going up back out into the air? Okay, in the image that we were just looking at with that platform, no, why? Because it was at 528 and the angle of incident was gonna be very low. Again, that's why I make sure I illustrated the time. And again, what we're using is the illustration. It's a model, it's a way to verify what we're seeing. What you are saying should be happening to this image is that everything should be all scribbly and shooting up. Well, if it's miraging, we should see light going in all these different directions. We should see it differently. We shouldn't see detail. There's no detail in miraging. Can you show me where, do you have a citation where it says that there is no detail in miraging? You read the definition of miraging. I don't need to. Okay, did my definition make the claim or statement that there is no detail in miraging? Yes, you said distortion. Okay, so can you please show me a citation where distortion is defined as having no level of... I didn't say that. What did you, yeah. I said that when there's miraging, you, again, the image is distorted. You actually stated that, remember? No, that's not, no, no, that's not what you said. You read the definition of miraging. So we're clear on what miraging is. And in miraging, there's no... Not gonna see detail. You're not gonna see detail in miraging. Okay, okay, okay. Can you please show me a definition of distortion that says that there is no level of detail? What is distortion? I'm asking you to verify your claim. Okay, I look at hundreds of photos. No, no, I don't want you to tell me. No, no, I do not want you to tell me your experience. You are giving us an understanding. You want me to verify, right? Okay, hold on. You want me to verify? You have made a claim that distortion means having no level of detail. No, that's not what I said. I said that in miraging, there is distortion and there is no detail. I didn't say that was the definition for distortion, Travis. Okay, so in my definition of miraging, there was no... Okay, now here's what happened as far as I can recall. Okay, so please let me finish this. In my definition of miraging, there is no phrase in there that says having no level of detail. And you then responded and said, distortion. So my response was then to ask you please, pretty please, Sean, take your time. Find me a definition of distortion that says that this means that there is no level of detail. Take your time. I said there's no detail. Just seeing what it is and being able to identify as detail. But, okay. Okay, well then I disagree. Distortion. Distortion is a twist, distortion is the change, twist or extension, ex-urgation that makes something appear different from the way it really is. You can distort an image, a thought or even an idea. The heat creates a wave distortion and the air shakes up the image and things beyond it. Where in there does it say there is detail, Travis? Distortion is the definition of no detail. Okay, you're not going to put the burden on me. I'm not putting the burden on you. I'm just clarifying that to understand. So, no, no, Travis, do you need to understand? Distortion is saying there's not detail. It's the opposite. Distortion is the opposite of detail. No, that's your interpretation of what you just said. How about this? Show me a source that says different. This is not my claim, Sean. I'm asking you. It is your claim. No, no, no, no. It is your claim because you're saying that that whole, everything we're looking at is a mirage. And I'm saying there are not. You're telling me that you can have detail in a mirage. So, show me a source that says detail is still in the miraging. That's your claim, not mine. We'll probably go to Q and A. I'm going to give you a chance to respond, but I do want to let you know that we'll go to Q and A pretty quick here, folks. So, Travis, go ahead. The floor is all yours. I'm not really sure where to go with this. I have not made any claim that miraging distorts to the extent that you cannot distinguish what you were looking at. Although I can make that claim at times because if I did show you a picture of the Red Roof House with high refraction, I would tell you, you would not be able to tell me that there is a house there, that that is a house that you were looking at. However, there is detail there. You can see something, you can see a shape. There is detail. So, my claim is not that there is no detail in a mirage. My claim is that a mirage is the distortion or displacement or however I said it in my opening statement, I don't want to, I don't have it memorized, okay? Refraction distorts, displaces, it raises up, it lowers, it magnifies, it diminishes, it obscures and it blocks, okay? My claim, again, is that my observations, demonstrate that that kind of refraction is an obstruction. And if we simply took the time to extrapolate out from there and make logical inferences, inductive reasoning, we would be able to understand that if that happens at one mile, that is if there is an inferior mirage, for instance, at one mile and behind that inferior mirage is a shoreline that you cannot see because it is distorted, then when you get out at 20 miles and you see an inferior mirage in this instance, you should understand that behind that inferior mirage is a physical location that you cannot see with clarity because of the refractive index. Now, my picture of the oil platform Gina should be a clear indication for anyone out there in the audience that the obstruction that is blocking four fifths of platform Gina is not physical earth curve because in the image to the left, you can see practically the entire oil platform. So if it was the physical curvature of the earth on the right, where did that curvature go on the left? It didn't go anywhere because the earth doesn't curve. What we're looking at, even if we can't quantify it, and this has been my statement from the very beginning, I do not believe nor have I ever tried to quantify the aether band. However, we can observe and make logical interpretations of these observations and understand that it is refraction that is the obstruction. I think that given that we started, Jim, remember who we started with. I think it was Travis went first. So we can give Sean the kind of the last little bit before we go into the Q&A. So Sean, if you have any rebuttal points that you'd like to make, then we'll go into the Q&A, folks. Absolutely, thank you, sir. We have obviously seen that the understanding of what distorted and detailed is kind of vague for him. I'm gonna go ahead and read the definition for distortion. Distortion is the alternation of original shape or characteristics of something. If you need me to detail you and source you more to find out what that means against detailed, I can't help you there. But what I've asked over and over again and have not gotten is any type of verification for how Travis is a way, of Travis is able to discount curvature. I wish I would have been able to do the video. I could have showed you guys exactly how I verified this with Travis multiple times. But in all in all, I just wanted to make it very clear that in every situation that we've gone through in this debate that Travis hasn't been able to verify any of his findings, all he's doing is denying the conclusion that I've given him to all my, all the evidence that I've shown. It's very clear that is going to be one-sided. He's not going to change the way he views this things. And that's fine. But to understand how light works takes time to understand why we see the things we do takes time. More importantly, it takes a non-bias objective view to make these assumptions and claims, very bold claims I say. But nothing Travis has presented here presents against the globe Earth. And that's pretty much I have to say about that. Everything else Spearman speaks for itself. Thanks so much. We will now jump right into it. Do want to give you a couple of, you could say friendly reminders. One that I appreciate these guys so much. They were so patient as we had many delays. One of them at least one of the times was my, actually several times was my fault. If you count the misfires that we had at the start for tonight. But we just appreciate these guys. We appreciate the heck out of them. And so I do want to encourage you to check out their links if you haven't already. And we will jump into this Q and A. So want to let you know we'll get through as many questions as we can. I think we can get through, let's see. Yeah, this is like a, you could say a manageable list. It's possible folks. So thanks so much for your super chat from C4. This came in, oh wait. We do have some from the first, the stream that misfired. We had only sheep, can't, only sheeple, can't see, said, don't waste our time Travis. Don't run. Thanks for that. Only sheeple, can't see, also said, hello Nicole Hopkins. Hello crashes, crashes. Then only sheeple, can't see. Thanks for your super chat again. Who said, everyone ready? Your drinks and snacks. Name into that. C4, thanks for your super chat as well. They said, facts, the earth is not flat. Chris Berry is a troll. Caches has more friends than Aaron, Sean's gonna win, than Aaron, then Sean's gonna win the debate. Posey is the man and I'm going to sleep. Only sheeple, can't see. Thanks for your super chat. They said, question for Travis. Have you ever found your instruction manual to your camera? If yes, did you ever read it? Yep. Thank you for that. Next up, monkey's age. Thanks for your super chat. You said, that boy, Sean G. Old friend of yours? Yes, yes, yes. Stupid horror energy. Thanks for your super chat. Who says, my pee burns. Always happy to hear that. Such a Frito Serrabi, I think it's for your super chat. Who says, such a friend in the house? Says Sean. Cranberry juice for the pee burning. Really? That works? Yep. Let's crank that down. Okay. Thanks so much. So, Mr. Frito said, Sean, if I imagine being upside down in south, I think they mean in the southern hemisphere, holding a compass, will the needle point north or south on the compass? What about in between both sideways? Easy question. If you're in the south of the hemisphere, you're going to use a southern hemisphere compass and it's going to point to the south, I believe. Pretty sure of that. Super interesting. Appreciate it. Next up, appreciate it. I love Angel of Attack in the live chat. I sometimes love the abuse. I'm not trying to say like, oh, I'm a victim. I just laugh because sometimes it's just funny. Where is it? Where did it go? Angel of Attack says, nope, this channel sucks. Sorry. Next up, appreciate your super chat from K-024. K-024. Tip for Travis, instead of spouting childish rubbish, if you're interested in the physics of light, spend your time learning about it. Maybe read a book, Travis. Yeah, I mean, there are certain levels of autodidact, so that you can read a more technical book and you can also refer to information that's available to anyone on the internet. It's not that difficult. The science of scientism makes things more difficult with equations. I'm not gonna mention his name, but I had interaction and I'm gonna continue to have interaction with a well-known physicist. And basically he said, if you're not good at math, you won't understand the science. And that's the trick that scientism plays over us, that we have to have an ability to understand equation after equation after equation when the simplicity of making observations and using our own words, it's like quantify, etherband for me, Travis, quantify it. Well, I'm just looking out and I'm gonna describe what, no, no, no, I want the math, I want the deep, no, no, no, it's very simple. I don't have to confuse this with equations and diagrams. It's very, very simple. So yeah, you're right. I can't read books, but I can also read websites and articles that others have written. So that's what I've done. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate it. From Stupid Horror Energy says, Travis, please tell me when to drink again. I'm so drunk, I don't know when. Aetherband. Thank you very much. Everybody drink. I was waiting for that. Next up, Kango Zero. Go ahead, you can finish the punchline. It hit me to stop you. Everybody drink, that's all. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Kango24 says, tip for Travis, try and be less of a wanker. Huh, okay. Travis is not amused. Thanks for your super chat. Kango24 says, question for Travis, whether balloon flights clearly show the curvature of the earth and no, it's not the product of a fish eye lens. Please explain. Yeah, I don't make any claims about weather balloons. So if you want to have a conversation with someone who does, find that channel. Blue Marvel Science saw your question in the live chat. We're going to try to work through the list. Appreciate that question. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Kango24 says, Travis, you're an expert on optics. Please explain how for a certain material an index of refraction is calculated. A certain material, where are we talking about glass? Are we talking about water, you know, whatever? Yeah, I've made this claim and I'll make it again. Everything that you think scientists have nailed down regarding the nature of light isn't what you think it is. Now, I don't know what it is, but I know that what I have read and have seen explained doesn't match my experience of reality. So this entire field needs to be revamped. Okay, what we classify as mirages when we call them inferior mirage, superior mirage, phantom organas, those all need to be reworked, including the observation that Sean has pointed out with the ship, the cargo ship, and the image that I showed with platform Gina, okay? There is a ramping up of the aquatic distance that we are looking over. I've got, again, I've got numerous images where I can show you this is happening, okay? Where that water appears, it makes it appear as though I am low down and close to the water. And yet I can take another image of that same location and it looks like I am high up and far away from the water. The only explanation for that is refraction and that is not a classified phenomenon as far as I've been able to see. And if it has not been classified, it needs to be. And if it has been classified, anyone feel free to point me in the right direction to see what that is. But I would almost guarantee it needs to be reassessed. Science. You said point you in the right direction, science. No, no, no, no, no, no. I would like you to help me understand that phenomenon because I've seen looming, I've seen, hold on, I've seen magnification, I've seen towering, I've seen stooping, I've seen inferior, superior, all of those things. However, I have not seen a classification of the phenomenon that we are looking at. Now, I'm gonna bet. Obstruction due to curvature. I understand that, but I've already shown that refraction as an explanation for obstruction is a valid explanation in other images. So that it, yes, so that it, yes, I have. So that this one image where you think that it's showing a demonstration of Earth curve, that's what I'm saying. Most people assume that that's what's happening so they haven't classified it as anything because they think that they're just looking over an aquatic distance with no refraction whatsoever, and I'm saying that's incorrect. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, Pruji, your super chat from our dearest friend, such a friend from Arabia says, Sean, is a mirage the quote apparent horizon for real? Or they say, is a mirage the apparent horizon quote unquote, or is it real? If there's a true horizon in quotes, why emphasize the difference when zooming or going up would exclude the apparent? We only observe the apparent horizon. If I got the question correctly, that's it. I mean, we only observe the apparent horizon and the second part of that question, I don't really. Next up, they said, for the second part, they said, if there's a quote true horizon, then why emphasize the difference when zooming in or going up would exclude the apparent? Okay, we don't, the quote unquote true horizon is the apparent horizon. We do not observe a geometric horizon. The apparent horizon is going to change depending on your observation height, the observer themselves. It is not a physical, nor a place that is pinpointed. It all matters to the refraction. Atmospheric conditions is a better way of saying it. Gotcha, thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from our dearest friend, Colub. Appreciate it. Also goes by Caleb says, plain truth, please explain in detail why it matters that the earth is flat for a globe. The grave is the same depth regardless. Well, that's not a simple answer, two things. We, all of us would like to understand the nature of our world, right? We're all scientists, we all to a certain degree. So it gives us an understanding in terms of where we live. The second thing is, is that we have been lied to about this information and extorted from because of that lie. So those are two simple reasons right there. Gotcha, I appreciate it. Next up, super chat from monkey sage. Appreciate it. They said, what is an ether band? Ever both of us, I can, I think I can answer. It is ether bad, but I think they meant ether band. I guess it could be for both of you. Oh, that's pretty simple. It's atmospheric conditions, nothing more, nothing less. You got it. The ether band is the medium through which we are looking as we look over distance either aquatic or terrestrial. And it is made up of all of the variables that Sean would feel comfortable, as he's just said, would make up refractive index. Appreciate that. Next up, Sean G, by the way, has an after show. So we will link that. We try to link everybody's after shows no matter what side. So we're willing to do it for both sides. And so if you, so if you have- No, I'm going to- Sean G will be hosting that and I will put that link in the description. Yeah, I'll get that to you as soon as I can. In the live chat. So thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from Citra Prado Sarabia. Has another one says, Sean, if you say- He's coming after you with questions. If you say distance doesn't matter, doesn't that mean you rely on a quote level plane? If you don't account for eight inches per mile squared, are you following the globe model? Does it matter now? Okay, perfect. Good question. The eight inches per mile isn't a number you do to quantify the distance around the world. It is literally the observation that you're making the tangent line that in which you observe is your eight inches square per mile. The reason why there's an error margin at 100, 200 miles is the fact that that's as far as you could see at an elevation because of the Rayleigh criteria. So in to simplify the answer for that question, it's literally the fact that the more higher elevation you get, the more you see. You got it. Thanks so much. Appreciate that. And our next super chat from Colubb, as he likes to be called. Also Caleb says, the earth is pear shaped. I'll debate both of you. Thank you very much. Bodhi McBoatface in the house. Long time visitor. Thanks for your super chat. He says, Daz, the cameraman enough said. Yep. Thank you very much. Did you? Shout out to Dazza. Wait, what was it? Shout out to Dazza, the cameraman. He helped me out a while back. I didn't want to bring it up. I mean, in this debate, because I know how Travis works with his images, but Dazza man sent me a boatload of data and just everything you could possibly need for an observation. So shout out to him. Really nice. And totally appreciate your super chat as well from Digital Prison who says, show evidence of location height distance. Maybe for Travis, I'm not sure. Yeah, I think, I know, digital. That was Travis. Yeah, I've done that. Gotcha. Thanks so much. Animorphic Mind, appreciate your super chat. Who says, will Travis cry and rage quit? Like, when did he post that? We're almost at the end. Well, he hasn't yet. Okay, stupid, hard energy. Thanks for your super chat. Who says, for globe earth Christians, how would it say you show Jesus all of the kingdoms from a high mountain that only works on a flat earth? Ooh, spicy, very interesting. Okay, well, I'll give you, I mean, if you identify as Christian plain truth, I can give you a chance to answer that. Yeah, the Bible's not a flat earth book. So that's one thing. Secondly, the Bible is allegorical and we need to understand that the stories that we are told are told in that genre. Gotcha. Appreciate your super chat and or answer. And then appreciate your super chat from Kango24, who says, question for Travis, why does the Abbey, is it ABBE number? What does the Abbey number describe? Yeah, I'm not familiar with that term. New to me as well. The mind of God, thanks for your super chat. Who says Daniel 411 proves the Bible supports flat earth. Thank you, the mind of God. I, well, I guess Travis, you'd probably, you'd disagree if you wanna give a response to that particular verse. Sure, yeah, yeah. Yeah, quite, quite simply, the English translation of the word earth is an interpretation of what the Hebrew word erits means. If you look up the basic syntax in a lexicon, not in a strong's dictionary or not in a strong's lexicon, okay? That's not, the strong's lexicon is more concerned with connotation. When you break down the basic meaning of the word erits and it's the same as the Greek, where we get the word geography, G-E, that's the word in the Greek, in the Hebrew, it's erits, it simply means land, land, okay? The Bible is a geographical book that is talking about locality. It's always talking about the land of Israel or the land of Babylon or the land of Egypt. The Bible does not have a concept of earth in a worldwide sense ever. Gotcha, appreciate that. And K-O-2-4, thanks for your super chat, who says, Travis, optics is completely understood. You making stuff up based on the massive gaps in your knowledge doesn't change anything. Well, cool story, bro, but it seems like you're not paying attention because I've said that your understanding of optics needs to be revamped. Gotcha, appreciate your answer. And super chat from Beardah Devil, 1864, who says, Travis, give the citation for your cherry-picked definition of mirage. I can't do that off the top of my head, but I can go back on my computer where I got it from if you want, so, but I can't do it right now. You got it, thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from Sunday Warship for both T-Pain or Lil John. Lil John, yeah. Don't ask me, I'm a boomer. Christ puncher as they go by. Thanks for your super chat, who says, can Travis explain the Southern Celestial Pole? Aye, aye, aye, we did this with MC Tune. That's not my claim. I don't deal with these claims, okay? I deal with refraction and observation over aquatic distance. Stick to the topic, please. Gotcha, thanks so much. Appreciate your super chat from bearded devil 1864. Again, says, this is a different question, though, says Travis, how was the water affected by the air, but the ship or oil platform were not? Aye, I believe that I made it clear that everything in that field of view was affected by refraction. I didn't say that the ship wasn't. I didn't say that the oil platform wasn't. I said everything was. So, again, you weren't listening. Gotcha, appreciate it. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Citroënus Rabia, who says, who's the cameraman that filmed the moon landings? I don't know. I think it's probably for maybe, I mean, plain truth, do you deny the moon landing? Plain truth, Travis. Yeah, sorry, I'm walking from my truck to my car. So, I mean, again, these tertiary questions that don't deal with the topic, I'm not really interested in dealing with. Gotcha. Gotcha. I suppose technically it's more of a question for a person who would believe that the moon landing was legitimate. Do you have an answer for Cygefredo Sean? If you want, you can say it's outside of what you prepared for, but if you wanna try to answer it, you can. I have no clue and I'm actually a somewhat of a moon land denier, I'll say. Yeah. Super interesting, juicy, I like it. That's a topic we are excited to hopefully host with. Flat Earth Aussie, believe it or not, does not believe in the moon landing. So, Sean Smith, thanks for your super chat, who says, better outcome than expected. Well, what a backhanded compliment. I couldn't agree, well, I mean, I expected it to be great, but it was amazing. I mean, this was great. So, Superdor Energy, thanks for your super chat, who says, Abby, dot, dot, dot, normal. I don't get it, what are you trying to do? I'm sitting right here. Okay, next up, thanks for your super chat, Anamorphic Mind, says on a flat earth, it would be physically impossible for the sun to set. So why do we see sunsets? Boom, proof of a globe, Travis. Okay, so, even though this question isn't directly related to the topic, that's just the most inept statement. I just don't understand how to interact with these things. That would be impossible on a flat earth. Well, how about this? Could it be possible that you misunderstand something about perspective? How about that? Oh, sorry to indicate y'all. That's all right. Gotcha. Your super chat from Anamorphic Mind, who says, oh, wait, I got that one. I think we're all caught up. Appreciate it. Let's see here, if we got any, oh, we had two more come in. Club, thanks for your super chat. Caleb says, Plaintruth, you haven't convinced me to build a rocket. Plaintruth, were you, you wanted Club to build a rocket? Is this true? Yeah, was that my claim? Did I make that claim? Gotcha. Were my arguments in rocketry? I don't think so. Stick to the subject, boys. Thanks for your super chat. Stupid whore energy, as she says, doesn't the Mickelson morally experiment disprove your ether bunny? Yeah, so again, I've made this, or at least I've tried to make this abundantly clear that my use of the term ether is simply to use it as a reference to air. I do realize the ancient understanding of ether had to do with the higher elevations of the atmosphere and whatnot, but I'm just using it in terms of what we understand air to be. Gotcha, thanks for that. Next up, thanks for your super chat from Christpuncher, who says, Travis, what color is a red fire truck? Ah, fuchsia. Thank you for that. And with that, I wanna say thanks so much, folks. It's been a true pleasure. We do have to wrap up. We appreciate the debaters being, like I said, incredibly patient. I can tell you, these guys are both real, very down to earth. I appreciate them so much. And so that's why I put their links in the description so that you can enjoy more of them as well, folks. Believe me. And I wanna say thanks so much for being here with us, though. It's honestly a true pleasure to everybody out there as well, your questions and everything else. It's always a lot of fun, folks. We really appreciate it. And so with that, what we will do is hopefully see you as you see on the bottom right of your screen when Team Skeptic and Flat Earth Aussie team up, pair up, I should say, and exchange blows this Saturday. So thanks so much. Keep sifting through the reasonable from the unreasonable. Take care, everybody.