 Hey everybody, today we are debating Flat Earth and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate as we are very excited to have these two experienced debaters with us today to debate the one and only question the shape of the earth. So it's going to be a lot of fun folks, want to let you know I have linked both of the debaters in the description and so if you're listening and you're like hmm I like that well got news for you I put those links down there just for you so you can hear more of both of these gentlemen and want to say it's their first time here and if it's your first time here consider hitting that subscribe button as we've got a lot more debates coming up so for in fact you will see at the bottom right of your screen we will have a tag team debate tomorrow that will have Tom Jump as well as Amy Newman going against two Theus both of which will be new and so that should be a lot of fun folks we hope you can check that out so it's going to be a lot of fun tomorrow night for that tag team debate and what else I would say is if you have a question during today's debate please feel free to fire that question into the old live chat I will pick out that question if you tag me with modern day debate or at modern day debate that'll make it easier for me to make sure I don't miss any of the questions and then we will ask as many as we can at the end so we are going to have a pretty flexible format for today namely roughly 10 minute opening statements followed by a flexible 50 to 60 minutes of open conversation followed by Q&A so want to say thanks so much gentlemen planner walk and flatter the Aussie it's a pleasure to have you guys for the first time thanks for being on here with us I'm glad to be on great awesome really fun so this should be a lot of fun folks we are going to give in that we usually have the flat earth or go first flat earth Aussie happy to have you make your case and like I said it's a flexible 10 minute opening statement and do I remember did you guys make a decision on you guys are okay with either going first yep absolutely okay perfect thanks so much so flat earth Aussie thanks for being here the floor is all yours well thanks James it's great to be here finally I haven't really watched too many of the debates on your channel but same the odd one here in the essay sort of rough idea how your system works we have a bit of cat open debate open discussion to start the week for a statement so for me as most people have come across me once or twice before some of the debate sites I'm not a professional debater by any means I'm a writer far more than I'm a public speaker I do tend to get a little nervous when it comes to making a live presentation I've been questioning the nature of reality probably since my mid teens as it might turn out I don't think there's any definitive explanation for the nature of reality it could well be a simulation for we know but we don't just go with our best evidence so when I look at the nature of reality I just look at the nature of physics and the nature of physics tells me that there are observable laws that solids liquids and gases and the nature of them is pretty easy to understand the nature of liquids is they will fill their container they will form a flat level surface between higher edges of a solid and if not they'll flow to a lower level to seek another level so the nature of water tells me that the earth itself is flat there are other things that we're getting into finer detail about now and that is basically the nature of life itself this is where we're fine-tuning the our understanding of this flat plane of earth we live upon and the nature of life I think is the definitive thing that understanding the nature of our reality I mean everything when it comes to science means we basically make observations the way we make observations is with our eyes and the way our eyes work is because light bounces off of things for us to observe them if we can't trust our eyes then we can't really trust anything else with the nature of reality so when we look at light we know that basically our source of light is sun that's how we get our daylight but to understand then the opposite aspect of that the reason we have a night time must be because there is something that the sunlight is hitting upon a daytime to give us the nature of life if not then there'd only be a tiny shadow of earth reflecting across full okay not reflecting blocking the sunlight at night time which would only block that tiny little speck the relevance of the size of the planet and the rest of the universe would be then tending with sunlight but because we know that some light works people is bouncing across something what that something is atmosphere atmosphere that's atmospheric gases it's the noble gases of the atmosphere which illuminate much like the gases inside a fluorescent light bulb illuminate because they're electrostimulated by a source in that case it's electricity in this case of earth reality and the sun the sun is obviously some sort of electrostimulatory force that in the presence the nearby presence the noble gases of the atmosphere glow like the interior of a light bulb we don't need to have gravity to have these gases at various levels they will sort themselves out according to density and buoyancy every thing has its own molecular weight and so they will sort themselves out roughly in the form of gases of course that's very roughly down in a form of a big word we've got a more defined density as we've seen in density tower but the atmosphere basically works the same way than the upper atmosphere we have the two lightest gases that we know is hydrogen and helium and modern science tells us that the sun is mostly hydrogen and helium now what a coincidence that is what we're actually seeing when we look at the sun is the appellation of the sun up in the upper atmosphere where it's all hydrogen and helium and so this apparition glows like say a well-designed lamp for example and then the rest of the daylight sort of spreads out from that we'll see this defined point which we call the sun but the fact is that upper atmosphere on the huge scale of things above the planar earth a massive massive planar earth which we are just on the surface of when we put all this to scale the atmosphere itself above say that is the planar earth that was only like this tiny little amount above us but the human perspective it's actually really high it could be like 50 miles high since we know airplanes fly three to five miles high 86 miles high it's been 50 miles high it's actually very very very high we tend to misinterpret how high things are people have to say it's just anything across rather than high but you know you stand at the base of a tall building it's only a hundred meters high it looks very very tall walk down a few blocks it looks very very small it's all a matter of perspective so if the Sun is a roughly 50 mile high above us what we're seeing the apparition of the Sun through the upper layer of the atmosphere but the Sun itself might be five hundred miles high five thousand miles high we don't really know so what this does it creates a layer effect where so wherever you are on the planar earth looking up at the Sun where the Sun really is is not where you're seeing it you're just seeing it in the upper atmosphere which is why if you see the Sun from where you're looking at it somebody five hundred miles away will be looking to a completely different part of the atmosphere seeing their apparition of the Sun which places the Sun into completely different places at the same time so when you spread this out over thousands of miles across the planar earth you're basically going to have well every different individual's perspective of the Sun there's eight billion people you've got eight billion different Suns and the same goes for every conscious living thing whether it be a plant or an animal or whatever you know anything that can detect the Sun is going to have its unique individual perspective of the Sun which means even though there's one source for the Sun there are multiple multiple multiple different variations of where it appears and what it's doing which is why Sun like is not quite so simple as what the globe model shows us we've got one Sun ninety three million miles away a spinning ball rotating around and giving you twelve hour days with your morning and evening part of it and on the flat earth you've got multiple different variations and the Sun is illuminating them all locally so when what you're seeing is the Sun as it's setting and giving you the red spectrum of the noble gases in your atmosphere illuminating the bottom of the clouds from somebody from a completely different location several thousand miles away the Sun is directly overhead and it's still bright golden and illuminating the clouds from underneath a bright white spectrum of light the nature of light itself means we're more or less like on the inside of light bulb and the light will be shining upwards towards the bottom of the clouds hence why when the Sun is so far away and only eliminated the neon gases that give us the red sonoranism, the purple sonoranism so we'll still be eliminating the bottoms of clouds even though from our perspective the Sun appears to be set so the nature of light one of the more difficult things to grasp in the nature of perspective is the reason why everything works as we see it on a flat plain earth if we are doing it from the rotating ball model that we all once believed then the earth is spinning away as to make the Sun set in the opposite direction and the moment that that Sun goes beneath the horizon it should immediately cast a dark shadow across your entire part of the sky so you're going to be instantly in the darkness that we can have highlights that go for hours upon hours this ball spinning at a thousand miles per hour we're instantly in the darkness going higher on a ball is actually going further away from the Sun according to that law of perspective you going upwards is going away from the center you're not going back over to see the Sun set again we see the Sun set multiple times as you see we send it down upwards simply because that angle of view is showing what is further away the higher up you get further you can see all right we'll leave it at that. Thanks so much Flat Earth Aussie we actually I want to say this is totally my fault folks at the very start of the stream I had trouble hearing Flat Earth Aussie so I asked him to crank his mic up as high as possible and so we could hear you Flat Earth Aussie but you can probably even turn it down just a little bit because some of the audio divas out there were like uh his mic is so bad your mic is fine it was my fault for telling you that it was too low so you're actually you're coming through perfectly thanks so much for your opening statement and now we will take it over to Planner Walk so Planner Walk a joy to have you here as well and the floor is all yours okay so the first thing I've got to say is it's amazing how much taking a few notes and I'd notice that you misunderstood how things work on the globe model and so yeah so some of the things that I want to say is in this debate I want all claims that are being made to be substantiated in some way shape right so if you make a claim about the noble gases being illuminated by the Sun I want you to be able to substantiate that because if you don't substantiate it you might as well just dismiss it because uh that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence and I know that there is that there are a few things that Flat Earthers will say oh this is evidence for the Flat Earth you know like Black Swan but most of these things that are evidence for the Flat Earth in fact all of them would actually have uh actually has a lot of evidence to the contrary so you could bring up something like the Black Swan but there's Tampa Bay images or the Tampa Bay Bay blink test you've got images which show the the oil platforms that from the Black Swan image actually being obscured bottom up and all that kind of stuff and all this happens all the stuff is what would expect to see on a globe so it's really strange to me how someone can someone like Flat Earth Ozzie Jesus can claim that the earth is flat yet all the evidence that we've got points to it being globe and is exactly what would expect to see if the earth was a globe uh so so yeah there's all there is that and I find that Flat Earthers often don't have a lot of positive evidence so what I do want is I do want positive evidence for the earth being for the earth being flat not just claims of or not just saying oh this isn't possible on a globe because saying that something isn't possible on a globe is usually just a misunderstanding and it's it's not really providing evidence for the earth itself being flat it could just be that the earth isn't a globe or isn't a globe with particular particular dimensions so some positive evidence for the earth being globe would my main one would have to be the Sun setting so the Sun sets and you can calculate when the Sun should set based on your latitude and longitude and it also another important bit is that we have time zones so I can talk to Flat Earth Ozzie Jesus and it's right now with the Sun out and but for a lot of people in chat there's there a night I don't think that this is possible on a Flat Earth because you'd have the Sun still appearing in the sky no matter how far away you are it would sure it would be very dim at certain times but you'd still expect to see it in the sky just because something's dim doesn't mean that it's unseeable and another important thing is objects disappear bottom up over the horizon so you've got things that like ships will go over the horizon disappear slowly from the bottom up until you can no longer see any of them this is not explained by Flat Earth is who will often say that it just disappears from view but this is they say that you can zoom back up on it but this is just because it has gotten too small to resolve when you zoom up on it you will then see it start to go over the horizon eventually and once it goes over the horizon you will not be able to zoom up onto onto it to bring it back into view this is a distinction that Flat Earth does don't make between whether something is resolvable or whether it's actually gone over the horizon so then there's also then there's also things like images from space which I know that Flat Earth Aussie Jesus would like to claim as CGI but I don't think that it's quite possible to make a full Himawari satellite image with the with the CGI that we have today because you'd need to first account for all the all the cloud data being correct this is being verified multiple times by multiple people who have gone and looked at the sky or gone and looked at the clouds and said hey well these clouds are exactly the same as what would expect to as what the Himawari satellites show us and this would have this would take a lot of effort to be able to put together especially with the amount of weather data that you need you need weather data from thousands and thousands of weather stations and all that kind of stuff to just be able to do this and it's also been able to predict things that like I think there's a fire in China that it predicted and it show we got data from the Himawari satellite to be able to warn people hey look there's a fire in China you can do something about this before it gets out of control because otherwise people would otherwise things would have gone pretty bad so yeah there's all that kind of stuff then there's the moon landings which I don't think can be fakes so when it comes to the moon landings I know that Flat Earth Aussie Jesus is laughing there but I don't think that it's possible to fake the moon landings especially when it comes to the technology that was available at the time wouldn't have been able to you wouldn't have been able to fake moon landing especially with the studio lights my challenge to anyone that believes that the moon landings are fake is to go and try and fake your own moon landings if it's if you think if the moon landings can be faked it should be very easy to go ahead and make a fake moon landing so that's my challenge using the technology at the time so you're not allowed to use lasers to produce your light you got to use studio lights and stuff like that so that's all I've got that's all I've got to say so otherwise I'd be rambling off too many points to discuss in this debate I think I already have you bet thanks so much really appreciate that opening statement from Plannerwalking we will now jump into the open conversation folks so thanks so much gentlemen the floor is all yours okay well Mr. Plannerwalk you asked me if I have any links to claims about nature sunlight well of course I do there's a on my channel which I'm in control James has already linked it I have a playlist called perspective's playlist and on that particular playlist I've linked multiple different ones that I've found and there are even better ones since that I haven't found the link to that show the nature of how noble gases when introduced to electrical stimulation such as the Tesla coil they start to glow they illuminate and so whatever the sun may or may not be it is a powerful source of energy that causes the gases to illuminate and that's what you just say like for example in this room right now there's no direct sunlight coming in through any window in fact it's very overcast day and this entire room is still lit by daylight that does not have to be a direct source of light because the entire atmospheric gases are glowing and that's what daylight is it's a different source of direct sunlight we call create a direct shadow there's nothing actually taking shadows in this room at the moment but the daylight is still illuminating the entire room so there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the atmospheric gases are the cause well they're not quite the cause they're both the cause and the effect of light but they are not the direct stimuli force they're the results of the stimuli force and they are the cause of light so it's everything is a three-way relationship no matter what you look at with everything you've got the cause you've got the effect and then you have to have the observer and without the observer that's like a tree falling in the forest you know it doesn't make the sound well the sound might exist but without somebody here at the sound didn't really exist because of light and the light is the same for the thing that creates you have to have the observer the intermediary the medium that that it causes in and then the source that causes the effect you see everything at the three-way relationship so um yeah i'd like you to hear your explanation for the nature of light so when it comes to the nature of light things so light travels um and well it's argued with the light travels as a particle or a wave but the thing is when it comes to light it does bounce off surfaces so and it can also be refracted and all that kind of stuff so you've got Rayleigh's scattering which will scatter the light throughout the atmosphere which causes the sky to appear blue stuff like that and so that can cause a cause light to reach places where it normally wouldn't reach if it didn't have any kind of scattering then you've also got it bouncing off surfaces so in the in my room that i'm in there'll be certain places where it's darker certain places where it's lighter and sometimes there's even a bit of a gradient on the wall as to from dark to light because it's uh because of the way that it bounces off surfaces there's less less light reaching that area this isn't because of some noble gases or anything and i'll be interested to see if you've got a link to any of any of the any of these things which actually would prove that the noble gases are being illuminated in the atmosphere by the Sun do you have any evidence for that well yeah as i said it's on my perspective fairly i'm not going to like access those links right now while we're having this discussion anybody can go and look for them in self polls you'll quite welcome to have a look there that's a whole list of them and it shows how when you have these gases in a test tube for example a sealed tube and you bring them closer to the electrical stimuli force of say a test of coil they start to illuminate and glow and you can bring a powerful magnet underneath them and move it around and show how it creates a solid field of light very solid which is more or less what the Sun appears to be to us because it's something you cannot see through but we can see through daylight so um can i ask you questions you can ask me a question but that is a quick so true uh so when it comes to these guesses on a tube how much of the gas in the tube is a noble gas i'm not sure about that yeah i did the experiments personally myself all i'm saying is that somebody has collected these particular noble gases into a test tube and i would assume it's a fairly high percentage for them to illuminate if you just had a glass tube full of air and put that near the source that's not going to light up is it so you know to create just like normal neon street lights that we see you know and the neon tubes that business it is that's because they're filled with neon gases and depending on which amount of the gas and the amount of electrical force you put into them they glow like bright lights especially in darkness but that kind of debunks your point if you take a tube full of uh regular air and hold it up to a test coil it's not going to glow so why would it glow under the sun's uh because it's not just regular air in our atmosphere our atmosphere is composed of a huge range of gases and some of these what they call noble gases even though they're only a tiny percentage they still exist at their particular bandwidth that they exist at and that is where they glow nearer to the sun which is why the light being up so high tends to be something we don't see blinding us in our face because it's up really high and it creates the daylight of it but you've also you've also got the atmosphere at high altitudes being very very thin you do know that right yeah that's exactly right that's why like helium for example with one of those upper atmosphere gases helium and hydrogen because they are so less dense than the other gases that they tend to rise to the surface of the atmospheric level which is where we see the atterition of the sun in the first place and then the resultant light that comes from it in the other noble gases which is why when the sun gets further away the neon gaseous tell us those reds and irons which we've left in the clouds to give us the lovely sunset colours but you you still got to account for it being uh being a lot thinner so you'd have to go ahead and one of the things you'd have to do is work out how much light you'd be getting from the the noble gases that are high up and that's assuming that what you're saying is correct uh about the sun being a giant Tesla coil and you'd have to go okay well the listen and would produce this amount of light this is not i don't think that you have any data on that do you that's specific i don't know because we can only send a helium balloon up so far which is roughly the 23 maybe maximum 25 miles of height and that is generally where if it's near enough to the sun you'll see the sun is very not very much higher than that at all but the sun itself might be no more than say 30 miles of the atterition of the sun that we see as i said you know there's the real sun the real source which could be any unknown number of miles further up which is obviously used to create the seasons the further away it is the smaller the circular that appears to make the bubbles and as it gets nearer and appears to make a bigger circle hence why the lights could get more in the outer or southern side of the plate only so the light source itself is still creating direct light through the least amount of atmosphere which is what creates the seasons so it's actually quite a so so let's rewind a bit because you mentioned putting um high altitude balloons up into the atmosphere they when you see the footage from them they show a black sky yeah yeah because they're already above the the layer of the neon get all the noble gases i can exactly argon myself that takes the blueness of the blue sky so do you want above the blue you can still see the blue haze below it yeah so do you think that if you were to grab a sample of you know somehow grab a sample of the atmosphere up there right and put that into a test tube and then eliminate the test tube that you'd have do you think that would or you put a coil near the test tube do you think that would create make the test tube glow i'd say i'm not sure what's up there but i think there could be some inert gases in between say the argon and the neon which creates the colorful colorful parts of the sky then you've got further up higher the helium and hydrogen which creates the bright white after the sky there may be something you know in between i couldn't say i've never tried it being the single try i'd like to see somebody do it but i'll who would know maybe it is going to be bright enough that if you brought it down and put it within the vicinity of a strong electrostimulity force like the Tesla coil maybe it would grow bright white like the sun it's a good question yeah i'd so you don't actually have any you don't actually have any evidence for the for any of the atmosphere being able to be illuminated by by the sun well apart from visual evidence of everything you see and the nature of daylight no nothing more than that okay so let's move on to something else because you because well before we do move on you were the one that mentioned the black swan of course i didn't but you brought it up but you mentioned the fact that light might curve around something and that then light could also reflect off it and somehow this reflection of light is going to bring a physical image of something higher up above the horizon would you dare to explain that of course yeah so light can be reflected by by atmospheric conditions and what about the physical apparition that it's eliminated what do you mean the physical objects well the physical objects say of you know an oil platform way beyond the curvature of your horizon you were saying that light can bend up from it but how can the physical appearance of something solid also come up with that light i mean does light like create a hologram or something that's beyond the visible range of view so i'm beyond a physical curve so i've got a question do we see actual objects or do we just see the light well so far as i'm concerned like this is where i'm getting at is you're making a point that light bounces off things i'm saying it doesn't i'm saying light illuminates things with the there and we're seeing what is there light is not a force of something that's moving bouncing off stuff refracting doing any of this stuff light just reveals what is there to be physically seen if you can't physically see it then it's obscured by something physically blocking it what's too dark to see it that's it doesn't do these magical things that the globalists are trying to it's trying to suggest that it does it can raise things up behind something that is a solid object of obscuring it light does not do that it might bend around it but only gonna seize the light and not gonna see something that's hidden from you okay so question do we do i didn't hear an answer in there do we actually see light or do we see um do we see physical objects like if i have a if i have a physical object here are you seeing the am i seeing the light um that would be bounced off this or whatever you want to claim that it's been happening or do i actually see the physical object that i've got right here you do you see the physical object because the light allows you to see okay but not if i have a light necessarily it's it doesn't work like that so what if i had a um something like a hot a hot thing right here that was producing a lot of heat made the made everything wavy would i still be seeing the physical object or would i be seeing light that's been refracted from uh wavy air you might just see some distortion because of the wavy air reacting to the heat but you'll probably still see the object if you held it up when you hide it below you there's not enough light to reflect off it for me to see it is that it's it's obviously obscured below the limits of my range of vision or the range of vision so if i have wavy air does this mean that this is suddenly started becoming wavy or am i seeing a distorted view of this you're saying it is distorted here because the air is between you and it has become wavy correct so when when it comes to things being refracted we're not actually it's not that the these objects are actually physically being distorted or anything we're seeing distorted images because of things like atmospheric conditions so when it comes to the black yeah but you're not going to see but you're not going to see the toilet paper raised up into the air because wavy air is in front of it you've moved it out of the field of view of the camera you might have certain effects i've actually got this uh great video by mcwest which shows i think it's can i screen share okay so if i just share my screen apparently i can't screen share there should be a small green box at the bottom but let me double check just to be sure that you're for sure able to access it so usually either on the side or on the bottom there is a small green box that has like a arrow vertically pointed upward and it says host disabled participant screen sharing what okay let me see what i did here sorry about that i've had like a ton of zoom meetings lately my thought i might have accidentally done it during one of those we're gonna find this sorry folks but i would remind you folks both of these gentlemen i've linked in the description so if you've enjoyed what you're hearing well now is a great time to check out their links in the description and i am pulling up one participant concerted time multi-partisan share hopefully that may be helped okay there we go awesome so what i've got here is i've got this uh video and i've got it's by mcwest and it shows the black swan images and it actually he's applied refraction and shown how refraction would create the images that we see in the black swan and the black swan images do you care to do you have any thoughts on this flater with osi jesus uh i don't know what you're even trying to say you're the horizon is still visibly well beyond the platform which could be hidden by possibly hundreds of feet of curvature uh well this this is a simulation right here right so this is showing okay the curve yeah so this um this line that he's got here that he's got his mouse over this shows the uh this shows the different the temperature of the degree or temperature of the air and you can change this to modify it to change the refraction the refractive uh probably or how the air refracts light and he's actually managed to simulate how the air should be refracting light in the in the black swan images to pretty much recreate the black swan images in a in a model okay well if you want to hear my thoughts on it i'm looking at the you know the the circular image in the top left where you look again and suppose i'm concerned where the viewer is you're going to have a straight line coming out from line of sight because that is like horizontal means and that second platform should and would be completely hidden if there was curvature there's obviously no curvature because horizontal always brings everything to to eye level it's simple as that convergence convergence works by lifting everything all that it's not really lifting it just appears to ramp up until that convergence points it always makes his eye level hanging on the viewer height want to understand the real height of this image of course we'll sail above the water so there's no way to be ramping up that far due to normal laws of convergence even unless obviously the water is perfectly flat and level and it has had a very clear date that would seem so it's so a few things to note there so it's kind of hard to see it but this actually shows a lot of lines coming up from the observer's point of view and most of these lines are curved to indicate that there has been that the light reaching the observer has been refracted so you see this big curve here and then you also see a lot of lines that curved that are curving down this and this shows that yes there is some refraction or this is how the light has been refracted and it's i don't know if there's also the i's got a comparative image so if you see this image here that i've bought up on screen this is what the black swan actually looks like and then you go to the simulate simulation i'm just trying to find where i had it before when you go to here it shows that shows an image that's very similar to it obviously it's not exactly 100% because this is in a computer program and the other one was taken in real life but it shows how you'd expect to see the image using things like refraction to account for it okay well look i'll be the first to admit that i'm a flatter so i'm not depending on the word refracting at all i think it's a bit of bollocks but if there's any such thing as refracting i think what you see what you get you might get some mirage effect quite often depending on the circumstances but this whole idea of refracting being able to live up the visual view of a physical object from beyond a physical object is just bollocks it's like if you want to do it in reverse and say okay there's a tall building in front of me somebody's going behind that tall building but refraction is going to bring a community to that person from beyond the tall building you're just doing it 90 degrees and saying it can go upwards but it doesn't go left right i just think it's absolutely bollocks and because this black spawn thing is not my thing at all i don't even want to discuss it i think we should go straight on to your next point that you brought up which is time zones and how you can't comprehend our time zones could work on a flatter even though you think they should work on your spinning ball in our space and it's very very simply described by the sun is local nearby and it goes around us above the equator and it takes 24 hours to come back where it was so the sun is basically the hour hand of a 24-hour clock and wherever it's directly above is your local 12 noon so if it's directly above you it's 12 noon two hours though outside or whatever the distance is for time zones then it's going to be 11 o'clock there and one o'clock there and as it moves around it's going to be the local 12 noon while the direct opposite side the other side of the north pole in the middle of us is only 12 midnight and that's how time zones easily work on a flat flat area so to say that they can't work on a flat earth tell me why that can't be possible okay so the the problem isn't so much with time zones themselves it's more that you've got you might have someone like me in New Zealand and then someone over in America let's say someone in New York right and someone in New York would have I'm pretty sure it'll be quite dark outside and I'm pretty sure there'll be many people in chat or or even maybe James it looks like it's quite dark where you are so when it's dark where someone is they should be able to look outside and if the earth will were flat and that and we've got time zones they should be able to go oh well the sun is over over there right and I've actually created a few models to show how the sun should be able to should be circling around the earth if the earth were flat and it does not line up with what we see in fact well I think like the trouble that you're having with that is is the size and scale of the actual earth itself it's massive it's really really big you know if you're trying to scale something it's going to be you won't possibly be able to do it in any physical model on any sort of computer but by the time you've got the sun to be the size it should be according to scale of the real and actual earth it's going to be too small to be able to be seen I mean just for a normal local perspective where we see the sun disappearing beyond our horizon which is only like about three miles away five kilometers that scale alone to put on a screen means that we're one millimeter high to its three meter three thousand millimeter screen distance so to try and put that under a scale model it's not going to fit the screen just for your own personal local perspective if you try to put that then on to the something the size of the earth you will never ever ever be able to physically model it you have to cram too much information into too much size that it won't make sense because our brains are actually capable of enough of making sense of things according to how we know we see it but you can't do that in a model the model is reality as we see it at full scale and so let me try to make a model so let me show you this 3d model that i've come up with on my computer it's uh not so just bring this up and here we go so you see this we still got black okay uh if i go like is that better um still a black screen but we i do see that a video looks like it's like ready and able to be played okay so in here we've got this video which i created using a using blender and it shows what the sun would look like from ground level and it's got the it's got the sun which is this small uh small ball over here uh and it shows what it would look like so it's currently evening and now it's night as it goes around so even during night you should be able to see see the sun um yeah well then you clearly don't understand the scale of the size of the earth i mean we can't see Polaris from the point of the equator further well the point of the equator is where the you know have you taken convergence into effect or you just look at it as black without convergence i've taken a lot of things into account here so things that i've taken into account was the i took into the account the size of the earth so the earth in this model is i think it's do you understand what convergence is are you talking about perspective it's part of respect you know deliberately yeah convergence means that everything that's beneath you appears to ramp up to our level everything above you appears to ramp down so this is i don't know if you've ever seen the uh freemasonic symbol this one here where they got the compass and the set square the reason it's called a set square is because it's flat and level okay the model always said always on the level but this from down here when you're pointing you the set point appears to rise up to our level the sun on the other hand because it is so high appears to take a pyramid line and that's why it appears to go up and appears to come down while always being on its own level parallel to the ground this is perspective you cannot put two models this and this together unless you can grasp it in your mind how perspective convergence the appearance of things will actually work this is why a model will never work because you're either doing this one or you're doing this one but you can't do both together because it just ends up so you do realize that 3d 3d modeling softwares are always designed to account for perspective to account for convergence right but are they taking it from the point of view of the viewer or are they changing it to be the point of view of the person looking at the screen instead of where the viewer actually is over here that's the problem okay the viewer's point of view is never taken into account then his convergence when you're looking at it straight on you're not seeing how he looks at it you know the visual point over here you're seeing it like this again and that's not how this person is seeing it which is what we're seeing it from where and we're back into that field of view looking outwards so there's a simple there's a simple equation for for perspective do you know that equation no i don't know that equation because it varies with every different like variable no it doesn't there's a simple equation it's basically i think it's arc tan the arc tan of the height of an object divided by the distance to that object and you want to put that into English because i don't understand that so basically it says that's the um that's the formula of the for perspective basically what it does is it gives you the angle the angular size of an object depending on its distance and its size so it's a distance simulation formula shall we say and why strengths so much yep yeah but that's got nothing to do with the convergence factor as well yes it does have to be taken into account you've got convergence plus you've got distance so convergence um you can basically take the so the way that you can work out convergence is you can take the distance to the to the object right and then the um height of the object compared to your eye level and so instead of um so if you want to take the sun right the sun would be just say the sun's at a thousand miles high then you were to take the distance you'd take the distance to the sun and i've worked this out but i can't remember the the exact values that i used but i took the distance to the sun and the height of the sun and when i plugged in there should be a whole seven i think it was seven degrees that the sun should be above the horizon uh when it said it's the furthest i really don't like when you start using degrees i don't know um except because except because okay we take a simple protractor and that protractor represents 180 degrees one side to the next but you made that protractor much bigger and the distance between each degree gets bigger and bigger but so when you start talking about degrees on something where you know you've got a 8 000 mile big protractor and each degree has 69 miles between each one at the very end our minds can't really grasp it when you're talking about between degrees if it's 69 miles so you're saying three and a half degrees or what's that you know about 25 times you know it's but we're not using but the problem you're using degrees as old degrees are only these tiny little things but they're not when you put them to yes that's my point on the earth they're massive they're massive massive and so you're obscuring reality by calling it degrees no i'm not you can see there's real distances like real distances that you say it's something seven degrees difference seven times 69 or 77 490 so that's 490 or whatever it is miles difference saying seven degrees makes it sound funny because using um and using distances like kilometers like saying that the sun should be a thousand kilometers above the horizon that's not going to make any sense because if it's a thousand kilometers above the horizon and it's right above you then that's a lot different to saying that it's a thousand kilometers above the horizon and it's 20 000 kilometers away that's a huge exactly and that's why the distance illumination thing also means the gap between things change and that's why that symbol shows the half of the apparent part of the sun as opposed to the actual part of the sun being dead straight across it's because we're looking down from a very low perspective point where our local horizon is only three miles away either side of us where the set point is the set square and so to see the sun go up and down when it's going like this and then disappear you cannot put that into a contextual visualization that makes sense if you're looking at it with just through the geometry sort of thing from the side on it just does not make any sense. When it comes to degrees the reason why we use degrees is because uh it takes into account how it basically takes into account how far away something is and or we can take into account how far away something is and how how high it is above the ground so if i want when i say that the sun is seven degrees above the horizon right this means that it will be above the horizon visually and if the sun gets whereas if i say that it's a thousand kilometers above the horizon then it's like okay but how high is that above the how high is it above the horizon when i look at it because if it's a thousand kilometers above the horizon it could be above you it could be far away and you wouldn't really get an idea of how that looks when you say seven degrees above the horizon then you can plug that into things like 3d software modelling programs or and actually get a visual representation of how that should look. It's exactly the same thing because when your horizon is going away from you to the obscurity point where things get thin is even the clouds okay they might only be three miles above the surface but they will be visible because they go so much further across they're visible another 30 miles away so by saying that they're only one degree above the horizon as a visual thing it still makes no sense they're still actually three miles above it same as the sun if it's like 50 miles above it it's still going to be above it it just won't appear to be that way so whether you call it degrees or kilometers or whatever you want to call it it makes no difference because it's a visual effect when something disappears into the distance you'll still see the clouds meet the horizon but you know the clouds aren't bumping into it or hitting it it's still the same height above it the whole way and you can see that they're flat and level the whole way too so that must be parallel to that so when it comes to why we use degrees we use degrees to work out okay how should this look so if you've got the if it looks like the clouds are meeting the horizon so just so you zoom up and on the horizon you can see clouds pretty much touching the horizon you'd say that there is zero degree separation between the between the ground and the clouds when you look at it now you can go now you can go ahead and work out and taking the clouds at just say three kilometers height and working out how far away the horizon is or whatever you want to do and work out okay this is how high the clouds should appear off the way from the horizon using degrees can't say the clouds should appear three kilometers above the horizon because that wouldn't make sense yeah but either that's using degrees because a degree on the size of something that you claim the globe is is 69 miles so if you're saying it's seven miles uh seven degrees above then that's seven times 69 miles that's a lot of miles where that's clearly not they are actually appearing to intersect because that's where the convergent points meets and that's where I think it's cut off well the difference between using miles or kilometers and degrees is degrees show you how something should look or even if you're taking a photo of it you can actually say okay this is we can convert the units to degrees you can't necessarily convert the units to kilometers unless you know what kind of lens you're using and a whole lot of other variables I think just a degree represents a unit of measurement which can still be converted to miles all it's really doing is it's just taking away from the fact that it represents such a huge number of miles by saying it's only seven degrees or only one degree whereas in fact that's still a huge number of miles difference it's just a way of obscuring it and downplaying the reality of how big and massive these distances there we are okay so let's take I'm going to try and use an example here to try and get to understand why we use degrees instead of miles you could have something that's just say seven degrees like a like a sun like the sun being above the horizon in the distance or you could have something that's seven degrees that's just a few meters these would be the same angular size yet there'd be different physical sizes so using miles doesn't show you how it should look if we use degrees we can say well they should both look the same size so you could have something a few you could have something that's a few meters that's a lot closer than something that's 20 000 kilometers away that's uh a thousand kilometers above the horizon right and that would be that would be the same angular size above the horizon as a person that's you know maybe I don't know how far away of two meter person would have to be to be at the same size but I think it'd be maybe a hundred meters maybe even closer okay so this is exactly where any distance and distance elimination comes into effect okay if you're trying to apply that to actual size then you have to take into account actual distance which then becomes actual miles and that's actually the last point I made is where you're talking about the ships disappearing it's the same sort of thing you're claiming that a ship disappears over a curvature because of the distance whereas in reality because of convergence there's the point where the water is going to converge to a certain distance where it creates the horizon that's that horizontal to the eye line so this is like the biggest problem I don't know if I can draw this real quickly here most people don't get it this is how uh it's not going to work that is how visual appearance works down here is your ground level there's your viewing height there's your horizontal eye line what most people are doing is doing that is what they say there's your viewing height there's the flat ground you are looking down to your visual convergence point looking downwards you are not it's called the horizon because it's horizontal it's horizontal to that top view there that's your viewing point that's your height above the ground and the ground is ramping up to that point the other point is ramping down just can't see it because you can see through the sky but you cannot see through the ground so the ground appearing around up creates that point in the distance that's called the horizon because it is horizontal to your eyesight it's not looking down at something in the distance and then thinking that getting higher on your ball is seen further because you're not if you're going up on a ball you're actually going further away from it okay so do parallel lines ever intersect they don't intersect but one can obscure the other if one is physical and the other is see-through okay how is self is see-through so it's air how can they obscure one another if they don't intersect the ground obscures because it's physical you can't see through it yeah but how can a parallel line obscure another parallel line if it never intersects because that's the nature of convergence that's how the nature of convergence works is because we see straight ahead whatever we are looking at is horizontal that's the the line of sight everything below us is going up everything above us is going down just stand at a brick wall and have a look at it as you change move up and down looking at it the line will always be at your eye level straight line and everything below you will always be going upwards everything above you will always be going downwards that is a basic law of convergence and perspective it doesn't change just because you're outside and there's no brick wall above you the sky is still converging downwards it's just that you will see much much more i wrote because you can see through it but you can't see through what's beneath you which is the ground that's why it's actually the security point at eye level and so i'm continually having arguments with people all the time on the matter yeah facebook pages that the horizon is always eye level it is 100% eye level it cannot be any other way so that still doesn't answer my question how can a parallel how can a parallel line hide another line that's parallel to it if they don't intersect because the nearer one creates the convergence point nearer than the one which you can see much further because it gets further and further away it obscures it it doesn't intersect necessarily it appears to intersect but it's just obscuring it it's still there what you have to do is get higher up and you'll see more of okay so i'm gonna share my screen again because i've got this um i've got another 3d model to show you sure and it's in blender this time so here we've got this 3d model that i've created which basically basically it's got here i think the observer height is half a meter off the ground and we can change it to be less i mean i zoom up on things that are far like when when you're back here they appear like they're going to intersect but when you zoom up they don't actually intersect right yeah so this is a well-known this is a well-known thing this is how things actually work yeah yeah but when you're seeing it from this perspective here you're further back that's a distance thing it's always a distance thing a distance and height so when i hear you're good i'm actually not actually getting any closer i'm just zooming up on it but that's the equivalent of getting closer not really zooming up on this really nice because otherwise if you don't zoom in then you're just using your normal eyesight if you zoom in you're magnifying the view which is different to getting closer sort of okay okay i'll agree if you're there it's it's different yeah like especially when you look at the effect on the side on the sides of things here this when you get back here it looks very different to when you zoom up on it these things aren't actually by actually go along here jeez if i actually go along my point here is that things don't things don't actually these parallel lines here they're all parallel these they don't actually intersect so you can't actually have a parallel line here obscuring you reach the finite point there haven't you if you continue that on into infinity that either it reach a dot or depending on your viewing height as opposed to the height of the objects the bottom part would begin to become obscured no they wouldn't you could continue this you could continue this on forever and you'd never see the bottom parts of the objects getting obscured that's because you're using then a point of view from the direct center between the top and bottom of those objects if you got down lower i don't know if you can do that in this program and actually take a point of view where you're much lower to the ground you will find that the top will start to become obscured thank you how low do you want to go you can go 0.1 meters you can go 0.05 you can already start to see see curve into that no you can't you can't see any curvature the bottom of the objects is still fully visible and you zoom up on it all the bottoms of the objects are fully visible here they're not being obscured in any way okay so you're using computer graphics to do something to overcome the limits of actual human eyesight out in the real world it's all you're really doing i don't know how these programs work myself okay they use perspective but have you done a similar example out in the real world um i mean people have done people have done different things out in the real world it's very hard to say how something should look in the real world when there's a whole lot of effects especially when you're going like a mile away saying this is how a flat object would look in the real world a mile away or like 10 miles away how something would look in the on a flat earth in the real world is very very difficult because the earth isn't flat okay so so you'll agree for example then if i went down to the coast and looked at an object and it's above the horizon over the water that therefore it must be curved beyond that point and try it appears to be above the horizon is that your opinion um what are you trying to say here so you say for example like there's an island above the horizon an island like a fixed point on the in the distance where i can look out in the limits where my horizon appears this island appears to be entirely above the water level would you say then that the ocean must be curving away beyond that point um well there's different here above the horizon well there's different amounts of curvature depending on your distance and depending on your your height that could be different it should be exactly the same everywhere for a spinning ball the curvature should never be different that's either there or it isn't there you've got a so when it comes to the so you could it could be argued that no matter you know like even over five meters there's still some curvature there it's just very small it uh when you've got something that's five miles away and you could say okay should the how much of the island should be hidden and you know it could be depending on your view height it might be two meters of the island might be hidden or it could be 30 meters of the island might be hidden depending on your view okay so let's say that zero over the sea because you can see just below the horizon so therefore on beyond that point that's where the curvature must be beginning right it doesn't really begin anywhere no i know because it's black no what i what i mean what i mean is if you've got content it doesn't begin anywhere because it let me rephrase it when you've got continuous level when you've got continuous curvature we like if i have a if i have a point on a ball um or let's take let's take my tinfoil hat if i have a point on tinfoil hat where does curvature away from this point here begin everywhere exactly so when you've got a when you've got a ball the size of the earth curvature may curvature begins anywhere it just depends on whether you can see an island off in the distance so you might be able to see the whole island off in the distance due to your view height doesn't mean that there's no curve in between you and the island it just means that you might the curve might be small enough that you can't yeah but well okay i'm talking about beyond that island because i can see that island above the horizon yes and in your belief and every loavers belief that point of the horizon is where curvature is now obscuring everything beyond that point is that correct um it will obscure things that are below the horizon or would obstruct the things that are below the horizon yeah so so you're agreeing that that's the obstruction point where curvature should begin um just depending on your view height in the distance to the yeah so so then you went through a different viewing height and had a look at the same island and sort of surrounded by miles upon miles upon miles of flat and level water where did that curve it together it didn't go anywhere it's it's still there you're just viewing it from a different different angle okay so let's use another example now let's say we go to a baseball field you see a pitchers mound it's got that curve bit above a flat surface we can see that pitchers mound do you agree that we can see the pitchers mound from ground level um yeah yeah so let's say i went up to the top rear top tier of the highest lookout point over this baseball field should i then therefore see this pitchers mound appear to be flat probably i think you know i'm not too familiar with baseball i'm not too familiar with baseball i'm just using that as an example because the pitchers mound is an example of actual curvature above flat surface but when we're talking about the ocean when we think we see something that's curvature and yet it disappears when we get higher up okay so now i'll just see it just like you can see a pitchers mound you can still see the pitchers mound from above you can see shadows on it you can see the shade of light but you cannot see that on the ocean ever ever okay so the difference five we go so the difference between the ocean and the pitchers mound is the pitchers mound if you look at it from a stand the pitchers mound is very uh you'd be a lot further away from the pitchers mound than you would be by going you know going up into even an airplane like if you're in an airplane you could probably you might be able to see a small amount of curvature if you don't have any and i've seen videos of of this where they saw a small amount of curvature because they didn't have any clouds obstructing their view and whereas a pitchers mound you'd be able to see the whole the whole thing from a far enough distance yeah but the pitchers mound is an example of real and actual curvature just as a mountain is just as a mound is any sort of hill something that isn't flat that the curvature of it does not disappear just because we got higher now it's not a simple example of seeing an island on the horizon completely above the horizon where people mistake their convergence point as the place where curvature begins and yet when you change your perspective and look at it from a higher point of view and see the zero curvature is surrounded by flat level border the whole way for multiple multiple more miles simply proves that it's just an incoherent thought to experience curvature in the beginning place it's water does not burn it seeks and finds its level and kills its container so all of the physical parts of it must be above ocean level i have a question for you does does so does water always stay level all the time it seeks and finds its level so what about during tides what about during tides is just being pushed around by the effects of the same force that holds the moon up in the upper parts of the atmosphere it's a repellent force and it pushes the salt water around and hence why we have two types today which is absolutely impossible on your globe model for the mass of one moon to pull two tides so what how wait how has the tides been caused in that like you're saying that it's a repellent force it's a repellent force a bit like a prior repellent force a diamagnetic force you know like when you push two pole magnets either or i think we have a lot i'm not saying i know exactly what it is but whatever that force is it's a magnetic and okay pushing the oceans ahead of the moon and then when the moon reaches the edge of the continent the moon keeps on going but then the water seeks to rebalance itself hence why that fly one effect will create a second fight fight on the other side by which time the moon comes back around again so that's looking forward again so you can get two moons on a flatter that two tides no problem at all and i have it on a globe okay so do you have any evidence at all that magnetism can affect water yeah that's quite a bit i don't personally have it i'd love to see some because i have seen someone try actually using salt water they've put a whole lot of salt into some water to try and see if they could affect it with a magnet and they try to affect it with a magnet they could not affect any of it with a magnet okay well you know that salt water is made up of pretty much all the minerals that exist i know including all the heavy metals that exist so you know were they just using sodium chloride how about using everything on top of sodium chloride well the the problem here is that you can't even you haven't got any evidence to demonstrate that that magnetism can affect water or even salt water i would agree with that but what i have got is my own personal experiences of seeing the highest height of protein in front of me watching up on the beach as the moon is approaching from the east and that makes no sense on the globe earth when the moon should be pulling the water away i could be on the lowest height of it's pulling it and then as it heads over it's pulling it back again but no it's actually pushing it under their hands so personal experience doesn't matter otherwise i could say i have personal experience that the earth is a globe therefore debate over personal experience doesn't really mean mean much the realm of science but but you're just calling me a liar then if you say that because i'm telling you that you are because i am talking about a real and actual thing i'm not just saying oh i saw the curve or i saw the flat cat all i'm saying is the tide was approaching in advance of the moon also approaching and that's a real tangible thing that i have personally witnessed so but one specific time when i'm really looking for it i thought this is really weird the water is creeping up over the dry sand and then the moon is over in front of me coming forward it didn't make any sense according to a i mean it does make sense though you would expect the uh you'd expect the the tide to start rising before the moon gets there because uh that's it's not as though the moon arrives and suddenly the suddenly you've got high tide the you're putting the cart before the horse here okay the cart is being pulled by the horse in your opinion the tide is being pulled by the moon it doesn't put the tide ahead of the moon wait was a high tide like did you have the peak of high tide before the moon got there yeah well it's early peaking like well and early above the dry sand i need to see data on that i'd need to see data on that yeah so i didn't record i didn't have a camera at the time but it just it kind of freaked me out in that how high is it water getting pushing out of debris and stuff up across the dry sand while the moon is in front of me in the middle of the half the moon sort of in one time it goes weird yeah i'll i'd need to see data on that to just make to just verify what's going on there and then absolutely and again it's something that should be researched definitely it's the same with the uh lunar eclipse um the time when i watched a full on lunar eclipse back in the day when i was a full on globe believer believed in the helios entry model 100% here i am going to watch a lunar eclipse so i'm watching the moon coming up it's about 9 30 in the evening so the sun had been set for about three hours two and a half or three hours and so obviously the earth should be right in the middle of it we could see the shadow either coming up in the bottom or maybe because of the timing coming from a different direction but no all of a sudden this weird shadow comes from the top left across the moon it may sense me whatsoever and it really sucked me to the core because i thought i understood all this stuff about the helios entry model it just was completely and utterly wrong there's nothing that made any logical sense whatsoever about it so the so the thing with when it comes to lunar eclipses is you've got two different bodies moving you do realize that you've got the earth moving and then you've got the all yeah the sun sun is moving but the main thing to consider is you've got the earth um you've got earth rotating you've got earth moving you've got the um and you got the moon moving as well so it's not necessarily going to appear exactly in the way that you'd expect it to appear if you're only accounting for one body moving yeah yeah i understand that like the earth is actually the moon is actually going backwards around so you know you have to take that into account so as the the earth is rotating towards the direction where the moon rises away from where the sun at all to create this per alignment and the other thing that's really gets me is that if you try to create a shadow across a spherical object you can't do it with another sphere what's that i thought i heard somebody yeah i thought i heard okay yeah um yeah if you're trying to make a shadow across a spherical object you cannot do it with another sphere if you use that if you use an actual flat sheet of cardboard and do that across a sphere it will make what appears to be the thing that we see in a lunar eclipse anyway but i do not believe for one second that it's the shadow of the earth causing a shadow causing the lunar eclipse there's another object up in the sky that comes between the sun and the moon and that is what blocks the sunlight from reaching the moon and that's the lunar eclipse explain so what evidence what evidence do you have for this other object absolutely thank you i've got personal pictures i've taken myself i've been working pictures for ages um it's known as like two different names traditionally in the english language it's named lila which is also the dark moon or i'm from dark sun even it's just like a secondary moon it's didn't make it into orbit around the earth the way our moon does it's hanging too close to the sun the whole time and that's why just like a new moon it isn't visible to us but every now and then that sunset becomes visible and it looks more or less like another sun because it's setting the same time so do you have any like do you have any photos or evidence or anything to support that claim yeah can i can i take a look uh yeah i don't know how i can bring them to this discussion because i mean i hear this claim a lot but nobody can even even provide any any evidence so you've actually seen some kind of uh dark thing blocking out stars or something is it the evidence no i've actually taken like a few pictures of the sun rising and then upon looking at them closely after it was taken to picture i can see another object in the sky which is partly behind clouds so it just can't be dismissed as a sun full solar wave on the lens and so this is a multiple other pictures that other people have taken that looks like two suns oh so you're talking about two suns not anything obscuring the moon during a there used to be two suns because i mean the moon itself appears pretty much like the sun okay in size you know and if it's right next to the sun well that's how small is this other object is it a lot smaller than the sun when just looking at it because i've seen things where it's um where there's what appears to be a smaller object near the sun and it's probably something like um venus or something like that i mean there's also times when um well the pictures i personally talk about it appears to be quite small but i would consider so yeah like the size of the sun so there's times when i've taken or not taken but there's times when there's been things like the moon i'm not the moon uh hold up when there's been things like venus making a transit across the um but that i don't think that is what you're talking about i think it's no something that would be a lot bigger yeah this would have been much much bigger than venus venus is like a large star throughout the world today this thing on the images that i was having to get okay do you think you'd be able to screen share some of the images or no what's how do you oh there should be a button at the bottom green button that says screen share yeah that should allow you to uh yep yeah so if you look where the pine tree is on the land and you look just above it to the left you'll see the small orb object is a little bit cloudy so i'm having trouble seeing it i think i might be able to see it but yeah is it where is the where the mouse is where my mouse is okay uh yeah that doesn't look like it would be anything that could uh look could be something like a small cloud or or it could be anything i agree and that's why i was quite um weirded out by it like that that's the thing it could be anything it doesn't to claim that that is what's been blocking out the to claim what that's blocking but that's blocking out the moon uh during a lunar eclipses it's a that's a huge leap it is but you have to take it all perspective i see you're a fan of fight the flat earth and team skeptic oh really great but here's another compilation of images which sort of shows a second sun as well which is what we are suggesting is either this millet or um rahu as some people call it and when you take it all into perspective and the height of everything then it could well be that object which is steering sunlight in the moon indicating the learner plates and therefore the only light that reaches the moon at that time is Earth's reflection and because atmosphere absorbs all the blue light spectrum um yeah one of the problems one of the problems here is that um there's so when it comes to the so when it comes to this other object the only time we see it is being very close to the sun right and well you can't say it because it's too close to the sun that's the whole point it's the whole reason why you can't see the movement is because when it's too close to the sun the sun is too bright and by the time the sun sets so it has this object that you can't normally see um so so when it comes to this i'm trying to work it out because it appears that when this object is close to the sun that's when it appears am i incorrect it doesn't appear it comes to the sun no but right here it's yeah right here it's close to the sun and when it's close to the sun it's visible is am i getting that correct it's always close to the sun it's just that on a page and atmospheric conditions are good enough so that you know the atmosphere is blocking enough of the sunlight this object appears that's that's my take on it i mean i know a bunch about it is at least anybody else but i'm trying to gather evidence and it's one of the images that i'm gonna get that shows multiple examples of what appears to be what we call a second sun or a second luminary in the sky which is only visible in certain hours so there's plenty of plenty of evidence that this can be explained by refraction it's a very rare refractive effect and i've read about it a few times it's although it's very hard to find a lot of information and i think that it's a real stretch to use that particular image as evidence that this is an actual object especially seeing as it's just a small point in that image that you're claiming is is this other object when in the other images you presented it's a lot larger yeah well it appears that way like in this one here if you can still see it the sun itself is actually a tiny little dot somewhere down here but because it's so foggy it's about really foggy down in a valley and this thing was not visible to the naked eye like so that i only saw the moon in the dark and it's got pretty cool pictures and it's about two weeks after this that before i ever to the left over here is what a foreman must be climbing directly opposite this button for a full moon setting where something was like it's going to be taking a fighting bite out of the top pipe and corner of it so if i'm missing its fun around become between the sun and the moon two weeks later that would be enough to cause that partial lunar eclipse that makes sense like if there was the earth going yet why wouldn't the entire earth is completely blacked out but well it was a partial was a partial lunar eclipse scheduled for that time do you know yeah yeah absolutely so if a partial lunar eclipse was scheduled for that time it's fully explainable that there'd be only a small bite what looks like a small bite taken out of the moon because sometimes the moon doesn't sometimes the earth doesn't pass directly in front of the moon and the sun or directly between the moon and the sun sometimes it'll pass yeah but it was roughly the same time of day where the sun was coming up behind me and the moon was still visible setting so it's again what they call the salamelion where both the sun and moon are visible at the same time and it's still got a lunar eclipse which is completely impossible because but it was only a partial lunar eclipse right yeah yeah but but the partial part was at the top right hand corner or the quadrant or to a better word of the moon it wasn't coming from below where you would expect because there's nothing in between you know the the earth is obviously unique but sun and moon well do you have did you have any did you take any images i did get some of that but yeah i'm having a lot of problems with the moon at that time but i've managed to put someone onto my facebook of the actual images of the lunar eclipse yeah this is heading to work in the morning so i don't have a lot of time to stop and pull over and just take the photos okay because a lot of the a lot of these claims that i hear from flat earth is uh sometimes i have said i've heard someone say that it i think it was at midnight or something the earth or the moon was at a zenith high in the sky and it was on the same day that there was a solar eclipse yet they didn't have any evidence for this whatsoever no images and what was that they said the moon was at it yeah at zenith during a uh on the day of a solar eclipse like at midnight it was at a zenith or something and it was very strange that they didn't have any images because you'd think that an image like that would be amazing i have to admit that from my experience a lot of flat earth is a very little experience with the moon have a little about what it does and how we see it and how the phases all work so when it comes to the moon itself uh i wouldn't listen to most flat earthers you can listen to me because that's one that i have specialized in and i know what i'm talking about i don't know how things work you've got some very weird beliefs about the moon like i know that you think that it was dug out of the grand canyon don't you made some hypotheses about how i think it might have come into being but that's got nothing to do with my understanding of how the phases work and how we visualize them and how the moon is 100% lit by the sun and what do you tell you otherwise is they don't know what they're talking about and they say the moon is self-eliminating i think okay they don't know what they're talking about i mean i have gotten some images of the moon uh when it was lit by all i haven't had an image of a moon and a ball a concrete ball and in both images you could see that they were illuminated in this exact same direction and exactly i agree 100% fact i've done the same thing myself plenty of times and i agree that the phases perfectly match up with what you'd expect to see because the the moon is illuminated by the sun there's no doubting it but this is what you'd expect to see if the you'd only really expect to see this if the sun and moon were both a very far away yeah yeah but uh even so even though they are both far enough away the way that the sun like illuminates both us and the moon um gives almost the exact potential okay this might be slightly hidden by tiny digits of moons like fire and apart from that the moon is illuminated by the sun okay um i i do want to there's a few things that you claim that i do want to get into so one of the things that you claimed is that if the earth was a globe it would only be blocking a small portion of light from the sun yeah claimed that in your opening statement i want to respond to that because i don't think you quite know how it works you so let me try and iterate your point see if i'm getting it correct so you think that if the earth was a globe this light coming out of the sun would illuminate the night sky and you would have and the lot the earth would only block a small portion of that so the rest of the sky would be illuminated by the sun is that what you think yeah yeah that's that's sort of what i'm suggesting unless you agree well unless you agree with the same philosophy that says that daylight is only caused by the illumination of the noble gases yet why would the sky why would the night sky be illuminated by the sun at all makes no sunlight is all permeating you know it's 93 miles or nearly miles away it should be permeating everything except the part where earth is in the shadow comet but just because the earth itself is in shadow doesn't mean that that's the end of it well it makes no it makes no sense to assume that would be a that the sun would illuminate the night sky though because that light wouldn't reflect of anything for the earth for it to be seen by people on earth okay so you're saying it does reflect of something 58 daylight no we get the sun we get the light directly from the sun during the day during the night we don't get any sun because it doesn't reflect it you'd have to say that the light from the sun would reach someone on earth during the night you'd have to have some kind of reflect object reflecting light from where the sun with the sunlight reaches okay so in your opinion and what is twilight twilight that's evening isn't it yeah yeah so there is a bit of atmospheric atmospheric or Rayleigh scattering that does scatter some of the light but it's not a whole lot it's why you don't have a whole lot of light in midnight yeah in other words it's the atmosphere still being electrostimulated by the presence of the sun as it gets further and further away creating the the faint glow of the fading neon gases that create these colors that we see both the either dawn and twilight after the dawn or dusk um just simply because it's not in the immediate visual presence of the sun and as soon as it becomes in the immediate visual presence the sun becomes blinding by fire very hard to look at wait how how far away do you have any sort of idea of how far away the sun can eliminate from or is it do you not have those numbers um basically just between line of sight it's still according to the law because of convergence and perspective if you've got a line of sight of the sun um it will illuminate and once it goes beyond that line of sight you've got the visible objective of the mountains or something of spearing out uh it stops eliminating your local atmosphere and it gets dark and dark in some places if you're right near a mountain it goes dark really quickly if you're somewhere like on a west coast where the sun will linger for you know many hours you'll have a very long drawn out firelight so in New Zealand the during the during the summer especially when you go the further south you go you got a lot of hours of daylight and do you think that the sun is circling around the north pole I think it's circling around the flat earth one sec I will give you a chance to respond if you had more to say flat earth Aussie but I did want to mention that we'll probably go to Q&A as we've gone over the uh discussion time it's just been it's just my mic cord unplugged so okay we will jump into the Q&A in just a few minutes if you guys I hate to cut it short but we can definitely we'd be more than happy to have you guys back on for a round two if you guys would enjoy it but just because I have to keep a promise so if it's okay with you guys uh if we have maybe a few more minutes and then go into the Q&A we'll start reading super chats thanks Dennis D for that reminder yeah so yeah I'll just um sort of try and round off the question that I was asking so the question that I was uh going what I was saying is in in New Zealand you get especially further down south you get a lot of hours of uh a lot of hours of sunlight and the sun would have to be very very far away in fact you'd actually probably be closer somewhere on the equator to the sun um than you would be in New Zealand yet um yeah New Zealand gets more hours of sunlight how's it how does that work well that is part of the mystery of the sun which um I'm still trying to address and so pop around with your explanation for how that actually works but basically the nearer the sun is the more is going to illuminate for longer and when we're in summer in the outside part of the equator the sun is actually nearer even though it's still taken the exact same path it is still illuminating far more of the noble gases and by being nearer we can see it further therefore we have longer daylight hours as it's nearer for the people in the north however it's nearer to us in appearance so therefore for them it appears to be so far south that they actually have shorter days and therefore their winter so it is a tricky part of perspective it's a very extremely physical thing I might have to work this out because I'm pretty sure I could work it out and show that you wouldn't get any longer uh you should actually get longer daylight during the equator which is not what we see we see longer daylight when you go closer south in the summer for the southern hemisphere so yeah that's what I'm saying it is longer well it's closer for the southern you should actually you should actually see it um should also have longer daylight in northern hemisphere because it'll be closer for people in northern hemisphere it's not that it's further from them because it's lower down like I don't know if you can visualize a tunnel the up and down tunnel so when the lower part of the tunnel is nearest to you it's going to either make a bigger circle or basically it's higher and higher or we'll look here to make a smaller circle that's basically the path of the sun as it goes around the equator the whole time because it's actually nearer it appears closer to the outer part but not apart it's further away well I could probably actually use some mathematics to show that it would be actually closer the further north you go but you have to take into account again just as I call a firmament that up here in the tidal atmosphere it's still quite close to the actual earth that's where the apparition of the sun you'd still be closer to the further north you go though no it wouldn't yes it wouldn't because because say for example you lay them on your back and something spinning around above your belly as it came closer to you I don't know it's I could probably use I could probably actually use mathematics to show that it would be closer to the north pole than it would be to New Zealand no but as it gets closer it appears to take a bigger circle yeah but I'd still be able to use mathematics to show that it should be closer to the north pole but I think James wanted to get to and we're going around in circles right now we were we would be definitely thrilled to have you guys back on as people really enjoyed this there are already over a hundred likes and still 300 over 300 people watching so people have really enjoyed listening to you guys it's been a total blast why don't remind people both of these gentlemen I put their links in the description so if you're listening and you're like well I've got good news go down there go down there in the description box click those links to hear more so with that we're going to start out with the superjats first we'll get through as much as we can thanks so much folks Dennis D thanks for your super chat who says flat earth Aussie looks like an old chess master that can cast spells very nice Steve and Steve thanks for your super chat he says I dislike everyone in the chat go away he's our friendly benevolent dad joke troll thanks Steve and Steve and for your other super chat who says James will read anything guys just super chat it's kind of true Steve and Steve thanks for your other super chat who says I am run burgundy thanks for that teo got thanks for your super chat she says steen is just the little ghost in the modern day debate machine so true we love him he's a funny little guy Dennis D thanks for your super chat he says it's not flat earth Aussie's fault because he clearly grew up back when everyone thought the earth was flat it's a generation thing that's all oh very good oh yeah that's that's pretty poor because I grew up being the biggest galopee but imagine I used to tell my friends oh you're not having a birthday you're just celebrating how many kids they understand your past I've heard that one before I like it next up we have a schrodinger's cat who says flat earth Aussie what are noble gases yeah those particular gases had eliminated in the presence of an electrostomersy force it's basic got you an argon cryptonotic it's about five of them thanks so much next up appreciate your super chat from Dennis D who says flat earth Aussie I'd worship your mythical beard and hair very nice stupid horror energy is in the house thanks for your super chat she says Jesus wept I don't know why she's quoting the gospel of john but thank you very much Dennis D thanks for your super chat says flat earth Aussie is charming but too bad he's a flurf he's heard that one before okay next one had my feelings he got better ruxata thanks for your super chat who says question for flat earth Aussie have you ever seen Polaris from Australia nope gotcha thanks very much brad dubai or dubay forgive me if I mispronounce correct me they say big numbers scare flurfs I want to let it crap we can bring the big numbers all the time and tell you what your beliefs are some ridiculously super sunny quite the sunny speeds and because we grasp reality and understand how impossible they are we understand the big numbers you know it's just and like them alliance I uh yeah it's all up here and relative you got grasp it at all oh my goodness thank you very much next up Philip thanks for your super chat says fly uh I think they're saying this is oh yeah flat earth Aussie they say how do you explain the fact that we always see the sun crossing time zones in the same order not looping back like the flat earth model says that doesn't the flat earth model is like a 24-hour clock place and wherever the sun is directly above become like a full p.m the opposite side bring full p.m it's uh where's your looping back your time zones work out perfectly gotcha thank you very much next up appreciate your super chat from stupid or energy strikes again she says why doesn't James I mean the sun change in angular size nasty woman very nasty uh but yes why does the uh why doesn't the sun change in angular size that's pretty simple it's already said sufficiently far enough away that by the time we see now the local environment where our security points are only about three or four miles away from either side the distance it is actually going to be relevant to the distance it already is just just the same as looking at say a distance ship on the horizon going from this bar south or whatever north as you can see it won't change in angular size either because it's already so far away the back of distance it covers is irrelevant to the distance it already is gotcha thank you very much we got to find one here for planner walk I'm finding don't worry planner I'm looking for it stringer news one I mean this could be for you they say kids remember this is a lesson to never do drugs oh so sorry flat earth Aussie okay next up Steven steve thanks for your super chat he says one is Kyle C on modern day debate again very funny though he's technically right we did have back in this is like years ago we had Kyle Kurtis on uh that was before the dark times before the umpire planner walk nine four or no i'm sorry ranger man nine four zero four has a question for your planner walk this is perfect okay so yep they say planner walk do you really expect a fluff to answer a question I mean it depends what the question is like when you try and ask them questions about the globe or about certain things though they might give you a somewhat tangical tangently related answer but yeah ask them questions like if I ask flat earth Aussie Jesus do you like Star Wars but I was asking flat earth me I thought that was hypothetical what was that I thought that was hypothetical but do you do you like Star Wars I like it yeah which one I mean we'll go with the original trilogy not didn't like it okay got you thank you so much we appreciate it next up Brad did we Brad Dubey thanks for your super chat he says perspective does not change reality it's a good one I mean it is how you view reality you have to use the perspective you're given way to view it if you don't like it so what doesn't tanger it's the easiest one it is gotcha thank you next up appreciate it from sleepy dan who says flat earth Aussie if the sun is as close as you say why don't you get hotter when you approach it temperature drops with elevation look at snow on the mountain tops yeah that's a good question because the nature of light is that light itself doesn't create the heat but the closer it gets the warming of the thermal mass of the earth that's where you get the heat from it's like on a really hot summer's day you know you could be hold your foot just above a hot foot car and you don't feel the heat until your foot actually touches it and then it makes it dark tempe in the air so heat comes directly from the source and it's not from the sun itself so you're getting closer towards the sun when you're further and further away from the thermal mass and because air has less and less mass to get higher up this is going to get colder and colder you need to move to something that actually keeps up and helps that thank you very much next up stupid horror energy strikes again she says james gets hotter as i approach him why doesn't the sun you wish okay next up so i think that was basically the same question as the last one regarding the sun christopher hoogan thanks for your super chat asked what keeps the moon up there if it's in our atmosphere well that's the mystery isn't it i i tend to think it's some sort of diamagnetic force that repulses against the sub-water oceans and that same force is what which is the tides around what it is i don't really know but i can see how it works and say it's something that we need to work on yeah that's something we need to work on thanks so much next up sygephratos arabia is in the house always get excited sygephratos has been been hanging around here the channel a long time i don't know if i ever told this story when i went to when i met samuel nasan one of the debaters i went to malaysia and like one of the first things he was like who's sygephratos arabia and i was like i don't know but he is asking this why doesn't the phone work higher and closer to satellites so i think they mean like if you're maybe on a mountain or on the airplane whatever yeah well so the reason why is because uh cell phones just communicate with cell towels which then communicate with satellites uh use it but there are some times there are some phones that uh will only communicate with uh satellites of there's one person who mentioned that i think it was uh landon knoll who has been to entartica and had to use one that would communicate with satellites got only got like a few minutes signal far as i'm concerned what they call satellite is simply radio signal and there's a little bit of delay over very vast distances with the radio signal you're not sending it into outer space where everything is spinning and zibling for more than an hour got you yeah it's far more complete than what i mentioned but thanks very much and appreciate that yeah so so stick that in your pipe and smoke it sygephratos okay next up denis d thanks to your super chat they said in a spring tide there can be a high tide on both sides of earth it's complex on why there would be high tide on the opposite side of the earth yeah there's absolutely no reason why the gravitational pull of one moon with one mass would create a secondary high tide on the opposite side because we know for example that if we believe that the eccentric model the earth is pulling all the oceans towards the center and then the moon is acting against the earth's gravity to pull a tide to one side so there's no reason why then the opposite side of the earth from the moon would allow a secondary higher tide it's just it's particularly impossible all the gravity would be pulling towards the moon with the earth yeah so that that in itself completely debunks the guy there well i think that it's a lot more complex than the moon exerting a gravitational pull on the water because yeah if that was only what happened then you'd be correct but there's a lot more to that which involves uh the way that gravity works and it actually involves water pushing on water and actually involves the earth's gravity as well gotcha thanks for that appreciate it next up we have a super chat from Graham Bouvier i hope i pronounced that name right so i'm pretty sure like Bouvier i think that was like Marge Simpson's maiden name but thank you Graham for that super chat let me know if there was a comment you want me to attach to it string your news one thanks for your super chat said show planner walk some love hmm that's nice you have a fan out there red that's a very sentimental red cosmos devil thanks for your super chat who said have you guys watched gods of Egypt they depict flat earth and not spherical lol i'm sorry i have not seen gods of Egypt very embarrassing me neither though okay next up appreciate um stupid horror energy there she goes again she says i went to malaysia and i met james on the incan incan pyramids and he said he saw a bridge curve over the waters how do you like them apples very funny she's quite the troll herself next up thanks for your energy reflection i appreciate your question king crew jumping into the standard questions king crew asks we already have a question for flat earth aussie has he ever had 12 hours of sunlight in australia it comes from brixie brix hamite is that like uh like one of your long lost suns or something or gotcha so why i don't so you okay you guys are actually like buddies it sounds like what about have you seen 12 hours of sunlight in australia we can have up to 15 hours of sunlight in summertime huh and i have we passed the equinox we're back to 12 hours and now we're going backwards again until our next solstice in the middle of june or end of june where the days get shorter and shorter planter walk you look skeptical are you skeptical well i was just gonna say i haven't seen 12 hours of sunlight in australia but i have seen more than 12 hours of sunlight in new zealand oh yeah and we're pretty much on the same sort of sunlight scale yeah really interesting i but i want to know who brixie brix hamite is why would they mention it without i just josh pale poly thanks for your question they asked flat earth aussie you argue that your senses say the earth is flat mine say it's a globe why is your experience more valid than mine uh probably because i'm not a fruit back i've never hung upside down in my life i've always been upright and according to all the laws of physics observable levels water level perpendicular parallel all that sort of stuff tells me that i'm on top of the world and i'm not hanging upside down and so if you think you're on the other side of the globe hanging upside down maybe you're a fruit back that is super interesting thank you for that and top dog shattuck who has asked many questions tonight asks could both sides repeat what the other person's view is to see how much both sides understand each other what do you think well i think that's a great idea top dog shattuck would you guys be willing to maybe like in 30 seconds to give you the challenge of even not only representing your opponent's view but like shrinking it down into like 30 seconds the best case you could lay out on behalf of your opponent yeah sure i believe i've been covered with water and i think i live upside down on a grabbing water balls back in the space is impossible because we have a pressurized atmosphere how is that how is that the strongest um okay if you platter walk if you want to do the same we can't blame you all right you gotta be excited to believe in this life these days um it's a lot more complex than flat earth ozzie jesus put it that's very funny i i tried top dog shattuck i tried i could try and um summarize i played with ozzie jesus's argument appreciate that thank you we have one last question from flash gordon thanks for your question they asked for flat earth ozzie have you ever been to the edge of the earth okay i go there every night picking dogs okay he's uh now he's just trolling us okay i know i get a really good view of the stars i can say you can do everything i guess yeah go um thank you very much um see wait hold on a second i feel like my internet is going in and out let me um i can't load up the uh any of the most recent questions i think stupid horror energy strikes one more time tonight she says in malaysia james was dressed in a tuxedo he had a oh my gosh i'm not gonna read that okay um he had something going on that made me blush but he was quite the gentleman to be continued nasty nasty lady brad wagner thanks for your super chat as well if you have a comment you want me to get attached to it let me know really appreciate it and let's see i thought you did oh did i miss it from brad wagner yeah it says um plan a walk are you drinking koolaid good job tonight and i can respond to that no it's not koolaid it's just some water with uh flavoring you've got cordial yeah pretty much what it's um i don't know if i have the no i don't have to pick it uh basically it's an electrolyte thing well i've been drinking coffee all this time that's awesome it is for everybody who doesn't know directly from my hamburger bottle very nice both of our guests they are actually you guys are both are you guys in the exact same time zone or just an hour off no i think it's like three hours either okay so i just got out from every woman oh where did that come from well i just we used to talk over time so i knew it was three hours oh okay um but yes um these so both of our guests they are in the future if you're watching from the us or from europe we right now it's friday uh it's friday and it's nine pm where i am i'm in mountain time and both of our guests they're already into saturday and they we are so honored to have you guys spend some of your saturday with us so i'm being serious i know i sound facetious but i'm being serious oh well i'm half locked in so i have nothing better to do than well thanks that makes me feel great next up let's see uh we have one more and we have a couple more denise d thanks for your question they said flat earth Aussie don't be offended that i was joking about your age you've got good vibes even if you are a flat earth or another backhanded compliment thanks my really nice uh let's see oh okay yeah you're right brad wagner did ask if you were drinking koolaid uh planner walk you're right and said good job tonight thanks for that i i'm like a little bit behind yet let's see denisey thanks for your super chat denisey who said both opponents are very mature and respectful very nice i have to say you guys really are like a pleasure to have you guys are very respectful and i honestly people have really enjoyed this so we really enjoyed it we'd love to have you back anytime want to remind you folks both of their links i put the description so go ahead you can check out more content from these gentlemen and with that i want to say uh guys thanks so much for being here if you have any uh last goodbyes um well well i did want to um summarize flat earth Aussie jesus's argument in 30 seconds which i didn't get to do you about so so yeah his argument is that the sun illuminates half of the earth uh using the noble gases that are higher up in the atmosphere and we can trust our eyes because uh if we can't trust our senses what else can we trust and it's all due to density and buoyancy why the noble gases are higher up in the atmosphere and the sun is just a bit higher than that and that's a tisley coil uh a faked gotcha thanks so much next we also have we had just two last superchats fly in ryan wallis thanks so much for your super chat i'm wondering i'm like ryan i think i'm maybe i think i've seen maybe you've done a super chat before but maybe a first-timer right this is an Aussie why do you imagine that you are the first person in history of mankind to notice all of these so called obvious problems with the globe are you some kind of super genius yes thank you very much next remind me a little bit of jesse lee peterson uh let's see do you guys know what jesse lee peterson is you see him on youtube um i'm pretty sure he's amazing that's right that's right yes he is we this is like it's not for sure yet and i have to give a huge credit to steve mccray who might have like made this work we are basically we're in talks to try to get jesse lee peterson on it's not confirmed so but it would be really exciting it might happen next week so that that is we're hoping wow that would be fun i've seen i've seen him on disney's show yeah that's right destiny yeah they've had a good conversation yeah he's a he's a funny guy uh let's see stupid horror energy thanks for your super chat she says james oh gosh i don't know if i want to see this james invited me to sit down my eyes started from his oh my gosh to the beautiful scenery behind him back and forth man what is with you tonight okay so thanks so much we appreciate you all being here folks even the sicko is like uh stupid horror energy and steven steen is always fun so i want to say thanks so much we hope you have a great night folks it's always fun tomorrow there is a tag team debate on god's existence t-jump and amy newman will be teaming up against two theists guests sterling and canadian catholic so it should be fun but last of all i just want to say thanks so much flat earth Aussie and planner walk it's been a pleasure guys thanks right sign me up take care everybody be healthy be safe have a great rest of your day