 Everybody, today we are debating Flat Earth versus Glober Earth and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for another epic debate. Oh boy, these Flat Earth debates are something, I can't believe it, but you know what, people just, they really are enjoying them and I have to be honest, I do learn something new every time. And so I want to let you know though, folks, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up. So for example, you'll see at the bottom right of your screen, Wotan returns in less than a week for a good ol' of course Flat Earth debate, so that should be a lot of fun. And we've got many others coming up. Intelligent design will be going on tomorrow afternoon, that should be a fun one. And why don't let you know, folks, if you're listening and you're like, oh I'm listening, I'm loving this, oh I want more, I desperately want to hear more. You can hear more. I've put both of the speakers' links in the description. In fact, for Pleasant Connor, I've put his email. And by the way, why do I call him Pleasant Connor? That's the name I have given him. He's been christened Pleasant Connor. His real, I don't know if it says that on his birth certificate, but you know, real name Connor, why is he Pleasant? I have to say, I appreciate so much that his email was so polite and also it was so, if you want to debate, folks, if you send me an email like Pleasant Connor's, it just had all the details of like, here's the topic I want. Here's my position, here are the times I'm free, and this is the person I'd like to debate. And I was like, oh my gosh, so easy. Thank you so much. So that is available to you, folks. I'm at moderndaydebate at gmail.com in case you would like to debate somebody. Ideally, you have someone in mind that makes it quicker for me because sometimes it's hard to find people. But I want to let you know, folks, we're going to get rolling right now. So for the opening statements, it's going to be a flexible roughly 10 minutes for each person followed by 60 minutes of open conversation and 25 minutes of Q&A. So if you have a question fired into the old live chat, and then if you tag me with an at modern day debate, that makes it easier for me to not miss your question. Super chats also go to the top of the list for the Q&A, and they allow you to make a comment toward one of the speakers that they would of course get a chance to respond to. Caveat on that. If you'd be your friendly, regular kind selves, that helps a lot. If your super chat is vile or abusive toward one of the speakers, I may edit it. Or if it's uneditable, if there's no way I can redeem it by changing something like mofo to silly goose, I may just not read it. So just want to let you know, hopefully you're not too abusive. These guys are here just because they love the debate. They've been taking it easy on them. So with that, we hadn't decided who would go first. Do either of you have a preference? Sorry about that. Gotcha. Okay. Well, given that Pleasant Conner is on the left, Pleasant Conner will let you get the ball rolling. We'll go left to right. And so I have got the timer set, and this is flexible. So if you need a little bit more than 10 minutes, we can do that. And the floor is all yours. If study is mechanical engineering and some of his debates, plain truth, has asked some questions that relate to what I'm studying right now. So I figured, you know, good opportunity to maybe get some answers in there. And we previously had a discussion, so I have a couple things I wanted to talk about here. So I looked into the Coriolis fact stuff like that. You had some talking points about that so we can get back to that. And we were talking about the moon and the reflection from the lasers off of the moon that you can, that, you know, the evil NASA put up there, whatever NASA, if you're listening, give me that paycheck, amen. And that's about it, I think I'm just taking the position of I disagree, so I don't really have much to say. You bet. Thanks so much. So we'll kick it over to plain truth. How do you like them apples plain truth? I've got the timer set for your opening statement, plain truth, if you got yourself on mute, plain truth in your camera, you look like I know where it is, James. I know. I just forgot that I was laughing again at how brief Conor's opening was and just like really a minute. Okay. So no, no, I just it's it's going to leave everything to the discussion because I don't have anything, any claims to deal with. So I do have my typical opening video. If I can play that, I'm going to have to share my screen maybe or no. Yes, you can definitely share your screen. Okay. Give me a second. I'm going to open that up in my player and then I have to go over and share my screen. All right, share, share. You got that? Yes, I do. And volume. Okay. And this is going to be about 10 minutes. Okay. You got it. There we go. Just to be sure we're on the same page. There's no sound. Is there? Yeah. There is. Oh, am I supposed to share sound? Yeah. It's share computer sound. Sorry about that. That's all right. That was just just 30 seconds. Here we go. Take two. It is insane. It is insane. It is insanity to believe that we live in the world with which we've been presented. That world has no clothes and if you are enamored with the impossibility of the garb of pseudoscience, you are simply mad as a hatter. That world is stark, raving, bare naked and the smallest child knows this. Praise the one with the accusing finger and shrill voice overlaying the dumbed-down masses. While they stupidly ejaculate adulations for mind-screwing pseudoscience, la la land, shout out to Essie Montreal, Pretender Clothes, Praise our Helgy, Long live the vacuum. This tiny taut of a voice of reason, sanity, common sense and bravado decries, the helio-nonsensical model has no clothes. The pseudoscientist is naked. My friends, the world in which we live is the world we've never known. In our world, science proves things. In our world, level means horizontal from shore to shore. In our world, down is down and up is up. In our world, straight lines nare a curve make. In our world, angular momentum has only one effect, outward. In our world, rivers do not run uphill. In our world, Coriolis is merely an apparent effect and the result of roundabouts. In our world, empirical observations, testable suppositions are provable. In our world, perspective trumps math. In our world, refraction distorts what lies before. In our world, it is a fallacy to assert that ships disappear from the bottom up due to curvature. What is it that causes objects viewed over distance, either aquatic or terrestrial, to look as though said objects are obscured from the bottom up as a result of going over the curve? Is that the only explanation offered for a variety of subjects viewed, or are there additional effects, or are there alternative explanations? It is commonplace anymore to hear or even say, I've watched ships go over the curvature of the earth. In fact, it is said, legend has it, Aristotle himself claimed to see ships go over the horizon or the curve of the earth. Is this verifiable? Is this second hand information? How large was this ship? What was the great rhetoricians viewer height? Was he aided by an artificial oculus? Hear this now and never forget it. No human with the unaided eye is able to view with any semblance of acuity a maritime vessel going over the curve. No eye has that kind of resolution. At a certain point in the distance, the perception of the hull and the water becomes blurred and irresolvable with the naked eye. Not only this, but any aid to see farther into the distance will run into the same irresolvable fact. We cannot see as far or as clearly as we might think. But what we do see is right there in front of our eyes. This opening statement will present an alternative explanation to the ubiquitous claim summed up by the alleged astronomer Michelle Fowler. There are so many proofs that the earth is round, it's difficult to know where to start. And it's not okay to think that the earth is flat. This is not a viable argument. One of the things you can see yourself with a pair of binoculars is if you have a pair of binoculars, you can actually go out to a lake and there are boats on that lake. The farther away a boat is, the more the bottom of the boat will disappear and you'll basically just see the mast of the boat. And as a boat goes farther and farther away, the last thing you will see is the very top of the mast of that boat. And that's because the boat is actually going over the horizon that's curved. And that means that as it goes farther and farther away, you see less and less of the bottom of it and more of the top of that. You can see that with binoculars, by an ocean, by a lake, it's really easy. That wouldn't happen if the earth were flat. But is there an alternative explanation? I will present an argument with evidence that there is. But first a preliminary question. If we are engaged in scientific discovery, I have a question for all of the boats over the curve proponents. What alternative explanations were eliminated? What is tested in order to arrive at the singular conclusion that boats sailing into the distance disappearing from the bottom up? Do so because they are indeed crossing a physical threshold. I call this the bottom up fallacy. In my over 18 months of collecting observations of birds, houses, lighthouses, boats, islands and oil platforms, I can honestly report that I have never observed an object disappearing from the bottom up, let alone going over a curve. What I have observed and presented in my channel's numerous videos is whole objects being distorted. And that with a gradient variation. A gradient variation is the distortion of the observation occurring either in stasis or motion concurrent with its entrance into what I have called the aether band. Everybody drink. The aether band simply refers to the medium through which the observation is being made. Band refers to that micro or macro field of view in which the observation is. For instance with the Channel Islands, an observation either of the entire archipelago can be made or one can narrow it down to the natural 40 foot arch or the lighthouse. Aether simply refers to the air and all that constitutes its nature, for example, but not limited to evaporation, condensation, wind, temperature, air pressure, humidity. Since the aether band is ubiquitous, its gradient is three dimensional. And the only two variables controlled by the observer are height and distance. It is these two variables which determine how much and when the object will begin to be distorted. It is the aether band alone which determines why the object is distorted. The bottom up fallacy basically begs the question that the object is disappearing from the bottom up due to physical obstruction. So it is alleged we see boots go over the curve and disappear from the bottom up. Therefore, if boats disappear from the bottom up, they are going over the curve of the Earth's horizon. Or, therefore part two, since the Earth is curved, boats will eventually sail not off the edge but across the threshold of the horizon and disappear from the bottom up. My alternative explanation for the bottom up fallacy is this. Objects moving into the distance are distorted or obscured by the manifold and diverse effects of the aether band. These effects are all related to refraction and find their expressions at times in the broad category of mirage. For example, inferior, superior, bottom organic, bottom primosa, heat haze, whatever the hell happens out there. It is very simple. You are simply looking into the distance and what prevents your being able to see farther into the distance is and only and ever will be due to the aether band. As a flat aether, I see an oil platform. But if you're a globehead religious zealot, it's not an oil platform. It's a slightly looming non-standard refraction hyena holographic projection of an oil platform from behind the reified edge of an Earth curve based on r value and are begging the question proof of nothing prospective hijacking curve calculator to turn an oil platform that you and I see into an oil platform that's not really there. Thanks for indulging. You bet. Thank you very much for that Travis. I will now pull you out of full screen and switch over to the discussion boxes. So thanks so much for your opening statement. We'll go to the open conversation at this point. So thanks so much gentlemen for being here. The floor is all yours. So I'll just jump in and say my opening was so short because I didn't want to start saying things that we talked about before because the connection was so bad. I wasn't sure, completely understood everything you were saying. So I didn't want to start saying things that we talked about. And then you say, well, that's not what I meant by any of that. So I just kind of kept it limited. Well, that's, that's okay. I mean, I mean, technically the opening statement is for you to state your position. So that would have been fine for you express everything that you felt that you could have communicated from your vantage point, anything that you want to talk about. So yeah, I mean, I have a lot of stuff that I can present. I can do, you know, evidence that supports my claim. However, you want to go about this, if you want to start off from your. Sure, sure, we'll start. So one of the things I wanted to ask was, last time you had mentioned them, I needed to prove refraction occurred. So does that mean your position is that refraction doesn't occur at all? No, that's not my position at all. So I'm not really, I don't know the context for why I would say prove refraction occurs. So maybe we can just start having the conversation and if something comes up, usually I try to hold you to your claims, as I would expect that you would hold me to mine. If I make a claim and you would like me to validate that claim, I think that it's appropriate for you to do so. So yeah, I do affirm that refraction is a thing. And the issue that I take with the whole discussion is that, and I think I said this, I can't remember was recently, if it was on another stream, what I said was, if you want to keep all of your mainstream narrative in terms of what mainstream science understands refraction to be, keep all of that, if you want. Keep everything that you think is appropriate to describe what happens in refraction. My argument is that it is refraction alone that creates the effect that has been interpreted as boats going over a curve. Okay, so we might as well start with your arguments then because that's led to you saying that you've made a claim now. So I guess we can go ahead and start with that. Okay, well I'm gonna have to go back to sharing my screen. Yep. Okay, so if I can go back and how do I get rid of this window? There we go, I think. All right, can you see the screen? Yes. Okay, so this is just, I tried to put some things up because I don't need that anymore. I'm gonna skip ahead until I get to my video. Okay, so one of the things that I base my claims on is when I started to, when I started to use my camera and go out to see what I can see, I didn't have any expectations. I did not know what I was gonna find and so everything was new for me. So what we have right here is just an early morning image of the Chesapeake Bay. This image is 5.8 miles away, give or take and the image that my mouse is hovering over is a, is an Airbnb that you can rent for I think 450 a night. The thing is pretty majestic though, it's really nice. It's got like three levels but anyway, if you were to just simply see this image, I doubt that you would say, oh, yeah, that's a house. That's a three-story house and you can see the ground and whatnot. So what we have here is the horizon, right? We have the place where the water ends. My question would be, in your mind, Connor, what's creating this waterline? Oh, sorry, where are you saying the water ends? Well, visibly, visibly the water ends right here. Oh, I don't think that's where the water ends because you can see the house and the reflection of the house and the water. Okay, my, okay, that's, that's fine. That's fine for right now. I'm saying visibly, okay? Visibly. Okay, so if you're ever on the water, you can see that currents in certain places will make the water rough in some areas and crystal smooth in the others. And to be fair, the camera quality isn't god tier in the back. So it's kind of hard to tell if that's just the water ending or if it's just kind of clear and dark. Okay, that's fine. If you want to, if you want to take that position in terms of critiquing the image that you're seeing right now. This is another image of that same shot from the same location. Okay, now what's going to happen right here is we have now again, visibly, right? Visibly, we have the water ending here and the mirage and beginning here. Okay, we have reflections of the birds that are approximate to us. There are birds flying in the distance over here to the right, you can see this faint, red ghost. When I push play, if you watch that, it's going to disappear. Okay, so what I heard you say, Connor, was that in your opinion, it seems as though you say, you would say that the water is continuing to go into the distance. That's what's creating the reflection. Is that what you would say? Yeah, it would appear that that's just the house reflecting off the water. It's just really hard to tell with the, if it's just the video quality, like the picture quality, or if it's just like that's the horizon. It's kind of hard to differentiate what's quality and what's horizon. Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. So we see the house here with a little bit more clarity. What do you think that you're seeing here with the house, like right here in this spot? So I'm going to take the thumb in that that's just the house reflecting in the water that it's directly, but I don't know. I wasn't there taking the picture, so I don't know with the scale of that, how far that is, how far that zoomed. Sure, sure. If I were to just be looking and see that, I'd be like, okay, it's reflecting off the water. Yeah, it's reflecting off the water. So if that, I mean, we've got the top of the house here. We've got the second floor balcony here. We have a stairwell coming down right here. And so then in this area right here, where does the water end? Does the water go all the way up to the house? Let me just try to count the three pixels. Yeah, I really can't tell. The reflection and the house look almost identical in the reflection. Right, right. But if we're going to go along with physics, if you have the reflection, is it your position that you would have to say that the water goes all the way up to the base of the house in order to reflect the base of the house? Sure, yeah, okay, I'll grant you that, yeah. So it's your position that this house is built right on the shoreline in the water? Sure, from what I can see. Okay, so let's go back over here to the left. This image right here, this faint little red image is going to be ghostly in and out and then it's going to disappear. I know that I'm wobbling around and whatnot. I'm fiddling around with this, but my point is, is that in a moment, now that red image is gone. That red image is going to be in the next scene. I'm going to skip ahead real quick just because all right, here's another image. This one's a little bit crisper, a little bit brighter. If I was able to take the whole time, I could show you different levels of the waterline. Okay, so now here, come in on the house and we can clearly see the shoreline. This is the same setup that I had before. There's that red roof pavilion, that ghost of an image that we saw before. So in this image, I'm going to back up to where we started. I'm going to zoom in real quick right here. I'm going to stop right here. Okay, again, I set up in the same place every single time. I have this antenna right here that I can frame my shot. That way I know that I'm getting on a low refraction day, low refraction. I can fit the red roof pavilion, the red roof house and this antenna in the frame. So when I started this clip of this, this was hardly distinguishable. You couldn't tell what it was and the next one, you couldn't see the shoreline. Right here we have direct line of sight down to the shore, direct line of sight. So this is an observation where I saw at the beginning something that I didn't know how to interpret. What am I seeing right here? So I have reflection here. That reflection, it seems to go all the way. I hope these guys have insurance because they're flooded. They are flooded. And I also had to change my perspective on this interpretation because I started with the interpretation that you did, Connor. That is that this reflection is a reflection from the water. I don't believe that's the case. I make that case numerous times in my videos. This is a mirage. This is the inferior mirage. And the reflection is not on the water. It is in the air. This is an effect of the aether band, which is the field of view that we are looking through right now. It's a 3D field of view height, breadth and distance 3D. And in order for this mirage to work, it has to be up in the air because otherwise if we were going to argue for the physicality of the water creating a mirror, again, this house would be underwater. So really quick, can you just shoot back to the next image? You mean shoot forward? Yeah, to the point where you can see that pole again. Yeah, so without my PC, I can't really pixel measure that. It seems like you could see significantly more pole there. Okay, so with 1246, write that down. Yeah, I mean, I can pull up some stills because I have images that I have put together in contrast where I can show this. Yeah, just when you mentioned the pole, it really jolts that pole looks significantly longer. Right, that's an effect of the aether band. I have it where it's squiggly, it's not straight, it's larger, it's smaller. So it affects the entire field of view. So to begin with, that's an example of how I had to look at what I was capturing and process what it is I was seeing. So I don't think anybody disagrees with the statement that the thing you're looking through will affect what things look like. Like everybody's done the thing where you put them in the water. Right, that's not my claim. Yeah, that's not my claim. My claim is that the, you know, I'll just pull this up next, it's random. My claim is that the inferior mirage, you can see it here to the right here, right? Mm-hmm. Okay, so you have sky, you have topography, this is 12 miles away. All right, so then you have this, this darker topography, you know, if you weren't aware of what you were looking at, is this topography down here? Is this, is this the ground right here? What is this band right here that's stretching across? Okay, so this is the sky being mirrored down here. This is an inferior mirage. The mirage is creating this apparent line in the water, right? We see water, water, water, no more water. Where'd the water go? So this line is created by the mirage. So my claim is not that refraction will distort these two trees right here. See these two trees? They're right here. These are more distorted than this. My claim is not that these two trees are going to be distorted by refraction. My claim is that this water that you can see right here going all the way to the shoreline right here is behind this mirage. It's still physically there. So this horizon is created by the mirage. Like, like I said, like, I can call almost no information from that picture on the right because it's like, the front little part is almost looks like that's like 10 feet away from you. I can't exactly say anything about it. Very good. Yeah, but that's not good. So if I hand it, it is, right? It's in a project at school and like they couldn't discern anything about what I gave to them. They'd look at me and say, fuck you, you fail. I don't know what the fuck you're showing me. Well, that's why we're having a conversation right now. So I'm showing you and I'm telling you what you're seeing. Okay, so. But by the same logic, I just told them, well, this is what I meant. They're not going to say, oh, this isn't a class presentation. Okay, so. No, but we're looking for the correct answer. Well, the answer is not going to be easy for you to swallow right away. Okay, I didn't come to these conclusions the first time I saw this information. I just want you to simply hear what I'm saying and then take it into consideration. Okay, so I'm giving you example after example. Here's another example here on the Chesapeake Bay. This is three miles away. This is a vintage historic lighthouse on a manmade island that's now a preserve. But there are boaters that go out here all the time. Okay, again, we have water going into the distance into the distance. The water visibly ends. My question is what creates this line? What is it that is creating this line? Just keep that in the back of your mind. We have a channel marker right here. We have topography right here. And then we have distance with this lighthouse. Okay, I'm just going to let this play for a second. We got a boat here. This is a boat. Okay, what are we looking at? Is this the entire physical boat here? Is this bottom right here? Is this the hull? Is that the hull? You know, what are we looking at? Just keep those in the back of your mind as we're looking through this information. Give me a second. Okay, this boat's going to be coming over into the same area to give a different contrast. I thought I made smaller eclipse. I don't remember what this one was. I was following a boat and it didn't show up. And that was a really interesting capture. Here we go. Sorry about this. Yeah, I had this totally planned out, I promise. Anyway, I could pull up some other ones. Yeah, I mean, I totally get your hesitancy to jump on board. So we can continue to discuss this if you want in terms of different things I can show you. What would you like to do? So I was waiting for you to finish your point. Yeah, yeah, I know. It just was, I thought that my clip was shorter. I had plans fall apart as they always do, but so I was going to say we're about halfway through. We're going to switch to some of my questions I had about stuff we talked about. So refraction is a thing. So if you are in certain places on a flat earth, why can two people on opposite ends of a flat earth see two stars, but they can't see a star in the middle of the distance between them? So I'm trying to start. Polaris? Yes. That is the word I'm looking for. Okay. So one is distinctly above one person and the other is all the way on the other side, but Polaris is in the center. You should be able to see the closer one to you. Okay. Well, right now you're just describing an abstraction. You know, you're describing an idea that is I'm standing in one place, you're standing in another. We look up and we see stars in our proximity and depending on their circuit, where they are at, we're going to see different stars. I don't think that that's any different than saying, I mean, you might as well say this, right? I think I'm on the east coast. I'm just going to put you on the west coast. Okay. And at nine o'clock in the morning, the sun is at a 40 degree angle for me, but you're in California and the sun hasn't come into view for you. Why can't you see it? That's the same question. Well, it'd more be like I'm in the west coast. James is in Central America and you're in the east coast. I can see it at 40 degrees. James can see it. Sorry. James can't see it and you can see it on the east coast because there's something in the center that you can't see, but you can see the two extremes. I don't see this as any different than what I just said. So again, you're asking why can't we not all see it? When there's something that's further away that you can see. Yes. Okay. You just said when there's something farther away that you can see, what is that thing? Different star. I could pull up the image really quickly. Yeah, that would be helpful. That would be helpful. Okay. So then I could, well, I'm pulling up to ask something else. So we're talking about the moon. I don't know if you want to stick to your videos. Take us where you want us to go. I was blowing chunks on my video. Yeah. So I set up my telescope a couple of years ago and my friend came by and I was like, oh man, have you tried that to reflect using the laser set up to reflect off of the moon? So I was like, oh shit, that sounds pretty cool. So I went and I bought the little setup and spent a couple days setting it up and ended at the point you're supposed to name it at and got a reading back of the laser reflecting off. So I'm curious how a solid thing isn't going to fall that's also reflecting light. So it either has to be, something has to be there to reflect the light back. But if something is there, then it has to be falling due to gravity. So I'm curious about that. We kind of talked about it before. Yeah, but that's your curiosity for the presuppositions that you have. I don't know what the moon is. I don't know that it's a physical chunk of mass. I don't know that it has weight. So those are claims or questions that you might have, but I don't have them. It seems like an important question. Well, if it reflects reality, things with weight fall due to gravity. If the moon has weight, it should fall. Does it have weight? How do you know? Things with mass have weight inherent. Great. Great. How do you know it has mass? Physical things that interact with the world have mass. How do you know it's a physical thing? Because it interacted with the laser I shot at it. Okay. That's a conclusion that you might be able to draw, but did you believe that it was physical before you shot the laser at it? Yeah. So then shooting the light, right. No, it does because shooting the laser at it then doesn't have anything to do with your claim that it's physical. Okay. So you thought it was physical prior to the fact that you shot the laser at it. Correct. Because, yeah, simply because then you shot the laser at it. But it wasn't a scientific study that was presented in front of a board of directors that questioned my theory. It was a redemonstration of the same process. That's already gone through the thesis presentation. That theory has already gone through the scientific method. I'm simply redoing it. I don't need to re-prove it every time. Okay. Yeah. I still don't see that simply because you aim a light toward the general direction of the moon and that you got a registered return, that it proves that the moon is a physical object that has mass and weight to it. Well, it necessarily is interacting with a real thing. Correct. I think we can agree on that. What is necessarily interacting with a real thing? I am shooting light at it. Light is real and light is interacting by coming back at me. Okay. So that's an interaction. Okay. So usually things don't interact with nothing. So it has to be... I didn't say that it was, yeah, I didn't say that it was nothing. Okay. So the only something that we know that doesn't have mass is light, but light doesn't bounce off light. So it's either like a massless object that reflects light, which we know nothing about and would kind of break everything. We don't know anything about light. Well, we do. I thought you just said we don't know nothing about. So what were you talking about when you said that? You just said... Yes. Which we know nothing about. I'm just asking for clarification because I don't know anything about things with no mass that reflect light. Okay. So there might be something out there about which we don't know, which is what our claim as flat earthers are about the sun and the moon and the stars. We don't know what they are. Okay. If we go back to the ancient texts and the ancient cultures, they simply called them luminaries. They were lights. That's it. That's all they knew. They weren't making any other claims than that, unless you have something that you can pull up from a source that you want to cite that says that the Aponoshods believed that the stars were farts from fairies out and whatever. Okay. My point is that from our perspective, I don't know what those are except for the fact that they produce light. Okay. So I'd take the same position that I take with a God. Well, why would I choose something that... This is a red herring. No, I'm saying I'm going to take a similar position. I'm not saying this is the same. I'm saying I'm taking the same position. So why would I believe some imaginary thing that would break the entirety of physics when I could just say it has mass? It doesn't break the entirety of physics. If you don't understand a certain aspect of physics, it's outside of your epistemology. And we would have to rework the system, yes. Okay. Simply because you have worked your system to model out something you think to be true, you could be incorrect. You could be. Yeah, that's right. You could be incorrect. We could be incorrect and there's a unicorn in my room. I just can't see it. Right, but there's... I don't work on the system more. Okay, listen. It could be. Okay. I can measure something. Therefore, yeah, I guess I'll accept that because I can measure something. I shoot light at moon, moon for a flex back. Okay. I've checked something. Okay. It seems pretty reasonable that it's not some unknown thing that we've never even encountered. I'm just going to say that I see it. It reflects light back. Probably has mass. Okay. That's fine. If you want to make that assertion, that's fine. My only response is you cannot verify outside of simply having a registered return on your laser. If you want to attribute that to... By that logic, I'm getting light registered back at me. Every photo you take is just light registering in a camera. So that doesn't verify anything either because that's all all a picture is is light registering in a camera. So you're getting a reading from light registering in a camera. I fail to see the distinction. Yours has pictures after. I don't know what the distinction would be there. Well, it's not just simply... It's an image. So if I see something with my eye, right? If I see an image with my eye and then I reduplicate that or reproduce that in a photograph, that's just simply reproducing what I've seen with my eye. So I can confirm, yes, that's what I saw with my eye. Yep. Okay. I'm not sure what we're going with this. Well, so you use that as evidence for your position of a flat earth, but I can't use the telescope reflecting light back and registering... No, it depends on the... Listen, it depends... The moon has mass. It depends on the claim that you're making, right? I can demonstrate and someone can come to my location and see what I see. I can reproduce those images, show you that I have line of sight all the way to the shoreline in one image, show you another image where that line of sight is now diminished or even completely blocked, right? Okay. And I can draw conclusions from those things. That's all. So anybody can come up to my place, have a couple of beers and we can shoot the laser at the moon anytime. Sure. Yeah. And the same statement applies. So... Yeah, right. Sure. I'm failing to distinguish why one is an acceptable reasoning to accept a worldview. Again, it depends on the claim that's being made. Okay. And I think that we said this in the conversation that I had with you. I said, okay, I'm just going to have to take your word for it because I haven't ever shot a laser at the moon. Okay. So I'm going to take your word for it. I just don't think that your conclusion is correct simply because you've shot a laser at it. Well, usually you take the conclusion with the least amount of claims. So my claim is that it's something that we know exists already, things with mass that are there. Yours is that it's something that has no mass, which we know exists, but it also reflects light, which we don't know exists, something without mass that reflects light. I don't know that it reflects light. Well, I shot light at it and it reflected back. Okay. All right. I wasn't sure. Don't be smarmy. I thought you were talking about the sunlight. Oh, no. Yeah. Not only that, not only that, but this is what I said in our conversation. It's possible that you, in one of the stratosphere that's up there and one of the spheres, those layers of atmosphere that they attribute to our environment, it's possible that the lasers simply reflected off of one of those. I actually have something on this. Oh yeah. So you can do the same experiment when the moon is directly above you and then that sphere around there, there isn't a sphere that would do that to a light that is perpendicular to it because it'll just pass right through because it's perpendicular. So the experiment still holds true. It'll pass right through what? Whatever sphere you're proposing around the earth. I'm not proposing anything except for the fact that they're proposing an explanation, whatever it may be. So you're saying that there's a layer of the atmosphere that could reflect that light back, but if you shoot it directly nine degrees straight up, it's not going to do that. How do you know? Because that's how optical physics worked. Again, you're making claims about something that you cannot verify. You can't go up there and verify what your conclusion is. No, I can. If I shoot that laser at the same angle when the moon isn't there, it's not going to reflect back at me. Have you done that? Yes. I missed the first time. I actually missed the first many times because I hadn't used it before. So additionally, it's only one very small point on the moon. If you shoot it at any other part of the moon, it's not going to reflect back at you. It's one very specific point that you have to program in and say. So again, I'm just trying to understand. So what you're telling me is that you took basically a BB gun and you aimed it at a bullseye 238,000 miles away. I downloaded a program from the internet and put it into a programmable telescope that goes in the x, y, z in rotational axes and it put it in the right spot. So you've got an electronic computer that you have to enter data into and then you're trusting that that is giving you an accurate register on the return. The program only affects the motor to turn the telescope. It's not a very complicated program. I could have written it myself. All it does is because the laser is a separate attachment. So if you shoot it, if you just hand aim it, you're not going to get a reading even if you're pointing it at the moon. So I'm curious what, why there's only one very specific point on the moon that reflects light back or is none of the other moon does. Again, that's where I'm a little bit incredulous and I don't want to harp on this point. I find it very difficult to believe that you can take a BB sized pinpoint of a laser. What was the millimeter measurement of the laser? You can keep time. I'm just going to type in them. No, I don't have anything to say right now. I don't want to. Okay. Well, I'll pull it up during the Q&A because I don't want to just sit here in silence. Okay. So again, the fact that you're telling me that you have to hit a particular place on the moon that's 238,000 miles away, I find it very difficult that you can take, listen, when I zoom in with my camera on something three miles away, it is very difficult to keep that lined up accurately. I mean, it's very, very difficult. So it's just, to me, a point of incredulity that you are actually hitting an X marks the spot on the moon. Well, that's because you're aiming it with your arm. Like it's trying to hold something perfectly still. It's very difficult because people move a little bit like just, you're shaking a little bit, but this is a motor that locks into position and just goes in the one direction and stays. So I'm curious, yeah, I'm curious then, how does the laser account for the refraction that's in the atmosphere as it's exiting our world and traveling 238,000 miles? You know, does it account for, no, no, I'm just curious. Does it account for the refraction? Do you have to aim it off-center so that it bends back the way it's supposed to go? I have no idea because I put a thingy into my thingy and the code works. Right. Yeah, I'm not really going to go down this, down this road. So again, if you shot it straight up 90 degrees, refraction wouldn't occur because you're perpendicular to the refraction. No, refraction is three, is three dimensional. It's everywhere. Refraction is not going to be not above your head. If you shoot it perpendicular, the angle that it comes at it from will not reflect it to the side. If you shoot it at this, then yeah, it's going to come like this, but it's just going to go up. Where's your proof? How refraction works. You can look up any test that refers to refraction due to lasers or refraction's effect on lasers. Okay, again, so you're making a claim that if you shoot a laser straight up in the air, that it's not going to deviate in any direction. Yeah. Okay. Well, if you can produce something that I can look up and see that to verify that, that'd be great. So you just type in refraction at 90 degrees and the first thing, why does refraction not affect things at 90 degrees? Yeah, this is not my claim. This is your claim. So I told you, I just told you, I told you that, listen, when we were on the phone, I said, if you make a claim, I'm going to ask you for your evidence. So I'm just asking you for it. Yeah, I'm giving you options. I don't know video, scientific paper. We can move on from here. So you've shot a laser at the moon. You get a registered return. And that means the earth is a ball. That's not what it said. These are separate claims that you move towards one conclusion with. Okay. So how is it that you move from shooting a laser at the moon to the earth is a ball? So if the moon reflects something back at a very specific point, a very logical conclusion is that it is something we know exists that reflects light, which is something with math. Again, you're talking about the moon. How does this relate to what we consider the reality of the earth to be? So yeah, a moon with mass would fall due to gravity on a flat earth, but on a non flat earth, it wouldn't. It's not necessarily a proof of a spherical earth. It is a disproof of a flat earth. Okay, listen. Your argument, Connor, has to do with the nature of the moon, not the earth. Because it's a statement about the flat earth, not about a statement about the spherical earth. If you want proof about a spherical earth, we could talk about how stars rotate differently in different atmospheres. This is your ball of wax. We can do down whatever rabbit hole you want to go. All right, well, let's talk about that. How stars rotate differently in different atmospheres. Five to 10 minutes before Q&A. Probably just enough time. Sweet. All right, so you've made these observations yourself? Yeah, because I've been in the southern hemisphere before. So tell me about it. What do you want to let me know? Depending on the hemisphere you're in, stars will rotate in one or the other direction. And you can see the same constellations if you're on either side of the equator. So if you're on one side, you're going to see the same constellation rotating one way. If you're on the other, you're going to see it rotating the other. So I'm curious about how that works in any other way other than a sphere. Well, again, this is one of those things that I have not gone in farther south than Lima, Peru. And when I was there, I didn't do any observations of the skies. So this is outside of my experience. So all I'm going to do is be able to interact with you in terms of thoughts. So what direction were you facing? Do you like face up towards the sky? I don't understand. What do you mean direction? How do you know south? There are four cardinal directions. Yes. Okay. You mean north and south? What about east and west? I assume that if I say the two, you kind of know that I mean the four. Listen, I'm not assuming anything, buddy. I'm asking you a question. Which direction you're facing? So is it north or south? So when I'm normally, so when I'm at home, I don't want to know normally you're talking about where you were in the South America. So when I'm in the northern hemisphere, I normally look. I don't want to know about the normal. I'm asking you about when you were in the south. What support do I'm doing in the northern hemisphere? You're telling me that you went south, correct? So I have to start with what I always do and then say this is the abnormality. Okay. Listen, this is a non-answer. You said, hold on. I'm just going to pick this apart. You said that you were below the equator, correct? Yep. I said what direction were you facing? And then you take me north of the equator. You're not north of the equator. I'm asking you about what you were doing south. Okay. South, I looked. I don't even remember what direction this was like. Okay. Then I'm not even going down this road if you don't even know what fucking direction you were facing, dude. Come on, man. What? What do you mean? What do you mean? What do I mean? You can't even answer my question. It turns a direction. You can't even answer the question I just asked you about what direction you were facing. You're him in and on. What direction were you looking at six years ago? Okay. Listen, this is your argument. Yeah, I know. But so I don't have no argument right now. You can't even remember the details. Well, I think I saw the perpetrator in your honor. I think he might have been male, but I know he could have been female. I'm not really sure. So when you presented me your photos, I don't say, well, what was the refractive index and the temperature? That's not my fault. Listen, if we were going to hold you to that extreme standard of, why didn't you take this exact number at this exact time? Okay. Okay. So then would you like to hold me to that standard? Because I will hold You can do whatever you like, Connor. You simply made a claim. I'm asking you questions so that I can understand your claim. You can't even answer them right now. All right then. I'll hold you to the same claim for your photos that you present. So what was any of the refractive indexes that you when you took your photos? I don't have the refractive indexes. And likewise, I don't have the direction. I'm not making a claim about the refractive indexes, Connor. You can't. You said that refraction is the cause. So you are making a claim of refraction. I hope everybody can hear this guy. Connor, I'm not making a claim about refractive indexes. Refractive index is the index of refraction. I'm not talking about refraction. I'm not talking about the measurement. I've never mentioned refractive indexes in terms of their measurements. But you've mentioned refraction. That's right. Refractive index is a part of refraction. Depends on the claim that you're making. And you don't have to whisper into my ear. It gave me the goose bumps that I don't like that. Don't ASMR me. You know, you liked it. So no, no, please do not go down that road. Oh, well, it's unfortunate. I liked it. Yeah. Okay. So maybe a couple more minutes until Q&A and then we've got some questions. So thanks, gentlemen. If you guys have any sort of like concluding thoughts, maybe about five minutes or so for the 60 minutes of open discussion. So five minutes left. I started. So you got it. I don't know who wants to close last. Well, I mean, the way that I'm just going to reiterate my claim, my claim is not that refraction happens. My claim is that it is it is refraction alone. That is the cause of what has been interpreted to be boats obscured by the curvature of the earth. And I can produce image after image, picture after picture of that phenomenon. So, you know, so, so likewise, my claim isn't that I was looking at direction. It was that stars turn in the sky. I'm just asking for, you know, details about the cases just like you're asking about details of what the case. So I don't know what the why you're holding me to a different standard, I guess, would be the question. Look, look, I was just trying to understand your orientation. You said that you made observations about the sky south of the equator. All I all I asked you was what direction you're facing. It's it's I'm not really sure why this got derailed so crazily. Yeah, I mean, I mean, all I said was I don't remember the exact and then you said, okay, well, then let's move on. Right. It doesn't it doesn't change. It doesn't change the case that you have no substance doesn't change the case that those observations have been made by countless other people. Okay, I'm not going to try to go by second hand information or hearsay. You made a claim. You don't know the detail of the particular claim that you're making. Simply because you tried to reverse the the criticism on me that I don't deal with refractive indexes doesn't relate to my argument because I'm not making a claim about refractive indexes and their measurement. That's not anywhere in my claim. My claim is simply go ahead, finish. My claim is simply that it is refraction alone. That is the obstruction. But refractive index is important to know that if the only thing that is happening is refraction or if there's other causes that are obscuring your vision. So if you have a great index, you can know more about that. Yes, because that's that's what refractive index is used for to see how much the light is curved. I'm not trying to measure the curvature of the light, but I need to to verify the image. Well, then you do it. Okay, well, tell me when you're going out and I will find a day to come down and I will measure it for you. But until that's case, you're just giving me things I can't do any with anything with. Okay, just giving me pixels on a screen that I know nothing about. You got it. Thanks so much, gentlemen. We can now switch over to the old Q&A. So thanks so much folks for all of your questions. Just a couple of quick housekeeping type things. We are very excited folks. This is always a good time. This is our first time getting to host Connor. So Connor, thanks so much for being with us today. We really appreciate it. Yep. That's what I'm talking about. So yes, very excited and plain truth. Good to have you as well. So thanks so much for being here. We're going to start up with super chats and then we'll get to the standard questions as well, or at least through as many as possible. So thanks for your patience, as we will try to work through them quick. And first one up. Thanks so much, Steven Steen for your super chat who says James is a sassy lover. Nasty guy. He would never know that. Nasty. Steven Steen, thanks for your super chat who says Flat Earth ASMR and spoken word. Hot. Yes. So apparently Steven liked that too. Appearance is not reality. It's funny though because that super chat came in well before he whispered that to Travis. So I'm confused by that that like Steven coincidentally was like, Oh yeah, Flat Earth ASMR hot. God damn. That's so weird. That's spooky. Appearance is not reality. Thanks for your super chat who said gives grandstanding a whole new meaning. Is this one of your enemies? Plain truth because I think that there may be wait no maybe they're referring to pleasant Connor. I don't know who is this. Yeah, read it over again. They said gives grandstanding a whole new meaning. Oh, well that would be pleasant Connor. Next up. Let's see. Steven Steen, thanks for your super chat who says congrats Travis on your easy win thumbs up. You got a fan on Travis. Connor says congrats. Defeated, you know, fans just, you know, they paid money to say it. Sean Hawkins, thanks for your super chat who said Travis quantify the ether band or drop it. Po. Yeah, this is what I said before. If you want to keep all of your quantifications of what you understand or fraction to be, keep them. That's fine. That's not my claim. Okay. Again, everybody out there listening. Please listen. I'm not making a claim where I have to quantify the dynamics. I don't even think they can be quantified simply because you guys can show me what you think light is doing on a diagram. Whenever and I did it again today, whenever I ask one of you guys to show me that kind of reality, you show me a picture. Sure. You can't show me light doing what you say it's doing in the diagram. So quantify all you want. My argument is that the refraction is the obstruction and that's easy to see. Absolutely, 100%. Can I interject really quick James? Yes. So I'm curious, would it be useful to be able to come up with a method to predict what you're going to do so somebody can reproduce it? I don't believe that predicting, and this is where I've gotten into discussions with people like yourself, Connor, and I've asked numerous people to do that, to do just that. I want you to predict not that you think that there's going to be an inferior mirage, not that you think that there's going to be a superior mirage, not that you think whatever. I want you to predict what my image is going to look like because whenever we get images that prove curvature from the ballers, they always look at the image itself and say, yep, that's exactly what we expect to see, which means you can predict what the refraction is going to do to my image on any given day. So if you want to try that, knock yourself out. Yeah, I could if I had the information to go along. All right, well then we can follow up after this and I will give you all of the information that I can from my perspective. Gotcha, thanks so much. And thanks so much, Phillip, for your super chat who says, the plain truth, you accept pictures with no data about the refraction as evidence for the Flat Earth, but you are highly skeptical of any evidence for the globe. Why the double standard? It's not a double standard. Listen, I added the soy boy part. Wow. Thanks. Come on. Listen, it's it is it depends on the claim that you're making. Okay, so the yeah, I yeah, but I've said it before. It's like you guys don't listen. It's not that I have a double standard. It depends on the claim I'm making it depends on the claim that someone else is making. You got it. Thanks so much. Next up, appreciate your super chat from Reverend our arrow. Thanks for your super chat. They say question for the plain truth. Can you let Connor finish? That was like really that was during the slightly tense time just a few moments. It was like firing up, but this has been the most peaceful dialogue at least especially compared to last night in which I was gonna say I saw last night. So, you know, I kind of figured, you know, take a couple drinks, you know, chill, chill out, you know, get a contrast going. Yesterday was like whoa. I don't know if I've ever had a more tense one than yesterday. So let's see. Thanks up next up. Thanks so much for your super chat from our dearest friend. Stringer news one says Travis, can you show anything to back up your either band claim? No, indistinct photos don't count. Where's the alleged obstruction? Indistinct photos. What does that even mean? So yeah, I mean, if you're serious, okay, my email is available on my channel. If you want to have a serious interaction with me, you can email me and we can talk about it. But everything's on my channel. It's obvious. You can see the obstruction. And it is due to refraction. So I think we should start to go fund me so we can get some serious like camera upgrades going. So you know, we can listen, listen, okay, this this is what pisses me off because that I just said I should give you money. No, no, that comment reveals the fact that you don't understand photography. Okay, my pictures aren't a result of the quality of my camera. Okay, the pictures capture what refraction is presenting to me. I can't unfocus a distorted image due to refraction. So they're all cameras have the exact same focusing technology. Okay, I'm going to say it again. If an image is distorted by refraction, I don't care what camera you have. You're going to see that image. It's going to be distorted. Your camera cannot undistort a distorted image. It's got nothing to do with focus. It's my images aren't blurry, because I can't focus. That's not the issue. I mean, if a camera upgrade would do nothing, then I suppose it would do nothing. It depends on what it is you're trying to upgrade to. Do I want to see farther? Do I want I didn't say you couldn't get a whole rake man. These are pretty generous fans. Okay, okay. Yeah, yeah. My my understanding of what your comment was was the quality of my images. Is that correct? Some of them. Yeah. Okay. Those images cannot be fixed by any camera. No picture you've ever taken could have been improved by my god. Oh my god. That's all my statement was I'm not saying every okay. Okay. Yeah, let's let's get to the question because we're holding James up there. No problem. We I do appreciate all of it. It's always fun to get to hear you guys chat and I also flat earth or I should say end flat earth. Thanks to your super jet. They said quote flat earth is a dying fad from captain obvious. That's what they say. I you know what? I don't I thought that was true. Like I thought about maybe not a year ago maybe six months ago. I thought like yeah flat earth probably done. But then when we we brought Wotan on as revenge of the I didn't know flurfs was a bad word. So I made a thumbnail that said revenge of the flurfs and it had you know lightsaber fight with the globe and Wotan and just all of a sudden is like wow I don't know if it is dying. What do you guys think? You can disagree with me. It's okay. I was just so so you're called out on the on the discord James. They're they're saying that you know NASA is paying people to have flat earth debates to make it like make people think that oh wow I don't want to be that stupid discuss so we know James you're getting them NASA paychecks. So that's why come on. It's good old NASA. They have deep pockets and I was you know I can easily be bought so we appreciate NASA here. So can I let's see a stringer one news. We got that one. Sean Hawkins thinks for your super chat who said burden of proof reversal fallacy bad form Peter. Nice reference to hook. I don't know who it was for though. Well yeah Sean Hawkins I think he's he's maybe talking to you plain truth. Yeah I would think so but again there's no context so I have no idea what he's referring to. Thank you and stupid horror energy as she likes to be called nasty lady. She says James is my personal Lord and Savior but she spells Savior weird. I don't understand this. Is this one of the like cool new things that the boomers like myself. How do they how do she spell it. Well with Savior it says like just how you'd normally spell Savior but with the you in parentheses. I don't know if she's trying to be like you. You James I don't know. Yeah that's what I thought at first maybe she's trying to be considerate to people who spell Savior with a you from England or maybe from Canada down under maybe I don't know. Canada. Yeah that could be that's very it's very culturally sensitive of you Sarah. That's very sweet. Okay next up thanks for your question from Ed Fee or freeze same Ed who he wants a piece of you plain truth. He says okay hold on the guy can't even reiterate my claim. If he doesn't know my claim I'm not dancing with him. Well he well he says please ask the plain truth when will you stop making excuses and debate me. Oh my god you know if I if I read our exchange I think anybody would just want to eat a gun. It's just absolutely insane. I mean I would be entertained by that. I don't even know who he is but I want to see that. Yeah he can't he can't even reiterate my claim so if he doesn't know my claim there's no reason to debate him. Gosh I mean that would that should make it so much easier you know. No this doesn't you know I've got I think I've got two episodes on my channel with with Ed and the very first one should give you enough information. It's like you but your buddy's right secretly. Next up maybe not. Observer I noticed your question they said please try and set up a debate between Nathan Thompson and Kent Hovind. I agree I honestly am gonna try I don't think Hovind will go for it but we'll give it a shot. I know Nathan is like pumped he honestly would love it so but yes thanks so much. We I totally agree if you're a Hovind fan feel free to just mention me like hey you know I think this could be cool. Maybe we'll do it this summer when we're on tour if we get to have that tour I think we will but Ed Fries thinks your other your other question he said plain truth do you have any actual arguments besides quote I don't know and therefore the earth is flat. You don't even know my my major premise Ed so why would I even go down trying to give you other arguments you don't even know my first one. Okay thank you very much and Jay Aceto thanks for your question they said ask the flatter fella his name is on the border asked the he said how come we hey there fella how can how come we can do spectral analysis of the moon I have done it it's a real thing awesome I'll have to take your word for it get on you looking at that sounds interesting thanks so much the stoner thanks for your question they asked debate question for plain truth when is your after school club going to actually prove a flat earth everyone is tired of hearing how you don't understand therefore it must be wrong type of argument I who's making the you don't understand therefore must be wrong I'm not sure what he's talking about I think that was when we were talking about like the the moon and stuff and you're like I don't know what it is so I can only assume yeah there's not enough in that to but evidence again in my opinion anyone who says there is no evidence for a flat earth has got to be in the nicest way dishonest okay you might disagree with the argument but I would have more respect for you if you were to say Travis I totally get it I totally get that makes sense what you're saying makes sense here is why I disagree I have more respect for that than for someone who says there's no evidence someone who says that I don't even have kind words I think most people that say they're just being like hyperbolic or they just don't know what evidence is because technically everything has evidence to support it it's just that other things might have more and again I would I would be more appreciative of that posture I mean that's why I'm not a douche bag because you know everybody there's a reason to believe everything it's just whether it's a good reason or not gotcha and thanks so much for your question from let's see here Sean G apparently also wants a piece of you Travis I know it's awesome I must be pushing the right buttons wow a lot of people seem to want you playing you must be a pretty good-looking man god damn yeah they want you they desperately want you that's why I didn't show my picture I didn't want it to distract from the debate yeah yeah gotcha been wrecked thanks so much let's see appreciated I think we have caught up with all the questions so thanks so much folks really excited this is always fun if we have any last questions we can get them in but do want to say it's always a pleasure our goal is to provide and it's true I sometimes tease Travis sometimes other people but you know soon now that Connor's kind of like broken in next time I can definitely tease him come on James bring those bring those insults in here come on that's good he likes that oh yeah from James anytime so we uh but we do try to provide hopefully it is a fair platform but give us you know let me know if you're like hey the moderation is not fair it's always nice if I do actually like getting feedback on the channel usually I like it if it's like what's the word I'm looking for it it helps I'm like more likely to read it if it's like starts with something polite rather than like hey coward which that does happen and I'm like why am I the coward like but I mean if anybody I mean the plain truth but it's just yeah so I just I'm teasing plain truth I love you buddy oh you were talking to me just teasing okay edit freeze thanks for your question they said I gave Travis all his claims on email this is just another dodge when will he debate me I love I love your inflection on that that's just classic yeah again when when I ask him what my claim is and he gives me three points and I say no that's not my claim what is my claim and he continues to repeat the same thing he's not answering the question so no Ed you don't know what my claim is gotcha super interesting let's see Steven Smith thanks for your question this said ask the plain truth how can he he can still be a flat earth after all his points have been decimated by mctoon fight the flat earth and even Connor who is even Connor this is like a backhanded compliment even Connor is disproving it it's okay I'm better at politics so it's it's okay and and I did lie before every claim is evidence except for like liberals conservatives anybody like right of liberals all no you're all stupid play true that you want you can answer you don't have to but yeah I mean that's you know it's beauty is in the eye of the beholder I'm sure he is a uh I'm sure he's a globe flake so of course he thinks that all three globe flakes got the best of me that's funny totally appreciate it so I uh we love you guys thanks so much for hanging out with us it's always this always gets me in such a great mood a lot of times I'm like shot from a long day but this just fires me up it gets me I'm happy I'm I'm pleased thanks so much and do want to remind you that their links I'm going to put let's see oh hadn't done it already I'm doing it right now I am putting plain truth link in the description right now as I am speaking and I will be putting pleasant connor's email down there as well so that way if you want to reach these guys if you want to hear more of their content you definitely can highly encourage you to check them out and plain truth I'm about to get spammed at all hell aren't I excellent that's funny so awesome folks thanks so much keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable and we will see you next time