 What is up everyone and welcome Modern day debate. We are a neutral platform a non-partisan Welcome evering from all walks of life for good dialogue if you're looking for even more Fantastic debates, please don't forget to like or subscribe Including tonight's debate on flat earth Glober verse flat earth there with our interlocutors Fight the flat earth and iron horse here to help us find some answers And if you enjoy what any of them have to say tonight all of our guest links will be in the description Below with that we are going to hand it over to iron horse for their 10 minute opening statement Well good day As you know, I just stepped in as a last-minute substitute. So obviously I've had nothing to prepare and had no idea what the format of today's debate was going to be apart from being a flat earth So apparently I've got 10 minutes to talk about the globe. I'll probably won't even need close to that many Basically, I grew up like everybody else believing in the globe fully and my whole spiritual being Depended upon living on this special blue marble earth and feeling my unique place in the universe in the cosmos Watching the moon go around us as we go around the Sun. I grew up believing all that and then It took a long time before I really started to question Whether we lived on a globe or not and it's only once you really start to understand Every aspect of what the globe believer believes that you can start to appreciate how insane insane it actually is like absolutely insane But first of all when you look for curvature, it doesn't exist You have to believe in something that's so far out of sight and out of mind. That's basically a faith belief It's something that's so far away that it's over there Like you never picture it you never see it, but you just imagine it So it's just a huge thought experiment all around and then you have to imagine that it's spinning on its axis Now that seems to make sense because the Sun seems to rise and it seems to set But a thorough investigation of just that alone really debunks itself because we see the Sun for approximately 50% of every day and If you think about it, we say it sets belief the horizon it rises from below the horizon yet Your horizon at the best of times there might only be a few hundred meters away It might be a few miles if you go to a really high spot at the very most you might see 20 or 30 miles Into the distance in a good location on a clear day now you compare that to the size of the earth if that If 50% of the earth is lit at any one time by the Sun and the earth is about 25,000 miles in circumference, then that means that the Sun must be rising at least More than 6,000 miles away in one distance and setting at least 6,000 miles one hour So more than 12,000 miles of your earth is lit at any one time But you see the Sun rise in the morning four or five miles away, and you say it's setting four or five miles away So how can you be seeing 50% of your day in sunlight through such a tiny window of opportunity? Now the Sun would be by the time it sets over 6,000 miles away, which means at least 4,000 miles of drop between you and the actual horizon where the Sun is actually setting So you can't see 50% of sunlight in a day. You'd be lucky to see 5%, 10% at the most You get a couple of hours of daylight the rest of you twilight. That's in your personal little window of perspective So the whole sunrise and sunset thing that proves the globe is actually a complete therapy But globes believe it because that's what they've been told the sunsets because the earth is spinning I watched thousands of sunsets in my youth thinking I can feel the ball spinning away towards the east You know imagining in my head that that's really what's happening as I'm watching the Sun itself actually thinking now when you think of it in in a flat earth sense of Scale of how things work if the earth is flat the Sun can be 6,000 miles away Before the horizon rising up to that point begins to obscure it and if you got a little bit higher You can see the Sun again get a little bit higher You'll see the Sun again and again and again now if it's behind all this curvature drop of the earth going higher You actually I'm backwards on your globe. So seeing a sunset on a globe actually makes no sense and it debunks itself and the flood earth model Describes it perfectly well, and it's the only logical way it could happen. So all these things that the globe presents as proofs Are absolutely nonsense, but they say we're spinning at over a thousand and forty miles an hour on the equator So it gets slightly less and less and less until you get to zero at the poles But basically everywhere where humans inhabit it's still going a supersonic speed It's faster than the speed of sound So that means if we're hurtling through a vacuum of space somehow having a pressurized atmosphere for reasons Our gravity force gravity is the answer to that just about everything. It's the prerequisite for the globe For the atmosphere to sometimes appear perfectly still that means as it gets higher and higher and higher It's actually moving faster and faster and faster Now that the simple law of Occam's razor says that the explanation with the least assumptions is more often than not the most correct one So instead of assuming that this atmosphere is getting faster and faster and faster to appear to remain perfectly still on a nice calm day Also while we're hurtling around the Sun at about 87 max So that's 87 times the speed of sin So the atmosphere knows which way we're going whether it's going forwards or backwards relative to the ball It knows exactly how to behave in order to remain perfectly still Occam's razor says if something appears to be perfectly still that's probably because it is perfectly still not going these absolutely supersonic speeds plus exponentially increasing in speed to create that illusion and it's the same as when we drop something Towards a falling surface if it's falling straight down. It's falling straight down. It's not as though it's moving Faster sideways exponentially faster than the rate. It's dropping. It's only dropping at 9.8 meters per second But the rate of sideways motion just on the orbital rate of orbital Just the actual rotation speed alone is something like about 30 miles per second or is it kilometers? I think it's 30 kilometers per second So it's falling 30 kilometers per second sideways But 9.8 meters per second downwards and the 9.8 meters second per second downwards is the only measurement that we can ever detect So everything about the globe literally debunks itself if you put all the pieces to get that and try to To look at the big picture and say hang on a sec We observe things falling up and down. We don't observe any motion. We can't feel any motion We sometimes see wind moving this way and that way sometimes two different ways with clouds going two different directions at the same time But they tell us that the atmosphere moves with this so the atmosphere is doing all this plus this and this It's just absolutely insane Everything about the globe ends up being insane and the final nail in the coffin Of course is water level if you hold a globe in your hands You got Asia in this hand and you got America in this hand and you look at this globe. You have to seriously Convince yourself. I don't know if you got my camera. I've got it on the tall probably can't see If you you've got to convince yourself that looking at this globe There's this huge Mound of oceanic war in the Pacific Ocean between these two continents which amounts to thousands of miles high Bulge of water now water don't do that water is always flat and level and the and the land masses Have to be above water level. That's how we universally measure land is Height above sea level. We never ever take into consideration curve for anything when it comes to do with the height of mountains The height of anything that's always above sea level sea level. So The fact that 70% plus of the earth is flattened level water Means that we live on a stationary plane or earth and the globe is probably the most Insane thing that we indoctrinate our children with while their minds are still malleable and open to suggestion And they'll believe all these things and go up ridiculing. Oh, look at these ships falling off the edge of a flat Ancient superstitious people used to believe that but no, it's the ancient superstitious people who came to believe that just because I've gone far enough away from Polaris that it reaches a point along the convergence line the convergence point because everything as you get further away from it gets lower and lower They believed they descended into the underworld. That's where their Sun God went every winter solstice The Sun God vanished into the underworld it stays there for three days and nights and then three days after the winter solstice What do they celebrate the birth of the giver of life the light the Sun of God? That's all sun worship religious belief based on superstitions that they actually went into the underworld once they could no longer see Polaris and that's how the globe was formed that the Equator is the point where you no longer see Polaris. So they believe now they're in the underworld And that's why us Australians are living in the land down under because of all these ancient superstitious beliefs Which have no basis in reality whatsoever just normal laws of convergence Perspective and distance because earth is really really big and the Sun goes around above us Exactly 24 hours a day And that's another big thing that the globe fails on miserably Because we measure time with a fixed amount of time a 24 hour clock. It's a mechanical clock It's a fixed device. It does not adjust that Four minutes per day as they say according to a sidereal day The sidereal day is the speed of the stars going around above us They move four minutes faster than the Sun and that's how we determine how long a year is but the Sun every day is 24 hours And that's why without adjusting our clocks It's always directly overhead at midday if we didn't adjust their clock if we were on a globe going around a center point It's like having a bunch of clocks around a wall with a light in the middle Where that light is shining towards every clock that would be the daytime So when you got a clock down the bottom midday is 12 pointing up Six months later the clock at the top has got six pointing down and that would be your midday in the middle of the night So the globe is one of the most silliest things We've ever been indoctrinated with and flat earth is the best sense of sanity that you'll ever find. Thank you Thank you so very much iron horse on your opening statement on the globe and with that We're going to hand it to fight the flat earth for his five minute First of all, I apologize guys, I've got pretty bad cold. So if I sound a bit stuffed up, I'm that's because I've got a cold Honestly a lot of that Doesn't need debunking because it's just you know a lot of it you were just saying what doesn't make sense It's ridiculous that that is what's called an argument from incredulity It really doesn't matter if you think it's ridiculous and you think it doesn't make sense because it will make sense Mathematically it all works perfectly your claim that we should only see a certain amount of sunlight on a globe is completely false We half of the globe is facing the Sun. So we have half of the world up now that actually Comes as an issue for the flat earth. Let me just switch this over So this is a flat earth now, obviously half of the world is lit up at one time. We know that's the case If the earth is flat then the Sun is going around the you know on top of the flat earth So if we look at this and this matches reality what we see with half of the world lit up and half of it in darkness this doesn't make sense on the flat earth because if you look at where the Sun is and Compare it straight up to the equator. That's you know a certain distance But then if you look at the Sun and then compare it to the outside of the disk That is a much further distance for the light to have to travel Yeah, it's the same light. So For this to make sense on a flat earth light has to be magic because it has to randomly stop for absolutely no reason this makes 100 percent sense on a globe because Half of it is facing the Sun that that's what you expect big light source one side half of the globe to be to be lit up But if we're looking at the flat earth and how we know day and night is split across the world It makes no sense the light will have to travel different distances for absolutely no reason It would have to stop at an arbitrary distance yet on another portion go further. So Nothing about the flat earth and the Sun makes sense Okay, so that there's that you said something about You said something about the the atmosphere knowing which way to go Now see the atmosphere Heralds to the earth by gravity gravity pulls down towards the center of earth. The atmosphere is pulled towards us Send in there with earth Traveling with earth rotating with earth. It comes from earth. It has that momentum You guys hear me? Yes, we can Sorry, it seemed to cut out there. I don't know why Sorry, give me one sec. Yeah, so The atmosphere is held to the earth by gravity billions of years of friction putting it round It's all part of the same reference frame. It is part of the earth. It moves with it Because there's nothing to stop it moving with it so Your entire argument against the globe there seem to be an argument from impregnality Basically saying it doesn't make sense to me. That seems ridiculous to me I don't want to believe it because it sounds impossible That that's that's kind of your problem really it all makes sense If you do the maths, if you do the physics, there is nothing about the globe that is impossible Gravity is a real thing gravity is empirically measured and it's a fundamental part of the universe that we can Show is a very very real thing through experimentation of actual science. So I think that's my rebuttal to everything that the The flat of jesus said and just before I finish I do want to say thank you to flat of jesus for jumping in Because Howard was too scared to actually debate me. So thank you for that flat of jesus. I do appreciate it And I do want to thank both of our interlocutors for being here and with that I'm gonna hand it over to both gentlemen's they can have five ten minutes of open dialogue about the topic Okay, so What would you say about the the Sun? Ross iron horse Jesus, whatever you want me to call you Okay, well obviously misunderstood the format because I thought we'd agreed that you were gonna do a Ten minute opening statement as well But you sort of basically just jumped straight into a rebuttal of my opening state And if I will say it almost kind of flips So in a second he's gonna give kind of ten minutes and then you'll have a rebuttal and then it'll go back into open conversation Yeah, okay, that's fine. Yeah, I just misunderstood I guess So, yeah What you've said about the Sun then okay, that's that's assuming that you even know what the Sun is and you even understand the Flat Earth model Now we've done a lot of investigation ever previously Yes, Craig can you kindly not interrupt what I'm speaking. I know that's your favorite go-to method of debating to speak over me But if you could finish what I was just confused when you said And then you can then you can have your turn, okay, is it that hard for you to do? No, no, I'm just confused. I like I said, I was just confused when you said flat earth model Jesus So yes, according to our flat earth model, we have what we call a firmament and whether or not it's dome shaped when unsure of but Basically what we've got is a pressure gradient above the earth now if you understand water pressure water One atmosphere of pressure is a liquid you put into a vacuum chamber. It will begin to boil so it returns back to its gaseous state So basically the whole earth itself is a pressure system and what we what I think You know, this is my opinion only what I think is is that these gases get higher and higher and the lighter and lighter Gases get up there it gets colder and colder and colder until the point We have a frozen layer like a ice atop a frozen lake, but it's not frozen water and some Probably a frozen hydrogen and it is cushioned upon our atmosphere and this is what gives us an atmospheric pressure So when we look through this layer it's like looking through a lens and it's the lens where we look in a direct line of sight from our position up Through this lens, which is only about in my opinion 60 to 70 miles high Not very high at all a 60 to 70 mile distance on the surface is No, it's something you can travel in an hour or two and a half It's not that high up but according to height Perspective it is extremely high and so what's happening is is this energy source of the Sun strikes Through in our direct line of sight and creates a hot spot Apparition in the firmament now doesn't matter where you are if you travel then 500 miles And you do it really fast that Sun is going to move with you So wherever you're looking at it the Sun isn't really in an actual location It is in a subjective location subjective to the viewer So it's a personal apparition no matter where you are it moves with you So the Sun can be in multiple places at any given time Because it's not really in a place at all It's it's way above like it could be 3,000 miles high above the firmament for all we know Which is why it can cover such a broad area But still appear to be in a singular spot So if you're doing a triangulation from a single spot and somebody's a thousand miles away doing their triangulation at a single spot You're looking at something that's kind of like you know that trapezoid or a rhombus or something You're not seeing the Sun in the same spot at all. It's a completely different part of the firmament And so what you think is the Sun isn't the Sun So it can cover a much broader area than what seems logical because you're just believing in a very simplistic globe model with one Sun in one position Okay, that's lovely. What evidence do you have to support those claims? Well, the evidence that speaks for itself we've we've done enough studies to show that this Show me the evidence that there's an actual firm and show evidence that there's an ice layer up there Show me the evidence that the Sun can be in multiple places at one time. Don't just say it Show me the evidence on your claim Okay, you actually did show us because you use the flat earth model and you showed us how far the light is distributed According to that model so that if you then see the Sun hundred different positions or a billion different positions all at once around that particular area and it's Electrostimulating the noble gases to glow into daylight. So sunlight and daylight are two completely different things Yeah, right. And so your your example that you used for the flat earth model is evidence of that No, that's just a picture. It's not a model. It's a map that doesn't make sense Ross me showing a picture Illustrating how the Sun doesn't make sense on the flat earth is not evidence of your claims You made the claim that there's a firmament. That's a positive claim You made the positive claim that there is a layer of ice above us that's causing the gradient That was a positive claim by you positive claims require evidence Do you have evidence to back up your claims or are you just saying things? Well, obviously, I can't screen share at the moment But there's a lot of evidence if you look at all this high-attitude balloon footage You notice several things that happen as you get higher and higher once you're above about a hundred thousand feet These things become very apparent is that the earth is still completely flat There's the layer of blue Fluorescing gases which is only about 12 to 14 miles high and the only thing that is visible is the very bright Sun Which looks like this huge glaring thing, which is the traditional Explanation for having this huge crown of thorns because that's what this Sun God has Yeah, like that's lovely if he is a bit of a fish eye fish eye Fish eye lens that shows a little bit This isn't the fish eye lens This is this is an image from a weather balloon at 36,000 meters This is what evidence of what you just said not being true. This is a high-attitude balloon Fudge right and not only does it show the curve of the earth very very well I changed the colors here slightly so that you could see Not only does it show the curve of the earth, but it shows the curve of the atmosphere above the earth more importantly What you see here is an overlay of the prediction of what we should see science Science requires us to make predictions and test those predictions the prediction of Earth's curve at 36,000 Meers is what we see there and it matches it perfectly. All right, so this isn't the fish eye lens This is a non-fish eye lens specifically a non-fish eye lens Showing you at 36,000 feet at 36,000 meters rather that the earth is not flat that it has a Actual curve to it and not only is the earth curved the atmosphere is curved above it So you're completely wrong when you say the high-attitude balloon footage shows the earth to be flat it does not Okay, well if you've cherry picked a globes version of it And I have watched this through and you can see that when the camera tilts further upwards the earth goes concave So you've cherry pick one particular image of it that suits your agenda, but you've ignored Wide-angle lens This is a non-fish eye vector linear lens. All right, no matter lying going to change this nowhere in the video Does this camera ever show the earth as convex? It always shows it as concave even when it goes above or below the the lines now this What mr. Senswell did was he had three cameras. All right three cameras There were two that were fish eye and there was one that wasn't fish eye The one at the front is the non-fish eye and you've got these two lines of strings showing you that everything in front of that is straight The one looking straight up So if you look at the top here, we've got one looking straight up at the balloon And then we have a wide-angle camera, but the main camera with these two strings on is not wide angle It is not fish eye. It is a non-fish eye lens and At no point in that non-fish eye lens does it ever show the earth as being anything other than Convex the entire way through the entire thing is available mr. Senswell's channel, but more importantly Maches the predictions of the globe So if you say that how do you put it shows the earth to be flat you are telling a lie And anyway, you're diverging from my argument which was coming to the point that we're talking about a firmament So you're showing you're going off on a tangent. Where's the firmament? Lens trying to show curvature. I'm just talking about the firmament here at the moment now From a very high position will appear to curve because of the intensity of light The firmament is where you'll see the Sun now you find an image where you can see the Sun Sorry, but this is 36,000 meters up. Where is the firmament in this picture? That blue hazy section the blue hazy atmosphere Yes, that's correct It's the atmosphere Are you claiming this blue went through the firmament? You can see a straight blue line at the top of the blue. That is what I call it. That's curved 15 miles high and 70 miles high and that is where you see the hotspot apparition of the Sun But because there's no noble gases up there to light it. It's all black. Everything is dark All you say is the Sun. There are no stars. Where are the stars? I'm sorry, but once again, you've said there's a firmament there Could you please point out to me in this picture from 36,000 meters specifically where the firmament is and iron horse When you when you're done your answer That will be the end of that because we're gonna give it back to a 10-minute new opening statement for fight the flat earth But the last word on that is yours Yes, so where you see the Sun that is where the firmament is now because there's nothing there to create light Like as opposed to say when you're underwater under an ice layer in a frozen lake The water itself will create light and so you can actually see the ice But in this case like this the light stops at firmament be the blue light going into black And then it's blackness all the way up to the firmament So where you're seeing the hotspot apparition of the Sun that is where the firmament is There's nothing else to show like so it's dark and all right. Thank you iron horse and now fight the flat earth I'm going to reset the clock you have 10 minutes for your opening statement about the globe Thank you very much so The claim that the curvature is you know, you can't see it. It's just not false It's just completely a lie that flat earthers tell I am literally showing the curve of the earth right now matching the predictions of what you should see if You send a balloon up 36,000 meters, but you don't have to send a balloon up to 36,000 meters All right, you can just do it from from ground level I was going to show this to Howie because this really really annoys him because he did a $10,000 euro challenge to show curvature at sea level and that's exactly what this picture this person did So here's proof of curve every flat earthers going to have to admit on the 5th of June 2018 They went and took pictures from the pier at Farragrag that can add the Gandia point a towards the cliffs at Denier point B No, this can't stand Antonio the distance is somewhere between 34.5 and 36 kilometers So that's where they took the images. Okay I took shots from two points about 40 meters apart laterally one small staircase leading down to the water So between five and one meter from water level on the top of the stairs That's a small lighthouse on the point the altimeter says 3.6 meters. We're sure it's not correct I measured the structure between six and eight meters So here's the two cap the points where where they captured one meter vantage point on the left there And like eight meter vantage point on the right there. Okay Air was not humid Visibility was relatively clear to see was extremely and unusually calm reproducing the results would depend on those conditions being similar So it talks about the camera that was used the zoom level that was used the lens that was used so anyone can go in Try recreate themselves and here was the predictions, you know part of science very important part of science You make a prediction and then you test it. So these are the predictions of what they would have seen and Then they took the photos So you see there the top from one meter and from eight meters. So if we show the entire pictures the photo from one meter Shows only a little bit of this mountain But the photo from eight meters shows considerably more Matching the predictions of the globe that when you raise your height, you'll be able to see further That doesn't make sense in the earth as flat. There's no reason why raising your height would allow you to see further angles Don't work like that. So this is evidence from sea level the There's quite clearly curvature here's the pictures overlaid No, the rock face indent visible only at eight meters when you go high And this this is empirical evidence that anyone can go reproduce so there's evidence from sea level there's evidence from 36,000 meters up The we can quite easily see the curve of the earth I also like to point out the website by Jesse Kozolski You can find him on Twitter who used surveying instruments to actually measure the curve of the earth over several different places including a lake of 1.38 meters, but um, I Mean that this is empirical evidence This is matching the predictions of what we're supposed to see showing that the earth actually has a curve to it But there's other ways that we can tell that the earth has a curve And one of my favorite ways of telling that the earth is Actually a sphere. It's also an excellent evidence that the earth rotates. That's Falkholtz pendulum Falkholtz pendulum There's a very very specific thing Right when you if you are at the north of the South Pole The pendulum would process 15 degrees per hour Any middle latitude it will change until you get to the equator where it will not process at all Here's evidence of it at the south pole Where they got it to process exactly the amount that they thought it would just over 24 hours And then I also present lots of evidence all the time from a channel called the gentleman physicist Showing a homemade Falkholtz pendulum Doing what you would expect it to do matching the predictions of earth Now, how does this prove that the earth is a globe? It's very simple, right? The amount that the pendulum will drift Will correspond to your latitude on earth If you're at north pole or the south pole directly there, it's about 24 hours As you go further away from the poles towards the equator the amount of procession Actually changes and this is because of the earth having, you know At the equator you've got that 1,000 miles an hour tangential speed Which reduces the fervour nor for south you go And when you do the maths and you use Falkholtz sign law You can actually based on the You the earth being a sphere calculate how much the pendulum will process based on your latitude on earth This makes sense if the earth is a globe It's what we expect if the earth is a globe and it's rotating This is science science you make a prediction and you test it whenever you test the Falkholtz pendulum And both the ones I show here are ones without any Electromagnetic interference to push them no magnets or anything these The two examples that I'm showing here are both just they swung for as long as they could and then they did the maths And it matches the prediction of the globe the problem is for flat earth that there's no explanation No explanation at all as to why a pendulum's drift Would match the latitude that you are on earth The only way that that makes sense Is if the earth is a rotating globe imparting Coriolis forces on to the swinging pendulum There's so many examples of this throughout museums all over the world. It's done by children at school um I've got countless examples of Falkholtz pendulum doing exactly what we expect it to do and the reason it does it is because the earth is a globe and it's rotating No assumptions no, uh, you know, no no making stuff up Actually what we physically expect to happen And then you test it and it does happen And unless flat earth can give a reason Why we are able to calculate our latitude on earth With nothing but the swinging pendulum and the amount it drifts Then the earth can be flat This has to have an explanation It has to have an exit and there's an explanation on the globe Explanation on the globe Is that we're rotating you have different tangential speeds The amount Coriolis forces imparted onto the pendulum will change based on where you are So that's why you get a different drift that corresponds to your latitude But flat earth has no explanation for this and that is why the pendulum and the amount it drifts Kills the flat earth dead But easily shows that the earth is a globe Matching predictions doing science done Then that's all Uh, we can't hear you Amy Well, there we go. Sometimes you have to do a double tap with that Iron horse. It's over to you for your five minute rebuttal All right, well I'll start with using pendulums. I mean that's gonna be The most pseudo scientific thing I've ever heard We always know that we've always known that it's the conjurer in the pile doing power tricks who uses a pendulum To determine things now. Oh grant you. There are some genuine uses for a pendulum I know one guy who mentions the amount of bobeys his organized uses Creates by how fast it speeds. It's got nothing to do with any speed of the earth Now you said it has zero possession on the equator Now this basically debunks you of your globe just on its own Because the equator is on this 23.4 degree tilt Or which just so happens to be 66.6 from 90 degree vertical a horizontal vertical yes, so um That 23.4 degree tilt of the equator is constantly at a tilt So as it moves around the sun The one part that's going to be facing the sun There's going to be somewhere on the equator technically that every day for it will be an equinox But that tilt then is going to be slightly different every day. So if you've got A pendulum on the equator, it's never going to be showing the exact same possession as it did the day before So if you're showing no amount of Difference it basically debunks itself and the the fact is I say that by the time you get to the poles It's got zero miles per hour of rotation. So the pendulum shouldn't really diverge whatsoever Yeah, I really don't understand that one. Um, can you just remind me what your first point was? Oh, hang on It's all right. It's coming back to me You're talking about that mountain you could see in the distance And wondering why some of it was hidden as you got down lower now in reality We have this thing. It's called perspective and the laws of perspective have this thing called convergence Now there's only you could have a million parallel lines doesn't matter 50 105 billion however many parallel lines you'll like As you move up and down these parallel lines your line of sight is always going only ever going to have The one at your eyes Perfectly horizontal. It's the only flat one Every other line either side of it will be either converging upwards if it's beneath it or downwards if it's above you So all these lines of convergence Will make a convergence point. So the lower you are the sooner Those lines will reach a convergence point at the horizontal that your line of sight So of course the higher you get the further you can see and that proves the earth is flat a cruise It's not curvature because if there was curvature in the way blocking the bottom of that mountain You would see that curvature. It's not there. It just magically vanishes because you've gotten up higher That's one of the biggest debunks of curvature because If it was true curvature like for example, we have a mountain a mound of dirt If somebody goes and hides behind that mound of dirt and you're way back say a few miles away Just getting up higher is not going to bring them into view. That's a real example of curvature You need to go forwards and over the curvature to see what is hidden by it But if you're just going up on a globe that that is showing Yeah, up is away from the center. So technically going up is going backwards away You're not going to see more over it. You need to get forwards and over it to see over actual curvature So your example actually proved it's flat and it proves how the laws of perspective and convergence work That the ground beneath you will ramp up and create a convergence point Which you can't see through because it's solid stuff, but you can see through the air So anything that's higher than that point you will see and the higher you get the further you will see It is really straightforward and that's where basically the whole Idiotic concept of living on a globe began It was by not understanding the laws of convergence and thinking that the sun is actually going beneath the horizon It hasn't it's never gone beneath the horizon It's always one parallel height above that it's always been And it stays that height It's just that it gets converged by your local position According to laws of perspective stuff that is really simple to understand If you spend a little bit of time to try and comprehend it and stop looking for confirmation bias to confirm something that is as ridiculous as living on a spinning space ball And all right. Thank you iron horse for your rebuttal And i'm going to hand it right back over to both of you guys for five to ten minutes more of open dialogue So what's what's the law of perspective? Can you uh describe that mathematically for me? No, I can't there's nothing mathematical about it. It's It's it's perspective is specifically mathematical No, it's absolutely not mathematical because you're viewing Perspective would disagree with you of course Well, but you can't reduce everything to a formula craig, you know, sometimes you can say You can on another day. Sometimes you do have this thing called refraction. Sometimes you do have atmospheric You can't always apply a mathematical formula to reality when you're actually all brings everything horizontal to the eye of the viewer simple as that The higher you get Goes into the distance you'll see further, but it will still always be horizontal to the eye uh so There's nothing about perspective That says that you would be able to see further the higher you go if the earth was flat nothing about perspective at all says that Perspective is alpha equals two times the octane of g2 r Where alpha is the angular size of the object g is the distance G is the actual size of the objects and ours the distance to the object There's a mathematical formula for perspective. You can actually calculate how big things are supposed to be based on how far away you are And nothing that you described matches reality Um, there is absolutely no reason at all on a flat plane a difference of one to eight meters Should be able to see so much more of a mountain in the distance No More The curve that you say we should see is the fact there's a horizon. That is the effect of the curve All right, the fact that there is a horizon Is because there's a curve to the earth and if the earth is Um spherical the higher up you go the more of something you should be able to see There is no reason that happens if the earth is flat none at all Absolutely none. You can lie about convergence and stuff as much as you want. It doesn't make it real Nothing you've said much is reality. You have no evidence what you say. You are just saying things All the evidence matches the flat earth model because getting up higher across the flat surface definitely increases the angular resolution of things But on a globe it wouldn't be as As i described with say a mound of dirt It's real curvature if something's hidden by it you have to go forwards and over it to see beyond it Not backwards and away from it to see further So you've actually proved the flat earth you just prove you ignorance of how Perspective actually works because convergence is a very real thing. You can see it with any old brick wall You might describe it Your head up and down you will see the lines of convergence changing as you change The one at eye level is always going to remain level. That's your horizon horizontal That's always going to be that way It can only work on a flat earth and it can't work on a globe Again, no it can only work on a globe. There is no reason on a flat earth for you to be able to see more the higher you get That's not how perspective or convergence work at all It makes sense on a globe. It makes sense on a globe You saying it doesn't is just you saying things you have no evidence for that You are just saying things the fact that if you go higher on Something that's spherical you can see more. That is how geometry works You just saying things and saying you have evidence isn't presenting evidence show some evidence Give me some citations back up your claims of wise ross. You are just saying things and these things are irrelevant the And you didn't even address the fact that we can literally see the curve of the earth that we expect to see at 36,000 meters You know, it's it's the curve of the earth See right behind you See how there's a corner sitting above your pointy little head there See how the lines of the ceiling are converging downwards towards that point. That's what convergence You know that the ceiling is parallel to the floor What you said What you need to you is converging upwards. So you're denying reality which you can see right in your How convergence works you are denying reality Convergence doesn't change the amount you can see if the earth is flat and you go higher Nothing about convergence says that unless you can provide evidence of some kind that on a flat earth Going higher means you can see further. You are just lying because that's what I feel It's just lies really isn't it all flat earths do is they just lie and right now you are just telling lines Okay, just keep speaking if it makes you feel better. Everything beneath you is Reaches that convergence point. So if you get higher you will see further across it because You you showed that image of somebody looking down from up the higher point, but that's not how we look We're always looking out and the ground isn't staying flat beneath us like you'd expect Otherwise, you'd see it getting drastically lower as you got higher. It always ramps up to eye level no matter how high Even those global images you show the mage If you look at the horizon you're looking down rising up to eye level If you're looking at the horizon you're looking down No, you're not it ramps up No, you're literally looking down when you look at the horizon So how come the floor beneath you seems to be ramping upwards if it ramped far enough to about three miles It would reach a convergence point. That's how convergence works Looking like it's coming up doesn't mean it's actually coming up You realize that of course That that corner right it's not actually sloping down. It's not actually sloping down ross. It just looks like And no matter how far away No matter how far away I went from that corner would not change the amount of that corner that I could see if the earth is flat ever What you are saying is so illogical has no basis in reality And is simply misunderstanding shapes, which I'm very surprised at for a gentleman of your age Saying is if you kept extending those lines from where you are They will reach a convergence point somewhere in the distance And that's usually about three miles away from a six foot height Convergence works and then if you got higher well if you got double the height you'll see double the distance It's a massive Absolutely, it's the only reason it's because the earth is literally no reason flat on a flower If that horizon was a curvature point and caused by curvature You would never be able to get high enough because you're going backwards away from it to be able to see over it You would never say further More more arguments of incandrility there. Um, just literally making stuff up. Um, so This is very simple. All right Let's say we've got this block Right, this line at the bottom is the flatter and we've got two heights here. We've got one height and we've got two heights Yeah, going higher does not allow you to see more of this at all ever This is reality. All right. Now this is If the earth was flat, this is how it would work There is no amount of going higher ever. You know, it would allow you to see more Of this the higher you get if the earth is flat You're still going to see the same amount. That's never ever going to change But What if the earth is curves, right? What what about that? What happens then? Well, let's have a look shall we? Yeah, we've got the earth we've got the earth curved, right? And we've got our we've got our mountains in there. Okay. And now Let's have one height there So from this height We can see This amount All right up here, but if we go higher say if we're at this height up here Oh look all of a sudden we can see more You see going up When the earth is curved allows you to see more of the mountain The further down you are the curve gets in the way and you can see less of it But the higher up you are if the earth is curved you can see the entire thing It's very simple. This is why That picture I showed you this is why that picture I showed you shows that the earth is curved Because the higher up you go the more of the bottom you can see All right, um, let me just zoom in there so you can The amount of curvature that the earth would have it's only eight inches If you're if you're here if you're if you're this high All right, you can only see to this point right you can't see the bottom bit here But if you go up higher You're able to see the bottom bit because you can see over the curve This is exactly what I just showed you in that image All right exactly what I just showed you The higher up you go the higher up you go the more you can see you can see further over the curve Matching the predictions that is science undeniable So you're just ignoring reality absolutely with your own diagrams because you can see here how the water is ramping up towards the Both of those images so it's in the center So it's not curvature at all. You're showing that by getting higher because you know the curvature formula It's only about eight inches within one mile and you know That's that's That's um That's the effect of the curve. That's what you're seeing and like I've just shown you Like I just showed you with with the paint The higher up you go if the earth is curved you can see more of it Matching the predictions of a curved earth You had to say you you showed an image where by getting up higher you're showing the floor staying down Whereas we know that the floor ramps up to eye level So when you get higher that convergence is still going to be eye level But you keep putting it way down beneath your feet So you're showing you got no understanding of perspective whatever and so you're using that then for your confirmation bias Once again to think that it's curvature when it's clearly not curvature because the curve does not just magically Beneach in the thin air just because you got higher and so fight the flat earth I'm going to let you have a final statement. But when you're done on that we're actually going to switch topics to space So, um, yeah, I literally just showed you how you were wrong I literally just showed you with a diagram in real time how you are wrong on the flat earth There's no reason for you to be able to see more of the bottom on the curved earth the higher you go You can see more matching predictions I literally showed you the predictions and then I showed you the picture you just going uh Is irrelevant. It doesn't change the fact that reality Actually disagrees with you and so iron horse. I am going to give the ball back to you but you actually have five minutes of opening of We're talking now about space in general For the floor Thank you, Amy I will just quickly mention though that you talking about a distance difference of only about six or seven meters That's a difference in height. So you are not going to see over that much curvature in such a short amount of height your diagram 60 or 70 miles high So, yeah, so space we've gone now. So That's right craig. I just thought I'd make my final point and you know the floor is mine. So you ready? Miracles do happen. So we've got You think that space is real. Well, okay, we all grew up watching buck rogers and star trek and all these other space fantasies You know We all believed it because it's the sort of thing we're indoctrinated with it's all a great hollywood fantasy Just as the chili pepper's saying a space may be the final frontier But it's made in a hollywood basin. All of it is made in a hollywood basin NASA have multiple videos of people on record Confirming we cannot go beyond low earth orbit They they invented the van allen radiation belts back in the day to say that's too dangerous to pass through even though they Still pretended they went through it while they faked the moon landings because you can't go to the moon Either we can only go to a maximum of about 120 to 130 thousand feet And it's only above that carbon line, which I described before thermometry at about 12 to 14 miles high Where earth goes black or the sky goes black because all the light exists in the noble gases fluorescing beneath us That's where they think they've gone beyond their just space, but they cannot go beyond Any higher we've seen a go faster rocket get to about 70 miles. I believe was maybe 72 Maybe it was only 62. I forget but whatever it is. We hear that going up up up then clunk And then stops and then it falls back down. So we've seen Zero evidence of anything ever actually entering open space or outer space All we've got is CGI Paintings so much fake Crappery that NASA has given us and they're pretty much the leading experts in space Stuff that we've shown us saying we've sent out probes and you know, I'm sure you've got plenty of probes That have been to Uranus. There's no evidence of anything ever been to outer space We'll never get there. We've got plenty of people quoting. We've got this highest hardest glass ceiling now Some people think that's just the metaphor Talking about something else, but it's actually the truth. We've seen plenty of evidence Of even the simpsons show stuff and they're great at their predictive programming They show the dream of Homer where he hits a home run and it smashed the ceiling and the sky comes flooding down You know, it's like that's meant to be humor, but it's actually Giving us hidden truths. This sort of stuff is going on all around us. There's no outer space Everything is in a space. You can't even see stars above the firmament B. They don't exist We require these noble gases for light to visibly exist So once we you know, we see everything up through that That's why the the stars appear to sparkle And the sun appears to be a solid ball of light But once you go above that there are no stars and the sun becomes something completely different from how it normally looks There's you know, I think To people that grow up being fed childhood fantasies It's filling a dream. Now. How often have we heard promises by nasa? We're gonna send more men to the moon We're going to go to mars We're going to do all this stuff and here it is. Oh, we have to put it off for another 10 years Another five years and they keep putting it off and putting off. They're just selling the dream And all these globes keeps saying oh, yeah, well, let's send him up in a rocket and then we'll see him Prove that it's not a globe then really, you know, then really saying they'll say, oh, it's just all CGI through a window or something Now you've got so many excuses as to why we cannot go to space But we know we can't go to space because you can't go to space because there is no space The only space that exists is that black part up to about 70 miles high above the firmament B And if there's more land out of space is beyond Antarctica and that's forbidden to go to so Who will know but there's no such thing as out of space Thank you so very much iron and with that i'm gonna hand it over to you fight the flat earth for your five minute rebuttal Oh, so i'm showing a rocket now that is uh, you know, it shows the entire launch from, you know, launch to being in space Look at it now being in space. Oh, yeah, that's that's not real Um space is simply an area of extremely low pressure. We know that exists In fact, i've already shown you today that that exists Here is once again, mr. Sensible's mage project And this is the barometric pressure reading as it goes up as you can see the higher it gets the lower that the uh The pressure gets until you're practically zero, which is space Um, that that's what space is space is an extremely low pressure area. Um, once again, here is a rocket flying in space You can say it's fake or you like but you know, that's just telling lies once again um Yeah, we didn't currently have the technology to go beyond lower for a bit except we do now it's called artemus Um, there's several projects in place that will be taking us back to the moon and go into mars You can deny it all you like but you can't keep denying it when it's actually going to happen Again, I am showing you right now a rocket in space It debunks everything that you just said It's that that's it rocket in space done space is real We can measure the pressure when we go up there. Here it is once again We actually measured the pressure when mr. Sensible did Space is an extremely low area of pressure of pressure and that's it you can see it's a low area of pressure because as this rocket goes up That plume behind it might go back a bit, right? So Here we are just to get some of the clouds and you can see the exhaust is It's it's slightly contained but as it gets higher and higher and goes to areas of lower and lower pressure As I speed it up there. You can see that plume of exhaust Expands more and more and more because the pressure gets lower and lower and lower Which is what spaces? Uh, you can deny that the moon landing happened But doesn't change the fact that it actually happened. We you know literally went to the moon To deny space is just denying reality You mentioned about the gopro rocket that goes up and then stops That is called a yo-yo de-spin maneuver and and is designed to stop a rocket spinning So it can be more, you know stable in the air And that gopro rocket that you talk about Um, the actual creator of that saw the claims about it hitting the firmament and actually showed in a video The yo-yo de-spin mechanism that was attached to that gopro rocket Um, that gopro rocket also Didn't get anywhere Near as high as say Mr. Sensible's mage did it didn't get anywhere near as high as mr. Sensible's mage Um Yeah, apparently it hit a firmament Which is strange because mr. Sensible's mage went higher than that gopro rocket And didn't hit or see any firmament and once again match the predictions of what we see space is real I've just showed you that space is real denial is also a river in egypt You gotta be kidding me like I say with that guys I'm actually handing it back over to both of you for another 10 minutes of open dialogue And I will say guys keep on sending those questions and super chats because after the next rounds of dialogue We are moving into the q&a, but gentlemen the floor is yours once again Great, we're just he's just admitted that the major went to 35 or 36 kilometers And yet we're talking about go fast rocket. It's not a gopro rocket's that fast Let's get the name right and it went to about 70 miles. That's more than double as high as you're made So when you talk about most certainly Actually went convex as well. You quickly showed that image and then quickly took it off, but you showed the horizon Sorry, where did I show it being convex? What did I what did I show being convex that last image of the mage that you showed? You could see the horizon as clearly Yeah, she did You're literally just lying so let's put it up and you can show me exactly where oh this one behind him now Yeah, because that is from the wide angle lens Like like I said like I had said this camp this probe had three cameras on One two of them two of them were wide angle two of them. I'm talking. I'm talking. I'm sorry Right. No, you're lying. You're not Excuse me. I'm talking if you could Excuse me. I'm talking if you could shush. Thank you Right. Uh, so if you want to keep interrupting me, you're just showing that you have no argument. That's fine All right. So This has three cameras to the our wide angle and one that isn't this one that isn't never ever ever shows it being concave And this bit at the end as you can see where it shows it being concave is not that camera Because you don't see the strings on it This is from the the watch behind him now is from the wide angle camera that one at the top right That's what he's showing you right now the camera with the strings in never ever ever ever ever ever ever Shows it being concave. That is just a lie Please don't lie Where the strings The where the strings I've shown several times there. They are in front of the camera Yeah, but you can't see them at that resolution. You see straight through them like they're not Really then explains me what these strings are What strings? The strings across the middle of the fucking screen See the orange and the black strings They are Right look at again once again at the probe that was sent up You've got an orange string and a black string right in front of the non fish eye lens And when you shit there you go the orange and the black strings in the non fish eye lens So any image that does not have these strings in any image that does not have these strings in Is not from the non fish eye lens So when you said that it's concave. Oh, I've got you ha ha because it's behind him. No, that was from the wide angle camera But the non wide angle the non fish eye never ever shows anything apart from the european convex. So please Sorry it was there Yeah, yeah, that is And once again that behind him is the wide angle camera not the non fish eye camera Uh, what are you getting about this unless you see the strings? It's not the non fish eye It still doesn't prove space and it still shows that you were a liar or just absolutely wrong about saying that Oh, wait, wait. What way am I a liar? What way am I a liar ross show me tell me exactly how i'm lying The go-fast rocket went more than double that height. That's how you're lying the go-fast Manoeuvre, what about it being called? Am I lying about that? Sorry, I was I was still speaking so I didn't hear you as you were talking over me Uh, so what about the yo-yo d-spin maneuver? Am I lying about that? Probably because the whole thing was bloody spinning like a top the whole way up Why would all of a sudden deploy the yo-yo spin when we hear it make a distinct thunk and stop That's not a yo-yo It would explode Right, uh, so I would explode Yeah So did you do let me get the Have a look um, right so Yo-yo d-spin maneuvers are something that are used to stabilize rockets Uh, so let me get the video from the person that made that Right, so um Keep on stretching keep on stretching. What are the points that you actually make? Space exists, you know, you're talking about space out of space What a rock And then you showed it bending over and you showed a little bit of Actually behind it, but that doesn't prove space of course once you go above firmament b which is 12 to 40 Of course the gases are going to dissipate because there's no air up there So that could only be no air up there because of gravity, right? That could only be 20 miles high for all we know That's not out of space thinking stuff up right anyway, so here is the Spec to be to assume you in outer space. We never see that we only see that in paintings and cartoons You'll never say you say they're paintings, but you've got no evidence that anyway the yo-yo d-spin This is the person that made that rocket and he's actually showing the yo-yo d-spin mechanism um As you can as you can see it's going fast But as soon as they release those counterweights it stops the spinning That is a yo-yo d-spin maneuver and was exactly what was on the go-fast rocket if it was to hit a firmament And just stop the rocket would explode Why would it explode? Because something traveling several hundred miles an hour slamming into a firmament would not just be there perfectly intact it would explode Maybe it slowed down that much by that stage because they had nothing to push off because there's no atmosphere out there That's not how rocks work Stop anyway and deployed its yo-yo thing in an experiment and it just went clunk. That's all it made. It didn't make a huge It was just a little clunk Yeah, and if it hit the firmament in any way it would have exploded, but also that's not how rockets work, so Okay, but you still haven't proved how to space by showing a lower There you go. There's space You showed a low earth orbit rocket That's all you've shown space right now It is is lower orbit space. Yes or no No, no, it's not. Well, you're you're wrong lower orbit is most definitely space It's not it's just going above 12 or 14 miles of height. It's going about yeah, that's space Lower orbit space. You you can say it's not space once again. You would be telling a lot Well, okay, I will say it is space because there's nothing there. There we go Wait, hold on hold on one sec Did you just say it is space? Did you just say it is space? Yes, but I did not then you just admitted that space is real End of discussion. It's in a space mate. It's in a space and we all agree that no that that was the movie from the 80s But you don't have to get sidetracked on your Hollywood fantasies as I know you globes love to do We're talking about reality here. There's no such thing reality Outer space if that rocket was high enough Do you want to explain geosynchronous orbit for me then? Down should show a ship going sideways on the side of the planet. We've never seen anything like that Nice straw man nice nice straw man because that's not what we should be at all That's exactly what we need to be doing if we're going to prove the earth is a globe You need some solid evidence because the flat earth is Yeah, like we've been to space. That's a really good Yes, the blood is dead. We've never been out of space. There's no such thing Earth is the physically I'm actually showing you a video of something in outer space At the bottom of the known universe and there is no such thing as outer space I'm literally showing you a video of us in outer space You didn't you showed lower right now Where and you just you just agreed lower orbit is space. So here we go video of space You're really stretching here aren't you you're really stretching well by by showing by physically showing you space I'm stretching Brilliant. So anyway, Ross, could you explain to me geosynchronous orbits? Please could you explain to me how you receive satellite television? Some satellites that are 22,000 miles above the surface of the equator See the space everywhere the distance between two things is space. We're talking about outer space Craig Yeah, and I've just shown you an image about space Do you want to see it again? Should we look at it again Ross just in case you're confused? Ask a question again, Craig because I was busy over giving you that time Yeah, um, do you want to explain how geosynchronous orbits happen if space isn't real because that requires being 1,000 miles above the surface of the equator Geosynchronous orbits. So you mean in other words staying stationary relative to the earth That's quite simple. If you're at 22,000 miles above the surface. Yes Stationary planar Earth, then you're geosynchronous. It's very easy It's only it's only possible on a stationary planar. If the earth is spinning 66,000 miles per hour Going around the sun and the sun is going 514,000 miles an hour Through space then a geosynchronous satellite is ridiculous. I think that it could keep up with all So another argument from incogility That's what Ross every time you go. It's ridiculous. That is nothing more than an argument from incogility That's not as an idea. I don't care if you think it's ridiculous. Oh, hold on. Hold on my I do not care. Hold on. I'm talking I do not care Let me finish let me let flatter Or fight the flatter have Let him make his last statement and then iron you'll have your last statement And then we're going to switch it up and give five minutes back to fight the flatter for space itself But yeah, both you guys I really really don't care about your arguments from incogility every time you go. That's ridiculous That's a fallacy that you're making the fallacy of incogility. All right I do not care if you think it's ridiculous. It's real. Whether you think it's ridiculous or not And then iron you have your last statement and then we're going to do our final round of back and forth Right. Well, it's quite obvious that craig doesn't care about what is reality because that's what we're talking about here If you got your heliocentric dialect that each and every one of the speeds that you are claiming to be a fact Has to be accounted for by every single satellite now these satellites are said to be in free full speed So the earth spinning is is nothing compared to its orbital rate of motion, which is nearly 67 000 miles per hour So if a satellite is going around the earth Then it is sometimes ahead of the earth and sometimes behind the earth And so that means free sports at free full speed alone It has to be accelerating and then getting around the front and then putting on the brakes to come back around again And you've also then got the fact that you claim the sun is moving 514 000 miles per hour That's over half a million miles per hour another direction through the galaxy And something in free fall is just going to cling to the earth from thousands of miles away as though it's G asynchronous that is the most absurd belief possible And it's another argument Covering above the atmosphere above a stationary planer then it becomes possible And all right, and we're gonna have one more round of back and forth But keep on sending to modern day debate sideshow in myself, Amy Newman in chat your questions and super chats And fight the flat earth. I'm handing it back over to you for five minutes about space So, um, I've already shown that the space is real in my rebuttal Um Lower for a bit or not. That is space. Space is the thing um, but more importantly We've measured the distance to the sun with radar And that one fact destroys the flat earth claim. We have literally used radar to ping the sun See how far away it is And unless you're claiming that we don't know how radar works then The physical measurements of the distance to the sun with radar debunks you Apologies so Um, I presented a scientific paper several times. I don't have it handy right now. Let me see if I can get it Um, but we've actually used radar to measure the distance to the sun Showing that it is 93 million miles away Sorry I apologize um I'm just trying to get the paper. I can't find the paper right now, but uh I said it's a flatter for recently, but we've literally used radar To ping the distance to the sun showing that it's 93 million miles away. We know how radar works radar is Vital to a lot of the operations for ships and everything We know how radar works and we used radar to physically measure the distance to other planets in our solar system and the sun so simple question for for flatter for jesus is How did we use radar to measure the sun being 93 million miles away if the sun is not 93 million miles away? Okay, if actually evidence of space congratulations. You've failed the globe once again Way radar works. It's called radio waves and radio waves also called air waves We need air for waves to propagate No, any sort to have waves. Yes Yes, this is a radar does not need air to propagate Could you show me a citation if you can't then you're lying? Can you show me a water wave without water? No, you can't you have to have we're not talking about water. We're talking about radar Yeah, that's right. And show me a citation that radar requires air to work, please Or you're just You're on the air They've got signs outside the studio door on the air that you can't enter when you're on the air Okay, saying you're on the air is is not saying that it's that's just You know, we're live we're on the air Radar does not require a medium and unless you can provide a citation that says radar needs a medium you are Of the people who invented radio and who use radio for decades and decades you're saying they're all lying They didn't know what they're talking about. They're they're actually using microwaves and Stuff that doesn't require a medium will even light requires a medium. That's why spake is black You can't see you can't see light without something for it to strike to hit upon otherwise Streaming past the earth the whole time in your globe model that light has to have something to hit every sort of wave form has to have a medium and so when you're sending out Um Wave forms that you know work at a specific scale in the medium of air Which generally travel travel across the plane or earth With they never have to take into consideration any sort of curvature or bounce off anything If you're sending them upwards and you're sending them into less and less and dense sort of thing And it's gonna it's going to slow them right down and by the time they come back again You might be foolish enough to believe they've traveled 93 million miles a most ridiculous figure at yeah We can't see 93 million miles Or more incredulity so Right here. I have the scientific paper right right here. I have the scientific paper about radar measurements of the sun done in 1961 About a thousand daily radar experiments have been made of the sun and alcampo texas in april 1961 so Unless you're denying that we've actually done it like this scientific paper says Unless you can provide a citation the radar works the way that you claim You are lying. I have the evidence right here a scientific paper about measurements to the sun Using radar. You can't just deny it. Here is the evidence You're quoting something from 60 years ago craig. How much Who cares what it's from? Technology advanced in the last 60 years. I mean they destroyed that's completely irrelevant. Uh, sorry. No, sorry That's a completely non-secretary Complete Let's concentrate on the fact that I have actual scientific evidence that they use radar to measure the sun Okay, I'm trying to answer you craig What's gonna happen is iron you're you're gonna make your last statement I'll let you say whatever you want and then fight the flat earth is gonna have his final statement on that topic But then I'm gonna hand it back over to you for your five minute rebuttal But the floor is yours. It'll go back and forth last statement All's I'm saying is our technology has advanced so much in even just the last decade alone You're talking about 60 year old technology stuff, you know, that they've claimed they've destroyed most of anyway Because that's why they say we can't go to them because we destroyed that technology Because we've got radar now where a police car can detect which lane a car is in Beyond the visible range of where they're even at. No, which is which and what speeds they're going and yet we haven't got a more accurate Uh determination of how far away the sun is these days We've got radar Basically on the back of traffic control vehicles or even little signs that sit by the side of the road radar has come a Very long way to detect very accurate speeds all calibrated on the surface of the earth We've seen no new technology in the last 60 years. That's how long ago you're quoting from 60 years ago Evidence for how how we know the sun is 93 million miles away. What a crock of shit And then fight the flat earth your last statement on the topic of space So more arguments from incogility from ross. I'm literally showing the evidence. Who cares how how long ago it was Who cares that this was done in 1960s? It doesn't matter. It was done Here is here is the evidence that it was done um We literally measured the distance to the sun using radar. It's been done. It doesn't matter that it was done in 1960 Your incogility is irrelevant to facts um You can't provide a citation that says radar needs uh a medium because that doesn't exist I can literally provide a citation I am doing it right now that we used radar to measure the distance to the sun It's been done your denial is irrelevant We measure the distance to the sun using radar. It's 93 million miles away end of story And then thank you fight the flat earth iron horse. The floor is yours for five minutes of rebuttal Okay, I sort of thought that open dialogue was really rebuttal um, so we So this is a rebuttal about space existing. I assume you're talking about we can't hear Once again, it's all about that double tap. So, uh We'll have one last five minute rebuttal iron horse and then one last more 10 minute of open dialogue and then the q&a and then maybe a last thing just to Tell everyone where you guys are at and stuff like that But five minutes of at least the ball being in your control can be some back and forth what the ball is yours Okay, well, thank you, Amy um There's nothing really left to Rebut except the fact that craig keeps calling my arguments of impregnality Well, I call them arguments knowing the facts Like obviously a fact has to be a fact if you're on a claim it to be a fact now the positive claim of the globe spinning at 1.35 mac even they The only argument they got against that is saying oh, well, there's no sound in space. So you can't use mac Well, it's just a referral to a speed of seven hundred and seventy six Seven hundred and sixty seven miles per hour seven six seven is the average speed of sound at ground level So if we talk about a max speed, that's one mac. So when we talk about mac 1.35, that's all we're talking about We're not saying sound itself is necessarily relevant to be able to use max speed It's a way of trying to narrow down these massive speeds into something comprehensible to the human mind Because if I say 66600 miles per hour, most people will go here. Well, whatever But if I say that that's 87 mac that actually means something that means you're going 87 times the speed of sound That's our orbital rate through space that we're assuming that everything we send out to space Must be keeping up with as well. We're not just leaving them in our space dust We send out radio waves that we're shooting away at 87 times the speed of sound and we're expecting to get a Reasonable reading back from a radio wave that we've sent out Thousands of miles away by the time it reaches back to us and we can say it's gone 93 million miles Now, yes, they'll say it's going at the speed of light I don't even know what the speed of light is off the top of my head because as far as i'm concerned The light doesn't even have a speed light is just instantaneous. It's either there or it isn't now when we use artificial lights like a laser or Flicking on the switch or something Well, that certainly has a measurement between the time it's switched on and the time you'll see it That that doesn't mean that that's the speed of light itself The light that we're used to daylight sunlight starlight all these things exist or happen occur Instantaneously the minute we see them. That's when they exist. They haven't existed hundreds of millions of years ago We are not looking into the past every time we look at the night sky We are looking at real time Here and now and that is the sort of things that the globes have to convince themselves To believe their fantasy is that they believe so much ridiculous nonsense They believe that outer space the nearest star is like 450 billion miles away How ridiculous is that we can't see that far all the stars appear in the firmament where we see them Because light only occurs here on earth. So literally this is One of the most profound understandings of flat earth is when the bible predicted or somebody in the bible I'm not a huge bible fan, but somebody in the bible predicted a long time ago that the stars will fall to earth What we're saying here now is the stars are near and local. They're only 12 to 14 miles high Once you go above that point, there are no stars. So we have brought the stars to earth We are literally bringing heaven to earth and we're trying to make this place a much better place And what the heliocentrists have given us they've given a scarcity They've given us ownership by the Vatican because we found lost at sea in a galactic sea So when you're found lost at sea whoever finds you or your your property they take possession of it They own it. So when they have you believing you live in a galactic sea They've basically found you lost in space and they've put your mind lost in space and they've taken ownership of you So you are their property all your stuff. You don't own anything of it It's all theirs and that's how they work with their mind control But it's only because you give them the moment you awaken from that illusion delusion We are not spinning through space. We are People of the land a man of the land a woman of the land our children Children of the land we belong to man's law not this maritime law the law of the sea Which has them owning us and taking all our possession. So all you have to do is say I do not consent to this lunacy. I do not consent to this lunacy. I don't believe in it. We uh You know, I'm not necessarily a strong sovereign believer, but I believe we are born all of us are sovereign We're without going through all the jargon and all the rest, you know, you go along to get along Why beneath the radar but all of this space nonsense being in a galaxy been on a little blue ball floating through space all to Make our little blue ball completely insignificant a tiny little blue speck removes any sort of Idea of a grand designer Our planar earth fixed at the bottom of the known universe makes this place special and it makes us significant We have a purpose we belong and we're put here for a reason And all right, thank you iron horse And i'm giving it back over to you guys for our final back and forth and open discussion The floor once again is both of yours Ladies and gentlemen, um, Flatter Foster Jesus just told us exactly what flat earth is. It's the need to be special That's all it is. We have to be special We have to be the ones that this universe was created for we have to be special voices got no meaning That is what flat earth is about. It's the need the want to be special Everything you said there ross everything that you've said today every single thing It's just an argument from incongility with zero evidence behind it um What you just said about light Is frankly one of the dumbest things that i've ever heard in my life How the hell can light just be there? That's not how the universe works. We can measure the speed of light We know that light travels you just saying it doesn't Doesn't change the fact that it does um, do you have Any scientific evidence to back up your claim that light is just there instantaneously Absolutely, I do because you you flick on a light switch. It's it comes on doesn't it the the gasses inside a fluorescent bulb Well, I might need a little bit of a kickstarter once they fluoresce The light is there now your speed of light came from a couple of bloats from centuries ago using a stopwatch And lighting a candle from different mountains and that's how they determine what the speed of light is Stopwatch it is Of a speed of light Now give me a chance to finish what you just said because none of my arguments are from incredulity whatsoever They're all based on every single one observations of your beliefs And it's not from a desire to want to be special That's from a realization that eventually you have to come to the conclusion That this earth is unique. It's the only physical plane in existence. Which makes it unique It's not because we want it to be because you want special It becomes a huge realize that's where the only reason that your ancestor's Centrism the heliocentric dialect The only reason they decided that the earth isn't geocentric And that was modesty because they did not want to be the center of existence because they didn't want to have to accept The fact that there must be a creator who put us here Cool, so you can stop so boxing now again Your need to be special is irrelevant When you turn on light that light To your eyes 180,000 miles per second We have measured the speed of light to say we haven't again is just denial. It's it's measured It's done 180,000 miles per second or about 300,000 kilometers a second. That is the speed of light Nothing is just there instantaneously. That is not how the universe works light like everything else has to travel to us and you literally Everything you said is just from incredulity. Oh, that's ridiculous. Oh, that seems ridiculous to me Oh, that that just seems stupid and Every time you say that stuff. It's an argument from incredulity I do not care if you are incredulous about facts and science I ask you specifically just now for some scientific evidence That light is instantaneously there and you said turn on a light switch. No Have you in the light travels right? Please give me some scientific evidence that shows that light is instantaneously there Have you personally measured the speed of light? No, it's been done by many scientists So you're taking it on faith from a thorough So you're from the genetic genetic fallacy right now. Um, so that that's lovely Nothing about science requires everybody to do every experiment ever Um, so I do not care about the fallacies that you want to bring here genetic fallacy argument from incredulity Keep your fallacies to yourself and just please answer the question. Can I see some scientific evidence that light is instantaneous? Okay, so you're relying on the high priest of scientism. That's fine Yes, I can because we see the stars and we see them in real time. We don't see them The evidence And watching the stars like what do you want me to do go out and take videos? I want you to provide evidence not just say well, I see this so that's how it is again ross You are making things up. You are literally arguing from incredulity. That's all that you're doing That's all that you have just going well I can see the stars does not mean that the light isn't traveling I want some scientific evidence from you that light is instantaneous Don't just say well, I looked at it. It's there. Give me an experiment. Give me some some scientific papers Anything to back up your claim because I can back up every single one of my claims I can back up everything that I say with science every single thing This is your chance. Hold on This is your chance right now. Hold on This is your chance right now ross to provide some scientific evidence for your claim that light is instantaneous But I don't trust in your high priest of scientism. So why would I rely on your I didn't say scientism. I said science. I didn't say scientism. I said science To try and assert something that I believe they are wrong about I know for a fact that light is instantaneous So there's plenty of people show me evidence that light is instantaneous and just instead of just saying that I believe it Because I don't care about your beliefs. Show me evidence There's no evidence. It's going to convince you craig. It's just like saying there is no evidence. No, you're making things up Ross, why are you making things up? How can you measure Serious question serious question ross Yeah, you measure zero. It's quite easy, but serious question ross ross. I've got a serious question for you Ross. I've got a serious question for you Craig every fucking time Ross, I've got a serious question for you Yeah, I'm trying to talk and you keep it all right guys. Just going to pull you apart for a second. Yeah, we'll ask the question again answer Yeah, sorry. So ross serious question for you. Why are you just making things up? I'm not making anything up. I'm telling you So the high priest of your particular religious cult belief of I don't have a religion Don't straw man me. Do not straw man me Do not straw man me and say I've got a religion because I do not have a religion I have evidence and facts and science and I can back up everything that I have said I'm asking you once again. Show me some evidence of your claim that light is instantaneous Light is instantaneous and I don't need your Show me evidence. Don't just say it. Show me evidence Exactly the same as I kept trying to say before when you keep over talking to me as you always do Is that it's the same as with water level level is level It is flat. So you can't measure it because the measurement is zero another light Always be zero You still can't help yourself. Can you the measurement of zero is always let you die ross. I'm not gonna let you die Instantaneousness of light means it just is instantaneous. It's zero Show me evidence of that. Show me evidence. Show me evidence For fuck's sake. You are in Okay, right just so everyone can see ross doesn't have any evidence of his claim He's just saying it is Oh, sure. Sure. I'm the petrified little child when all you've got is arguments being coagulated Sixty years ago. Well, you've got proof. That's all you've got when it was done You've got a really just the science being done 60 years ago. Stop it being science You're just in denial Wait, the science hat that was done 60 years ago. Stop it being science It's scientism if you continue to believe There's no such thing as scientism. There's no such thing as scientism There is absolutely is made and you're the biggest Again, that's something you've made up ross. I'm gonna ask you once more. Give me some evidence of your claim You can't even see that you're in the world's biggest cult because you're in the world's biggest cult I don't have a cult. I have evidence. I want to see some of your evidence Instead of you just saying things you can keep just saying things You're a fanatical religious believer and you believe No, no, no. I've got evidence religion does not require evidence Stop straw manning me and saying I have a religion because I do not. I have evidence You are a brainwashed cult not me No, right You've obviously been hiding under a rock for the last 10 years or we've been out doing real experiments and seeing something You've never done an experiment in your life. Don't lie That's bullshit. I've done plenty You've never done an experiment in your life. Don't lie to me I've shown plenty how convergence works to create You have never done an experiment in your life. Stop lying to me But will you stop lying to me? I've done. I'm not lying. I've actually done experiments. I've done the camera experiment. I've done pendulum sparing I've actually done experiments. You've never done an experiment in your life I've never done an experiment in their lives Stop telling lies and provide evidence of your claim or admit that you are wrong I've been outside in the real world craig while you've been sitting in your little classroom on your little laboratory Doing little parlor tricks while i've been out making real world experiments What's a partner trick ross what kind of tricky talking about Yeah, what part of tricky talking about ross Well, what part of trick are you talking about? are you done Yeah, what part of trick are you talking about? We're going to pull it into our final minute. OK. Ross, specifically, what part of trick? A little bounce beam. My pendulum proves spin. So you're just being incredulous again. You're just being incredulous again and ignoring science, I see. Why are you saying that my experiments aren't valid then? What experiments have you done? What experiments have you done, Ross? I've done multiple experiments, especially to do with perspective convergence. Julian Spective, it's called. It's on my perspective playlist on my channel called Julian Spective, where I've gone out and looked at Julian Ross. It's a rocky outcrop at Byron Bay. You stand at sea level. Shut up for a second, just for fucking months while I answer the question. Julian Rocks is sitting above the horizon when viewed from sea level. You get a little bit higher and you can see that Julian Rocks is surrounded by miles and miles and miles of perfectly flattened level water. So how can that be curvature? That's what you believe to be, because you're looking from down low but when you get up high, there is no curvature. That's an experiment. Actually, so fight the flat earth. I'm going to let you have answer him and do your final thought on the subject and then iron horse, it'll be yours. And then we're going to the Q&A. So Ross says geometrically, and it doesn't understand how shapes work quite clearly. But the fact that there is no evidence of the earth being flat, he couldn't provide me with any citations for anything that he was saying. And my final point about this is going to be just debunking his nonsense about water being flat and level with one word, tides. If there is tides, then the oceans are not flat. End of story. Well, Craig, you've really been a point. Then iron horse, your last statement, and then we'll go to Q&A. I was trying to start, but Craig just really bit off way more than he could chew there by mentioning tides, because what a furphy that is. Tides are just merely water from finding its own level, and they are being diametrically, diamagnetically. It's literally the opposite of finding its own level. Hey, don't talk over me, Craig. This is my chance. You big wally. It's literally the opposite of what you're saying. No, it's not. I've done plenty of experiments with the tides, and I've made plenty of observations of the moon. I know exactly how it works. And as I was saying, the Julia video, I have got video evidence showing exactly how it is convergence and not curvature and that the water is flat and level. And that if you believe that it's curvature, then you are mentally challenged and you have serious cognitive problems. You don't understand a single thing about perspective. We can see that always whatever is beneath us ramps up to eye level. Everything that's above us ramps downwards to eye level. And we can't see through what's beneath us. So that creates a convergence point that obscures taller things further beyond that, which is why the bottom gets cut off. And it's such a simple concept that you base your entire proof for evidence of a globe on something as ridiculous as a lack of understanding of how perspective and convergence works. You absolute moron. Tides are only possible on a flat and stationary earth. How can you have big bulbous curves of water, thousands of miles high between continents and still have a couple of metres of tides either side of it? How to say I don't understand tides without saying I don't understand tides. We've got two tides per day, two high and two low, and you've got one moon. Match in the globe prediction, yes. Impossible. Absolutely impossible to work on a globe. Again, absolutely impossible. More argument from incredulity from you, Ross. The tides that we have match the globe predictions. And once again, tides debunk water being flat. Tides debunk water being flat. If there are tides, water is not flat. End of story. Showing the change of water level. Not water curve. Tides also debunk water always finding its level. No, they're showing water. Yes, they do. On one side to the next, because the moon diamagnetically opposes them and pushes them forth. And so then when it hits a continent, they want to go back again. And on that note, I'm going to actually, I'll let you both have opening, closing statements at the end of the Q&A and also send out channels. But I do hope you enjoyed and we are now moving into our Q&A section. This is the chance for you to send your burning desire questions to either or both of our debaters. Super chats will get your question sent to the front of the line. However, we'll try to get as many questions in as possible by tagging me in chat at Amy Newman. Please don't forget to like and subscribe, though I do want to thank both of our interlocutors, Fight the Flat Earth and Iron Horse. And to remind you that all of the channel links are in the description below. If you're looking for more fun after the show, we'll be having an after party on the MDD Discord. But with that, let's get to the fun for 4.99, Stefan Stine. Amy, I just need to quickly go and use the toilet. Okay, I'll be back in a few minutes. Oh, perfectly understandable. Oh, then I'm going to switch questions for a second. Let's see. Night Wolf 972 for $5 asks, if the earth is flat, why isn't Disney offering trips to see the ice wall? The merchandising from the frozen sisters alone would cover the costs. Yes, well, I think we've exposed a great deal of Disney lately and know how they're all part of the huge scam. They were involved with NASA from the beginning. They were involved with Wernher von Braun. So, yeah, I'm surprised that there isn't a bit more indoctrination and dogma coming from there actually to try and support their globe. And we've seen their magic Disney curve that they show all the time about the rockets going up and over. They come back down. Nothing goes into the space. So, why would Disney send people out to freeze their nuts off in a most hostile environment? You can spend, you know, 20,000 bucks to go on a little cruise to some of the outer islands and maybe look at some of the ice wall, some of the outer peninsulas, but, you know, get to group trip reality. Antarctica is massive. It's the most frozen place on Earth that reaches a top temperature in summer of about zero. It's very hostile to living there. Yeah, it's not what I'd call the trip to Disneyland. Woo-hoo, thank you so very much. Got another super chat coming in from Night Wolf asks for $5. If the Earth is flat, how come people from Australia cannot see the star constellation Big Dipper like the people in North America can? Because the Earth is flat. And because the Earth is really, really big, that means that we can only see so far. If you stand at the base of a tall building and you look all the way back up with your head and look at the top floor, you can barely make up the top floor because of the way convergence works and basically smashes all the top floors into a singularity. But the further away you walk, not only can you see more of them, but you can see individual floors much more clearer. But as you get further and further away, that top floor gets lower and lower and lower to your point of view. Well, the stars are no different. The further away you get from them, the lower they get until eventually you reach a point where the horizon, the convergence point, rising up to our level, will make them disappear altogether. And now the fact that we can see Polaris for as far as we can, all the way to the equator, shows that the stars are reasonably quite high because the higher you are, the further you can see. So to think that we could see the Big Dipper from Australia, now I'm assuming the Big Dipper is a different constellation. I think it's the Big Bear or something too over there. We see Orion, the Orion's belt. But from our perspective as Australians, I grew up always thinking that Orion was called the Big Dipper, but apparently it's a different constellation altogether. So the reason we can't see the same stars is because they're too far away. That is really, really big. And the stars aren't really that high, they're quite high, but not high enough to be able to see them forever. And the equator is the cut-off point of Polaris. So if you get a bit further south, outside of the equator, then the Big Dipper will also vanish from view. Thank you so very much. And for $5 from Stephanie Steen, all Fight the Flat Earth has is his religion. Howard, on the other hand, iron on the other hand, I assume using science, logic, and reason, get him Howard, I guess, slash get him iron. All right. Craig can go first if he likes it, if he wants to defend himself. I must have missed the science that Ross brought because I didn't see any science at all. I'm the one that presented the scientific papers, I'm the one that presented the scientific evidence, I'm the one that presented all the evidence. Ross presented no science, talked about no science, and was just incredulous the entire time. So I'm not sure what that person is smoking, but can I please have some? Well, say it's pretty typical of the person who believes that their cult is the correct one, that they believe that they're talking science. That's how religion has always worked. They always believe that their particular belief is the highest of modern science. There's one day we're going to look back at this and we're going to look at Craig's own, can you really believe he used to live on a spinning space, people hurt him through space, how incredible is that, that he actually takes this very seriously, which shows that you're part of a religious cult, and all I have got is fact, is fact, that debunk every single thing that you've brought. You've just got belief, but no evidence. Since it was coming for you so to speak, I'll let you have the final statement. Stop putting your religious cult needs on me. The reason why I don't have a religion is because I'm willing to change my mind. Science will always update its ideas when new evidence comes along. Religion never will. You are the one with religion. You are the one that's in a cult. I am not. I will change my position if new evidence comes along. Therefore, I do not have a religion. Don't lie. And that's a great transitionary statement. I'll let you both actually answer $2 from Joe Schwartz for both what will it take to change your mind? Well, for me, I did change my mind because I started as a globetide like Craig, but I did change my mind. Now, Craig says he is capable of changing his mind when new evidence comes to light, but he isn't. He is fighting vehemently to defend his belief that he grew up with as a child. Because I grew up with the same belief, but I changed. So I'm the one showing that I can follow the scientific method. You're the one showing that you're a cult member who is unwilling to change his beliefs despite all the evidence. Incorrect. So you changed your mind because you're thick as fuck, basically, and you don't understand anything. You have never done any science in your life. You don't understand what science is. I bet you couldn't even tell me what the five basic steps of the scientific method are, could you? I don't have to, because that's not necessary. Hold on. You do. You absolutely do, because you just told me that what you do is based on the scientific method. So that means that you must know what the basic five steps of the scientific method are. Your claim, you just told me that you know you do everything based on the scientific method. So tell me, Ross, what's step one of the scientific method? Step one is making the observation. What's step two of the scientific method? Is then finding an explanation for what to describe why that... Incorrect. Step two of the scientific method is formal hypothesis. What is step three of the scientific method, Ross? Testing that hypothesis. Incorrect. What is step three of the scientific method, Ross? It's testing that hypothesis. Incorrect. Step three is making a prediction. What's step four of the scientific method, Ross? The prediction is the hypothesis. No, it's not. Hypothesis and predictions are different things. What is step four of the scientific method, Ross? Well, you're telling the story now, aren't you? Because I believe a prediction is... No, this is Sir Francis Richard Bacon, the one who came up with the scientific method. I'm following what he says. So step one, observation. Step two, formal hypothesis. Step three, from the hypothesis, make a prediction. What is step four of the scientific method, Ross? Well, obviously it's to test it, isn't it? And try to disprove it. Experiment, yes. And then what's step five of the scientific method, Ross? Is make a conclusion. Analyze your results. Now, the fact that I had to talk you through that and explain to you what it was, shows that you haven't the slightest clue what the scientific method actually is. Well, that's not true at all, Craig. That's not true at all, Craig. What I do... Oh, it is true. ...in the real world, I go into the real world and make real observations. Whereas you're just sitting in a classroom learning from books, learning from Sir Francis Bacon from centuries ago, there's probably even William Shakespeare for a winner. You're learning... I see more of the world than you. ...scientism, whereas if I go out into the real world and I make observations, I don't have to sit through going through five steps. I can make an observation. Oh, so you don't follow the scientific method? I can test it. Well, it is a scientific method. No, it's not. You're changing the scientific method. There's no fixed scientific method. We've come a long way in 200 years, mate. We've come a really long way. But if you want to actually do the basic version of the scientific method, you have to make an observation, hypothesis, prediction, test, analyse. You have to do those things. And you didn't even know what the steps of the scientific method are. Therefore, you have never, ever, ever done science in your life. Stop telling lies. I'll let you have the last statement, but then we're moving on. Just because I don't use your religiously indoctrinated cult method doesn't mean I'm not doing science. If I'm making observations and I'm testing it and I'm trying to disprove them, then that is still science. I don't have to use your formula from hundreds of years ago. You're doing pseudoscience then. Cool. You like pseudoscience. That's cool. You're falling straight down and it's not moving sideways. Ross, we understand you love pseudoscience. It's all right. You don't need to keep going on. And so I'm actually going to use the restroom really quickly myself. But $2 super chat from Witsit gets it. Can abstractions have physical properties for both? He's talking about space time. Yes. Space time has a physical property that is affected by mass. This has been experimentally demonstrated many, many, many times. Witsit, if you want to talk to me, stop being a little coward and debate me yourself. Well, love is an abstraction. Cannot have real properties. You're talking about space and time. Space is the non-existence of stuff. Time is a man-made concept which is just basically measuring a piece of empty space of time between an occurrence happening and the result happening. So there is no such thing as either space or time and to try and then say, my high priests have done many, many, many, many, many experiments to prove that it's real. It shows us showing this how deeply indoctrinated you are in your cold belief. Lovely bunch of nonsense there, Ross. Lovely bunch of nonsense. You have proven, you literally told everyone how you like pseudoscience. You literally told everyone how you don't care about science. You do pseudoscience. I just said that all scientific endeavors are still scientific, whether or not they follow your particular five steps from hundreds of years ago. Incorrect. So pseudoscience is described as something which does not follow the scientific method. You are not following the scientific method. Therefore, you are practicing pseudoscience. Well, I've never heard of anybody in astrathiology or astro... what's it called? Astrophysics saying that they actually use the scientific method. In fact, they say anything but that Micheal Kaku is well-known for saying that they don't use the scientific method when it comes to cosmology. And they're out by a factor of 10 to about 120. I don't think you understand what any of that means. It's all right, Ross. You've described how you like pseudoscience. So that's what we understand from that one. Ross bases his world view on pseudoscience. It's cool. And so, Aaron, I'll let you have the last statement and then I have a question to clarify the pattern. Yeah. He's just proven that he believes in scientism whereas real science is actually going out and doing real experiments. So you can call it pseudoscience. So that doesn't make it pseudoscientific. If you're still following the same principles of making the observations, testing it, trying to disprove it and coming to a conclusion that it works and it works better than any other explanation. That's real science whether you like it or not. Thank you. You're changing what science is. That's fine. You want to lie about science and change that. That's cool. But it doesn't mean that you're right. Speaking of lying, $2 Super Chat from Witsit gets it. So NASA is the only government agency that doesn't lie. It's irrelevant to this conversation. That's for everything. All right. $2 Super Chat from Witsit gets it. Horizon's movement proves that it's not physical. Pow. It's not physical. But it doesn't mean that you're right. Speaking of lying, $2 Super Chat from Witsit gets it. So NASA is the only government agency that doesn't lie. It's unfair that it's not physical. So NASA is the only government agency that doesn't lie. You're right. You can't do such navigation. Unfortunately, the light has to bend on a global Earth. Of course, it's not and refraction is a thing, but you cannot have an apparent horizon without a physical horizon. Refraction will change where the apparent horizon is, and we understand how refraction works. It's been quantified. I would cite the work of Andrew Thomas Young, the world's leading expert on refraction. And you can go to his website and check everything where they've quite clearly set out exactly what refraction does. So just to clearly answer your question with a set, the horizon is a physical thing. What we see is the apparent position of it due to refraction. Thank you, and why answer that? Sure you can, but then I just have to let him have the final statement on it. No worries. He just said it's a physical thing, which is absolutely more bizarre. It's just like every globe where they appeal to this thing called refraction, they appeal to that almost as much as they appeal to gravity as the feeling got of the gaps for everything they can't really explain. Refraction isn't real. The horizon is not physical at all. It is an optical illusion created by the height of the observer and how far they can see from that particular height, and it will increase and get further and further away the height a viewer gets. So it's not a physical thing, it's an optical thing. It's an optical thing and it only works on a flat surface. The globe would be a physical curvature, which you cannot see over simply by getting higher, which is also going backwards at the same time. And then fight the fatter earth, you are the final say. Yeah, I just got a question for, I just got a question for Witsit. How is jail? Well, sending love Witsit gets it has another five dollars super chat. If it's the actual physical position of the curvature of the earth, then why does it constantly move around optically? Is the earth breathing in and out? Refraction is something that is quantified. We know what refraction does. If light goes through a medium, that light is refracted. We have a medium all around us. This is a medium. Light goes through it, it gets refracted. I mean, maybe your time in jail like, you know, you didn't get to study or something, but you not understanding refraction doesn't stop refraction being a thing. Two dollars in the chat says why does why does Witsit just not debate FTFE? The simple answer for that Dave Langer is because Witsit is terrified to debate me. The gloves are being dropped tonight and a two dollar super chat Witsit gets it again. Fight the flat earth. Why does flat earth make you so mad? Because it's not okay to say the earth is flat. It flies in the face of everything that makes sense in the world. It is a plague on humanity. It is an insult to everyone throughout history that spent their lives studying and figuring out the world that we are part of. It is ignoring all of science. It is ignoring all of reality. It is indoctrinating people into a way of thinking that makes you think that every single person in the world is lying to you. It is a dangerous way of thinking that literally kills people, i.e. mad Mike, causes people like Nathan Thompson to shout at school kids when they should be safe, literally brainwashes people into ignoring all of science and reality. It is not okay to say the earth is flat and I will fight the stupidity of anti science every second that I get. You sound like a real fanatically religiously indoctrinated person who's doing everything he can to try and kill the infidels. Kill the infidels. How dare they speak up. I'm trying to kill stupidity. I'm trying to kill stupidity because, remember, stupidity is not right. That's your opinion, Craig. It's going to, in the test of time... No, no, no. Stupidity is not wrong. That's a fact. Stupidity is 100 percent yours. You're defending a dead argument. The globe has been dead and buried for over half a decade and, well... Incorrect. The globe is definitely not dead and buried. It's a real thing. Absolutely dead and buried. We'll have the final statement, but then Ozzy or Iron, I got one for you as well. Sorry, I think I answered the question. Flat Earth is dangerous. Flat Earth is stupid. Flat Earth kills people. End of story. All right, and then a $5 Super Chat from a Connell X Silver fur iron. If we did not go to the moon, how did we leave retro reflectors there? The same reflectors utilized in thousands of lunar ranging experiments. Yeah, well, that's a lovely assumption that we actually did. I've even got a lovely picture of Bonnevon Braun standing next to the retro reflector in his suit and tie with the lunar lander behind him. It was all done in the studio. They were sending lasers to the moon back in the 50s, long before they ever went to the moon. You don't need a retro reflector. I mean, how ridiculous is that? A retro reflector is basically going to turn you laser into prisms anyway, unless it's a perfect mirror. It's a ridiculous thing to try and prove that you've been to the moon by assuming we've got a retro reflector up there. That was the best plan I've ever seen in a while. Okay, let's see, chat. We should take a screenshot of that one. $2 Super Chat from Witsit Getsen. If it's just space time, what AV zero point energy? What about zero point energy, maybe? What about zero point energy is relevant to this conversation? I think he's talking about vacuum energy. But again, that's relevant to this conversation. So, all right. It should be quite relevant. Final point. It's literally irrelevant to the shape of the earth and space. $2 Super Chat? No, it's not important. If we're in space, we have to be in a vacuum. It's essential. That's not a vacuum now. Space has never been a vacuum. It's a low pressure area. Low pressure. Okay. So we can breathe in space. No, it's low pressure. We can't breathe in it. Okay, gotcha. $2 Super Chat? Ross, hold on one second. Ross, is there stuff in space? According to the heliocentric model, is there stuff in space? No. Sun and galaxies. Oh, allegedly, that's what they believe those lines are. Okay, well, if, according to the heliocentric model, there are things in space like suns and galaxies and planets, then space isn't a vacuum because there's stuff in it. Okay. Oh, I will agree with that. If that's what your belief is that it can't be a vacuum. So that all the ideas of the heliocentric model get thrown out the door. No, no one's ever said that space is a vacuum. It's a near vacuum. It's a very low pressure area. I've always said it's a vacuum. No, no, they said it's a near vacuum. They've always said it's a near vacuum, but they have never ever said that space is a perfect vacuum, ever. Well, that's fair enough, but they still know that there's a very, very low pressure, like about negative 17 Tor or something ridiculous like that. Yeah, yeah. That's not a vacuum. That's, that's a near vacuum. If we say a balloon blow up inside a vacuum chamber, then surely these men on the moon in their space suit should have blown up like the Michelin man as well. Except the space suits were designed to not do that. Ah, of course. And they could take pictures on their chest. $2 super chat from Whitsitt gets it. What exactly is dark matter and dark energy? Who knows? We can see the effects of them again irrelevant to this conversation. There's not pseudo science. We can see the effects of them. What's the necessity that you have to have in order for your other bullshit beliefs to actually work? It's completely different. Again, we can see the effects. Hold on. We can see the effects of dark matter and dark energy. We don't really know what it is. It's a non-barionic, you know, matter of some kind. We have no idea exactly what it is. But we can see the effects of it according to science, not pseudo science. We all know, Ross, we've clarified here that you're the one that likes pseudo science. You know guys that it had to invent gravity to make the globe possible in the first place. And then because you invented this force of attraction of mass, you've then had to then invent even greater things to prevent that gravity, making everything collide into a singularity. And then you have to have another thing to stop it from separating forever. That's all pseudo science, whereas if you make no assumptions in the first place and just make the observation in the first place and look at what's happening and seeing the stars rotate as a single body around above us and that things fall because of lack of resistance in a medium of air, then you don't need gravity, you don't need dark matter, and you don't need dark energy. So you can see what you're talking about. You do need, you do need in your magic world a universal down, don't you? We have a universal down. We observe that. Why? Why? It's the absolute first observation. Why do we have a universal down? I'm trying to answer you, Craig. Why do you keep talking about me? A thing of mass needs a place of resistance, otherwise we'll keep on dropping, displacing a lesser mass, like air is, it has no resistance force. It stops dropping because it's raised to place. But why down? Why does everything go down to start with? Because it's heavy. But why down? Why if you put something in a vacuum chamber? Why do not go up? Well, do you see the sky above the earth, above your head? No, no, no. I just answered the question. If you put something in a vacuum chamber with an equal medium all around it, why does it go up and why does it go down and not up? It doesn't have an equal medium around it. It's got a much, it's got zero medium around it. The only place it's got a medium is the bottom. Exactly. So equal medium all around it, right, of zero. So in that case, why does it go down and not up? Because the thing itself isn't zero. It's got density. But why down? Why down and not up? That's where dense stuff goes. That's why the dense stuff. Why? Why? Because it's had a physical plane. That's how the physical plane exists. Because all the dense stuff. Why? Why does it go down, Ross? You're just saying it does. You're not explaining why. Because it's dense. Like you, I understand. But why does it go down and not up? So, Iron, we'll let you have the last on that, but then we're going to move forward. As we said, the very first step in science is to make the observation. Everything of mass does drop down. The why of that is because the surrounding medium lacks the resistant force to prevent it from dropping. And so the more massive thing, the thing with more mass, displaces the thing of less mass because it doesn't have enough resistance until reaching a place of sufficient resistance to stop it. There's no why down. Yours is actually why up or sideways. Because on the ball, everything is clinging towards the center of the earth. So my argument to you is why up? Why sideways? Because you asked a question, I do have to hand it back over to Fight the Flat Earth. But then once you are done, we got another super chat for both you guys. Things go down on earth because of gravity, an empirical, observable, testable part of reality. Observable, testable. Appeal to authority. Sorry, how is the fact that gravity is something that is experimentally verified appealing to authority? Because we've never seen anything falling sideways towards the side of the earth. We've never seen anything falling upwards towards the bottom of the earth. We just assume that these people are on a ball, but everybody knows they're upright on the surface and everything goes a universal down. So how to say I don't know what up and down is without saying I don't know what up and down is? I know what up and down is. No, you have no clue what up and down is. You say there is no up and down, let's just do an air, which is ridiculous. No, you just straw man. You just absolutely straw man me. Is that all you've got? Falsies, incredulity, straw man. Is that all you've got? No, up and down. Up and down. There is an up and down on earth. Up is away from the surface of earth. Down is towards the surface of earth. That's what I just said. That's what I just said. Therefore, I have an up and down, and I have a reason for my up and down. You don't. I do. I have an absolute reason for one because of quantity. And lack of reason to say something, it will go down. And guys, we're going to go for another $2 widths it gets at Super Chat. Can nothing exist? Can nothing exist? Well, I've seen inside your head, so probably. Actually, no, it can't. Because if it existed, then it would exist, and it wouldn't be nothing. So nothing can't exist. It's a weird question. Can nothing exist? Well, if it exists, like Ross said, I'll agree with you, Ross. You're right. If it exists, then it can't be nothing. I think the closest we can get to nothing is what's inside which it's head. So. Inside your head, I believe. It's getting spicy. Thank you guys for your Super Chat. $2 of Mr. Monster. Ocean currents disprove flat earth. How the hell would ocean current disprove a flat earth? Ocean currents are completely possible on a flat earth. They disprove a globe because you can't have currents on a bulge of water. You can't even have a bulge of water. So that alone debunks the globe because 70% of it is supposed to be bulges. The currents are completely normal, completely expected. You've got water flowing down from land to sea level over time. You've got temperatures happening. You've got the sun moving around above us, creating different heat and different evaporation effects and creating all the weather. Currents are completely normal and perfectly plausible. In fact, if you look at them on the AE map, all the cycles of ocean currents and air currents and everything make perfect sense. You put them on a globe and they start doing all this really weird looking shit that makes no sense. It's perfect sense on the flat earth. In fact, it's only sensible on the flat earth. In reverse world, maybe. $2 Super Chat from BeetleTuba. Craig, get a vid of the speed of light in slow-mo. Get a vid of the speed of light in slow-mo. Well, even if you were to do like a million frames a second, you probably still wouldn't really be able to see like traveling. But there is methods of being able to see the difference in laser wavelengths when they're interacting with each other, which can help us determine the speed of light. Doesn't that kind of suggest it's instantaneous? No, not at all, because there's wavelengths interacting with each other. And in fact, the fiber optic gyroscope, this proves your light being instantaneous thing. I'll tell Mikkelsen and Mollie that they tried doing that interferometer experiment. They got a nil result. Yeah, they didn't detect anything. Correct. $5 Super Chat from Victor Holock. Love you, Craig. Do you see some value in the flat earth community in that people come through it and the round earth belief is more robust? Okay, so I don't describe it as a belief. This is something that I push quite hard for me. I know it's a philosophical argument to say that we have beliefs, but I don't base my position on beliefs. I base it on evidence, facts, and logic. Beliefs are completely irrelevant to me. I think beliefs are a little childish, really. But the only good thing I see about the flat earth community is that, well, there's a couple of things really. One, I get to parade the stupid on the internet for everybody to see. And two, it gives the opportunity to actually teach real physics to people. You can take the misunderstandings and stupidity of flat earthers and use it as a springboard to actually explain real science to people. So the good thing about flat earth is that there's so much stupid there, you can use it to teach people how not to be stupid. But Craig, nearly everything that you've said, you've depended upon beliefs of something that other people have done, that you've admitted you haven't done yourself. And that becomes a... I've done many experiments myself. Just because I don't do an experiment myself doesn't mean it's belief. It's been verified. The science of the paper is to back it up. And I can do a lot of things myself. I've done many experiments myself. I've measured gravity. I have measured the rotation of the earth. I have tested the gluing measurements. There you have it. You're lying. No, not. I've literally measured gravity. And I've literally measured the rotation of the earth. I can wrap a line of batteries across my desk and try and land bottom it by measuring the lengths of the shadows and the angles of them. I can then determine just how spherical my flat desk is. Because that's what mathematics does. It can prove anything it wants to do. How to say I don't understand the Eratosthenes experiment without saying I don't understand the Eratosthenes experiment. I understand the Eratosthenes experiment. No, you don't. And it works perfectly for the flat earth with a nearby local sun. Just as it does. Add more than two data points and it does not work on the flat earth. It does. Why wouldn't it? Because it gives you conflicting positions for the sun. And how many points did Eratosthenes use again? And that was the question. And it's going to be a fight the flat earth's question. So it'll be your final point. Eratosthenes used two. However, there's been many, many, many more experiments done with many, many, many more data points. For instance, Slyce Barkane did it with 27 data points across the world. There is a couple other YouTubers that I work with, including MC Toon, that have done their own Eratosthenes experiments and measured the angles of light from several points around the world. You add more than two data points. It destroys the flat earth. And for $5, Jake, the surgeon, can you tell the difference between the skeletons of a lion and a tiger just by looking at them, Mr. E. Queen, the Quine. Mr. Horace. That's to you, Mr. Oh, I thought you said E. Queen. So I thought it was to Craig. So I thought, you know, Queen. Equine. Equine as in horses. Equus. Equus is the word you're looking for. Equus, equus. No, I can't, because I'm not really a taxidermist. I could probably get a few clues by the size of the skull and maybe shape of some of the teeth or something, I guess. But, yeah, that would be something I'd have to be put down and shown two different ones to even attempt to say whether I could or couldn't. Never happened. $5 Super Chat for JT6 Mania. Grab a plate, fill it with water, and tilt it. The water will go up and down on both sides, but it is still flat. Fight the Craig stupidity. You lost another one. Okay, so if the water is going up at the sides, then it's not flat, is it? Like, literally, if you tilt it, there's going to be a curve to the water. Therefore, the water isn't flat. No, no, the plate itself is tilted, but the water stays flat. It just makes it look as if it's flat. Oh, hold on. So is he claiming the tide to cause by the earth tilting, like the flat earth tilting? No, no, no. Tides are literally a bulge of water, which means the water... I'm talking, Ross, hold on. Tides are literally a bulge of water, which means that the oceans are not flat. They're not a bulge of water. They're a gradual rise... Tides literally are a bulge of water. ...a bulge of water level. It takes six hours from a higher tide to a low tide. It's a gradual rise and fall, which is not attributable to any tilt of the earth, you know, even regardless of what the gravity is. So gradual rise and fall of the water level, there's never a bulge, ever a bulge. So why do you keep saying it's a bulge? That's bullshit. Water doesn't... Tides are literally a bulge. No, they're not. That's ridiculous. Tides are literally a bulge of water moving towards the shore. No, they're a gradual rise and fall. A gradual rise and fall of the water level. So fight the flat earth. It's going to be your last eight months. So the other side, you know, one side is risen, yet the other side is lower, right? Therefore, the water is not flat. End of story. And then, Iron, I got a question for you. Wouldn't it be pretty compelling evidence for flat earth to actually film a group trying to get to the ice wall and be returned back? Not at all. Anybody can go to Antarctica. That's been done many, many times. It proves nothing. Antarctica has really got very little to do with flat earth. It's probably... I don't know. It's the one that the globes keep asking the most because they still think that we're in outer space. And so they assume then that we must have an edge and why isn't the water flowing over the edge? Oh, it's got this ice wall. We know that Antarctica is an ice wall. We know it's impenetrable. We know it's freezing cold. We know it's got some of the highest mountains in the world that would be ridiculous to assume anybody in their right mind would even want to try and cross. So this whole concept of going to Antarctica and expecting the flat earth is to do it, we're not the ones concerned with the edge. We are the ones that know that the earth is flat because we know how water level works. I think it should be a group of globes who go and try and disprove it by saying, no, we found Antarctica. We headed south and we kept on going south and we didn't stop until we got back to the other side and went from Buenos Aires back up to Perth. It's never been done. It's been done several times. Pan Air did it in this intro. Wait, hold on. You're lying, right? Pan Air did it in the 80s. One more orbit. The group did it and livestreamed the entire thing, literally livestreamed the entire thing, flying over Antarctica, going all the way around. So it's been done many, many times. To say it hasn't is just a lie. And in fact, the three-yearly race around Antarctica disproves everything that you're saying. I'll let you have the last word, Iron, then we're moving to another question. Yeah, no, Craig is absolutely lying here. There's nobody who's ever set off from any destination in the Southern Hemisphere, set their controls on due south and locked them in position and kept on going. We know that you can cross a few peninsulas and the Antarctic Cup that they call it, the yacht race, they just continent hop around from Australia to South America to North Africa to South America. They're not going. They barely touch Antarctica. They literally go around Antarctica. So you can lie or you like, it doesn't change the facts that you're lying. It literally goes all the way around Antarctica. Stop lying. Look at the last say, mate. They literally go. Stop. I'm not going to let you just lie. Stop lying. One spot at the bottom of South America. Stop lying. We've seen the route. We see the route they take. Yeah, the route goes around Antarctica, doesn't it? Hop around the southern continents. Around Antarctica. Yeah, exactly around Antarctica. And also, again, one more orbit and Pan Air both debunk you. They did exactly what you're saying wasn't done. You are a liar. One more single sentence, Iron, and then I'm going to give a question to Fight the Flat Earth. Yeah, no, Craig should just shut up. Yo, I had my final say, and he got no retribution to that. He should have just shut up. I'm just not going to let you lie, really. So, you know. And then a question for Fight the Flat Earth from GT6Media for $10. How does a helium balloon leave the surface of the Earth where gravity is the strongest and stops at higher altitudes where gravity is the weakest? Because it's to do with buoyancy, which is a result of gravity. It's very, very simple. The helium balloon has less mass, less density than the air around it. If you've got more mass, more density, then there's a stronger gravitational force. So, the air around the balloon is literally pulled down with more force than the actual balloon is, which creates a force in the opposite direction. This is the buoyant force. You can calculate exactly what the buoyant force is with FB equals rho VG, rho being the metamedium displaced, V being the volume, and G being gravity. The reason why it stops when it goes up really, really high is because the air up there is less dense. There's less mass to it, which means that when you get up higher, there's less force pulling that air down compared to the balloon until they get to an equilibrium and the helium balloon will sit there. Matching, and this is a very important point, matching the predictions of gravity. That is exactly what we expect to happen if gravity is acting on stuff with... Yeah, but we're just talking about... I'm still talking exactly what we expect if gravity is acting on stuff with a force proportional to the mass of the two objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance. What you're saying about helium balloon is what we expect gravity to do. And then I have a question, $2 super chat for you, Iron, from Alicem. How are two celestial poles possible on a flatter? Well, the evidence for two celestial poles is pretty sketchy at the best. We know that there's a north pole, we know that there's a star polaris. Be quiet, Craig, hold yourself. We watch the stars going around polaris, and as we get further and further away from it to the point where polaris disappears from view, which is the place we call the equator, it's the equidistant point away from it, because everything appears to get lower distance, is that we ourselves, the viewer, start turning our back to it to look at the stars from a different way. So they're still going from east to west in a massive circle, going around polaris. That's just how you appear to be going in opposite direction. And all the evidence I've ever seen of star trails going around a southern celestial pole, they all seem to be fake. You can see how they've taken a short time-lapse video, and often you'll see like a satellite or a shooting star or something making a line. And then all of a sudden you see that same thing stitched a bit further around and a bit further around and a bit further. It's the same thing over and over, trying to create the illusion of making the same sort of thing that we see here. And we can see perfect circles going around polaris if you leave the time-lapse open for long enough. You never, ever get that around the southern celestial pole. And even the star itself is invisible, the one they call octans. You can't even see it. So all the estimates are done off the southern cross, and I watch the southern cross all the time. I see it slightly east of south when it first appears in the night sky. And then by the morning, when the sky starts to fade, it's far into the west. And that's exactly what you'd expect when all the stars are moving as a single body going around polaris. You've just turned around and looked the opposite way. That's all. $5 Super Chat from Stephen Martin. Given that we use light digital, given that we use light digital for communication, digital light for communication, why do we have more latency the further countries are apart? I'll say it again, just reading it, not sure how they're... Given that we use light digital for communication, why do we have more latency the further countries are apart? I'm assuming it's talking about fiber optic cables, and that's exactly how we do communicate is through fiber optic cables, which go all across the ocean floors between all the continents. And so because these things are a physical manifestation, a man-made thing, that whatever information is in those cables, it still does have to actually travel. It doesn't mean that that stuff is actually light itself. They say it's traveling at the speed of light, which is pretty fast. But I think Craig, before that, light is traveling at about 300,000 miles per hour. But the earth itself... 300,000 kilometers per second. 180,000 miles per second. Kilometers per second. And yet the entire earth is what, 40,000 kilometers around. Yeah. So it should be going around the earth. So light could travel around earth seven and a half times in a second. Yeah, that's basically what it's saying. Yeah. So the question cross, which I think you avoided as we use light to communicate via the internet, why is there latency for countries that are further away if your claim is that light is instantaneous? Because it's not light. It's bits of data. That's a different thing. Fibroxy uses light to transfer data. Yeah, but it's still not light. It's data. No, it's literally light. Fibroxy cables literally use light to transfer data. So your claim is that light is instantaneous, which means that there should never be any lag when I'm playing Call of Duty against my friends in America. However, when I'm playing against my friends in America, there is a noticeable latency compared to when I'm playing my friends in the United Kingdom. Right? But in that light, in those cables, it has to travel further. So you can notice a latency of seven times, going around seven times a second. So it's a seventh of a second. And you actually get told what the latency is between you and other people, especially when playing things like Halo and Call of Duty, you can bring up your latency counter to show what the lag between you and other people in your team is. And when you are playing against people in other areas, the latency is always a lot higher. Okay. That's more to do for your servers and different distributors and all the rest. It's got nothing to do with the speed of light. It's instantaneous. It's light to the fire earth. It's not light. I'll re-ask him a question. So, Iron, answer that question. But then I got another question for you. So I'm just saying it's not really light itself. I mean, it's data going through multiple ports, multiple channels. And of course, that's how you're going to notice the lag. And the extra that went from directly from A to B, you didn't see the lag. And another, oh no, you're good. $5 Super Chat from Norman Dixon. I navigated ships in the Navy Ross. Why do ships in the open ocean have to make predetermined course changes to get to their destinations? That's a pretty simple one because as we know, all navigational charts were based on this circular map made with the northern pole sitting right in the center. So of course, if you're going east or west, then you're just going in large circles, which makes sure that then your compass point is always pointing towards north when the other side is always pointing south. So if you're going across a very large distance across the ocean, it would make far more sense to work out the shortest route rather than follow the old fashioned compass and follow a line of latitude. You want to take the shortest route. So of course, as you keep moving, then north you have to keep adjusting for. And that's why your charts won't keep on matching because you have to keep adjusting because north is moving and you're moving laterally. You're muted. So. Oh. $5 from F3 stop motion. Fight the Flat Earth. Sounds like a jag off just shouting over the other guy. Oh, the spice is real. It is. And feel bad. Fight the Flat Earth. Might actually be getting a drink at the second of all the times that I'm here. I am sending spice. I didn't love to fight the Flat Earth. Ah, da, da, da, da. Victor Holluck, $5. Super Chat, Iron Horse. Do you agree that lying, deceiving, or misleading children is a form of violence? Maybe it's too far for this to be told to kids. I wouldn't call it a form of violence. It's a form of mental manipulation. But, you know, we all grew up with it. You know, I don't feel too pleased that I grew up with it and had to put up with being told all this bullshit either. But we all do it. Everybody grows up with some sort of things. And, you know, for most people throughout their generations, it was a survival thing. You know, most of us went to church on a Sunday. We grew up thinking that that's the right way to be. Teach us your morals and teach all this sort of stuff. And then you think you're learning stuff by going to school that you think is correct. But mostly they teach you a bunch of garbage stuff you're never going to use again. They don't teach you any real life skills. They barely teach you how to plant a seed and grow a garden. You know, we're taught a bunch of nonsense in school. And that's never really going to change until people come to their senses and say, hey, these people that have been in control of our world for this last century or so, all they care about is having a bunch of mind-controlled slaves that don't think for themselves. They don't want to think for themselves. They're much better off believing what they're told, trust in the authorities, obey, obey, obey. And then you're a nice, obedient little slave. You spend your life in debt, paying off these debts. And as if that's some sort of life. I mean, is this the way we want to bring up our children? I'd say that mental slavery probably is a form of abuse, but I wouldn't say that it's a sult necessarily, just mental abuse. $5 Super Chat from Connellx Silverfur. $5 Reflectors on the Moon are a fact. Confirmed thousands of times each year. How did they get there if we did not go to the Moon? Iron Horse, don't dodge. Yeah, and that's just another belief, isn't it? Like if the Moon was made out of a molten substance in the first place, there should be plenty of places that have a bit of a mirror-like finish in the bottom of the craters, which is quite an interesting thing when we talk about craters on the Moon, is that they all seem to be roughly perfectly circular. They're all shallow. None of them look like results of a huge impact, which would create a huge divot in the bottom. They're all flat and level with a perfectly round surface. Some of them even intercrossing one another, exactly like you'd expect bubbles bursting on the surface of a liquid molten substance. So, of course, there'd be some reflective places. You don't have to put a retro reflector up there. What's a retro reflector anyway? From the 60s, I guess, there's retro. But you don't need a retro reflector. As I said, they were sending lasers to the Moon in the 50s, like when they first had lasers and they were doing the same experiments they're doing today. It proves nothing. If you can get a telescope... They weren't doing the same experiments, no. I'm nearly finished, Greg. Hold horses. If you get a strong enough telescope and you zoom in on this retro reflector and you get a clear picture of it that we can prove is not CGI or made in a computer, then maybe I will accept that the Moon is a physical thing that we've landed on and we left stuff up there. But we can't prove that. It's just another belief. More pseudoscience that the globe relies upon for their belief. I mean, the Chinese orbiter literally saw the things there. And yeah, we have been doing laser experiments on the Moon for a long time. However, we were able to do it a lot more accurately with the retro reflector. So accurate in fact that we're able to see how much the Moon is moving away from us each year by just a few millimeters. So you can literally point a laser at the point on the Moon where the retro reflector is and get a much stronger signal back than if you point it just to the side, showing that there is something there reflecting the laser. Iron, you're the last word, but then fight the flat Earth. I've got a question for you. How could you accurately point anything at anything if you're moving sideways at 67,000 miles an hour? The Moon itself is moving 2,280 miles an hour in another direction, as the Sun itself is moving half a million miles an hour and we're supposed to be able to send a laser beam exactly to this tiny little what, two-foot squared retro reflector and have it come back to us in enough time that we haven't shut off in the space a million miles away. That's just more pseudoscientific belief that actually proves- I think pseudoscience about that it's all just your incredulity. Even if it were possible that we're on a stationary plane or Earth with the Moon just hovering wafting around above us. And $5 comment really from F3 stop motion but he wants to know fight the flat Earth while you're shouting. I get passionate talking to stupid people, I guess. Thank you F3 stop motion. Jack the surgeon, $2 super chat. Thank you so very much. Is a two-a-tara a lizard? Is it two-a-what? It is a T-U-A-T-A-R-A. A two-a-tara. Is it a lizard? Twa? No idea. Thank you so very much, Jake the surgeon. And all right, moving along, $5 super chat from Jesse L. Fight the flat Earth. If gravity pulls down to center mass then a compass would point down also. No, compasses follow the magnetic field of Earth. However, compasses do have one side heavier than the other to keep one end up and that's why you specifically have to have different compasses for the northern and southern hemisphere. So when you actually look at a compass, gravity is pulling part of it down because you hold it flat and then it follows the magnetic field of Earth. But a compass doesn't work on gravity. So $2 super chat from Jake the surgeon, Mr. E. Quine. Mr. Horace, can you divide by zero? There you go. $2 super chat from BeetleTuba. Craig, there are light slo-mo videos online. Yeah, people have been sending to me videos of those. The slo-mo people, what are they called? Planet slo-mo, filming the speed of light at 10 trillion frames per second. That's the slo-mo guys, I'm going to have to check that out. So maybe you want to look at that as well, Ross, to see that light actually travels. And a $2 super chat from BeetleTuba again. Also, Fight the Flat Earth is doing great flat needs evidence. Thank you. He's doing great at repeating the lies of his pseudo-science masters and the high press of scientism. Ross, hold on, we confirmed that you're the one doing pseudoscience. We confirmed that earlier, remember? No, no, no, no, if I'm going to... You do things that don't follow the scientific method, therefore it is pseudoscience. And if I'm doing it, it's real, if you're doing belief in other people in higher authorities... No, I don't have beliefs, I have evidence and logic. And again, we confirmed earlier, you were the one doing pseudoscience. Well, you confirmed. Get the feeling both of you were on the spot. That's $2 super chat again from BeetleTuba. Thank you. Ross is trolling you, Craig. How do you do it? Patience. I've got two young children. They've prepared me for this. Although talking to my two young children is usually more of an attendant conversation than talking to flat earthers, of course. Ross, I'm the one that has to listen to your stupidity. So I'm the one that has to... Well, I'm the one that has to put up with your scientism beliefs that you keep parroting that you never did before. Again, I don't have scientism beliefs. I base my position on evidence and logic. There's no evidence or logic for your beliefs. You're just quoting somebody else. I presented a bunch of evidence today and you went and I quote, You've got nothing modern and up-to-date. I've got lots that are modern and up-to-date. Convex and concave lens can't apply. That's all you had. We've got hundreds of other videos that don't have a convex and concave lens that show the earth is flat. Show me one. I have asked flat earthers this for years. Show me one single high-altitude balloon that is not fisheye that shows the earth to be flat. I'll give you £500. Iron, you can have a statement on that. Fight the flat earth. Have a comment. Not a question for the final word. I could send you a link to that, Craig. £500, no problem. Yeah. It has to be a non-fisheye lens. Not a 3D camera. Not any kind of wine angle. It has to be a non-fisheye, low field of view lens, showing the earth to be flat. Because you know what, I have looked and there is no such one. There is none that exists. Hey, good-bye. Ten dollars from Jake, the surgeon. Thank you so much for the support. You agree that you need to be more thorough with the skeletons, but assume a light is instant based on superficial observation. Mr. equine, you're not very convincing. Say that again. Something to do with skeleton. You agree that you need to be more thorough with the skeletons, but assume that light is instant based on superficial observation? No, well, this thing about light being instantaneous has actually come from like years and years of listening to people who actually are authorities in the matter. I can't specifically quote somebody at the moment, but I just know for a fact that it's been said enough times and I've made enough observations that that is the fact. We are not looking at millions of years in the past every time we look at the night sky. Now, if I looked at a couple of skeletons, well, yeah, I could take some forensics to that and I could probably tell you the difference if it really came down to it, but it's not something that I've ever had to experience before. So it's another furphy of somebody trying to look at something completely unrelated to the fact that light exists. And in fact, light doesn't even exist except we've got photoreceptors in our eyes which our brains can interpret and make it light. No, it doesn't. It's like a tree falling in the forest doesn't make a sound if no one's there to hear it. If there's nobody there to observe light, then light doesn't exist. The three-way observation between the person who observes it, the thing that creates it and the medium in between where it occurs in. Light does not exist. How are we thinking right now if light doesn't exist? There's plenty of observers. So we have about five more minutes until I'm going to close off SuperChats. And so if you want your SuperChats to be read, make sure you get it within the next five minutes by doing a thank both of our interlocutors for joining us tonight. $5 from BeetleTuba. Flat. Do you have any research? Where aside from living, have you found your information? Research papers show us something like Fight the Flat Earth did. Well, yeah, I recently saved another. Every time I come across a really good documentary that adds more and more evidence to my side of belief or understanding of the nature of reality, is I'll add it to my playlist. I've got a playlist on my channel. The one I usually add all my new ones to is called Helios and Prism Busted. And the latest one says 44 documents provided by NASA and the government that clearly state the Earth is flat and non-rotating. 44 of them, official... Not one of them. Not a single one of those says the Earth is flat and non-rotating. Not a single one. I guarantee you right now you will not be able to find anything that says the Earth is flat in them. They make assumptions... Again, they make assumptions for modelling, right? None of them say the Earth is flat. They make assumptions for modelling, right? And let's talk about one particular paper which is talking about a rigid aircraft of constant mass travelling over a flat plane. Well, let's talk about the things that don't exist in that, shall we? Rigid aircraft of constant mass, that doesn't exist. It also talks about Rigid aircraft do not exist. It's about rigid aircraft flying above a stationary flat... And rigid aircraft do not exist. Oh, fuck off. Never do aircraft of constant mass. They were made out of elastic, are they? In a different mass... Have you ever seen how much the wings are on a plane can move? So what? So aircraft are not rigid. Have you been in a plane and you felt it go... Of course not. Aircraft are not rigid. Ross, this is a fact. And Iron, last statement. No question though, statement. Really grasping at strollers. There we go. Mr. E-Man for $5, Iron Horse, please explain the 74 gears latest challenge for Flat Earthers. I think that's where we've got another failed... What do we call them? Those false flag actors, whatever they send out. So this guy failed. He keeps on putting out challenges and they say, no, I'm not doing it. No, you've got to do it. I'm going to invent a whole new airline for you guys and I'll take you there. No, no, I'm not going to do it. He's literally telling us to do it ourselves. He's offering to fly the plane for you. He's literally a little fucking creep who keeps on lying and keeps telling us to do it ourselves, keeps on disappearing. He's probably lucky to be an airman. So you're lying, you're lying and I'm going to tell everyone how you're lying. What he says is if you guys organise it, you get the plane booked and you do it then, he will fly the plane for you. He will physically fly the plane. He is a pilot, you numpty. He's shown videos of him flying his plane. He's not a pilot. He's literally a pilot. So you're lying. Ross, all you've got is lies. Stop lying. He says that they don't even make their own routes and yet we have other pilots that tell us they do make their own routes. They have to work all that stuff out before themselves. They have to work on how much fuel. Are you going to go on the flight? Are you going to make excuses? He's not a pilot. He is literally a pilot. He is literally a pilot. He's literally the most fake actor we've ever seen. He's literally a pilot. He's literally a pilot. Stop telling lies. Stop telling lies, Ross. We have about that. He tried to make one of these flights happen a couple of years back. He made 20 great flights. The whole thing just disappeared. What a great little scam that was. That's never going to happen. Maybe you should look into what actually happened there. He's literally a pilot, Ross. Stop telling lies. If he was literally a pilot, he's still making constant excuses as to why it's not going to happen because he's not going to do it. He's literally saying he can fly the plane for you. They can't even make the route go that they literally will fly it for you. He will fly the route for you. He won't. We've got six more questions and then I'm going to let both sides wrap up and show or tell what they got going on in the interwebs. But... doo doo doo A $5 Super Chat from Mr. E-Man Iron Horse These debunk Professor Phil Bell Bell's, I assume, explanation of circular star trails and why star trails should be optical on a flat earth. Good friend of mine, Phil Bell, you know, he actually sent something to the moon. I mean, it crashed into the moon. I didn't realize it was for you, Craig. I didn't realize that was for you. I was just saying hello to my friends. Yeah, you just get in and say, it's just another typical globe who's just looking for excuses. In fact, that thing would be more correct if we're on a globe. Because the globe is going around like a 40,000 kilometer radius. So the more you're looking at a single point, the more that shouldn't just be even oblate. It should be more like one part closer. So it's more like, I don't know, like, I don't know what the name of that shape is. It's not like an oblong. It's like an oblong with one small end, like egg shaped sort of thing. That's how the star circles should appear from a globe. But because it's the stars themselves which are moving in perfect circles around the midpoint polaris, that's why wherever we look at them from, we'll always see them making perfect circles because that's the way they are moving, not the way we are moving. And a $10 super chat. Thank you so very much from Norman Dixon. Ross, what are those magnetic compasses for navigation typically? Your answer to my question was nonsense. Just say you don't know something when you don't know. Well, actually, I described why we didn't use a magnetic compass, didn't I? I said we don't use the magnetic compasses anymore, but back in the day when all navigation was done using a magnetic compass, that's why the latitude lines are big circles bigger and bigger, the further away from polaris you get, which actually happens to align perfectly with magnetic north centre. So that's the way our charts are made and we're still using the same charts today. Now, we have different technology today. It's called GPS, which stands for Ground Positioning System. That's a lie. Fixed radio signals to ping from different points so we can triangulate exactly where we are and that's the way navigation works today. So we can go in straight line without having to align a magnetic compass any longer. I'm not finished, Craig. I'm answering the question. I've got a question for you. Yeah, well, you can ask it in a minute. We're talking about fixed points from towers sending out signals which then can then give you an exact location of where you are. If we're using satellite zooming through the skies, where zooming through the sky and all this other sort of thing you guys believe in, it wouldn't work. But because we have fixed towers everywhere, we've got ships with their own technology which are mobile signals so we can also detect where they are in relation to our position. The navigation now works off basically radar. It's been advanced a bit because we can have computer programs into things to show a technical outlay on the maps that we can use. That's why we're not using a magnetic compass anymore. As I said in the first video, we're using a short system that we can determine because we know that the Earth is flat. We're not going to have a huge amount of water. Now you can ask me a little question, Craig. So, answer and then he still has to ask the final word. So, Ross, why do aeroplanes have GPS receivers on top? Well, because it's the most logical place to have them, isn't it? They get damaged on the bottom. You said that GPS is ground positioning systems, yet planes have their GPS receivers on the top. Think about it. You can call it the top if you want to. I mean, it's definitely the top. It's a bit pointing towards the sky. Okay, I'll answer to you. It's not pointing towards the sky at all. It's because the radio waves are being beamed out from the towers 360 degrees from every tower and so they're still going to hit the plane somewhere regardless whether it's the top or bottom or side or whatever. They're still going to hit it somewhere, so you put it at the top because that's the most safe and sensible place to have it. The GPS receivers point directly into space. Iron last word, but no questions. Nothing's pointing in the space. You've just got more surface area between the top and the bottom of it receiving the signal that's not pointing in the space whatsoever. It's ridiculous. You've got more surface area pointing out sideways. And then a $10 super chat from Victor Holluck. Thank you so very much, Victor. Fight the Flat Earth. Thank you for being a frontline of defense. I personally had some horrific instances of being taught dangerous pseudo ideas that were never challenged and it hindered me in school and life. I'm really happy that you managed to break out of the cold light mentality of the Flat Earth force on you. It's unfortunate that when you get indoctrinated in that way and this is why Flat Earth is such a dangerous thing because it is an indoctrination. It is a brainwashing. It is a cult that literally ruins lives. So I'm really happy for you that you've managed to break out of that stupidity. Congratulations. I can't believe Craig didn't realize the sarcasm in that because all the indoctrinations send everybody towards your heliocentric dialect this person sorry is trying to be sarcastic to you and thanking you for saving him. The actual fact Flat Earth is the escapism from the indoctrinated. Flat Earth is the escapism from reality. Where we start to think for ourselves and stop believing the indoctrination. Do you never fall for yourselves in your life? Oh bullshit. $2 Super Chat from Jake the Surgeon. Sight one source that says light doesn't exist. You can't. There's darkness. Darkness is the absence of light. So there's examples of that. Once you get above where our light exists. Above the B, it's dark. And so this is going to be the final question. It is for Iron and so after that I'm going to give it back over to fight the Flat Earth for their final statement but a $5 Super Chat from BeetleTuba Flat Why don't you trust the professionals in the field? I'm in a scientific field. Dude, we're normal people no one is trying to hurt you with a globe. Okay, well I don't trust mainstream science basically because all they're doing is earning a career. If you speak up against that you get shunned. You no longer have a job. You kick outside the community. You have to go along. You have to follow the mainstream. If you dare turn up like this one famous engineer his name Brian he was an engineer, trained engineer and so he started investigating the Flat Earth and he found all sorts of reasons why the Flat Earth works and why the globe doesn't. And so what happened to him? He lost his career so he had to basically drop his channel because obviously our first concern is always with our family and making a living and paying our rent or our mortgage and our bills and that's almost modern science really is. It's all about having a career. Whereas when you really look into it all these careers are coming off the backs of selling us snake oil. I think it was $700 or $70 billion or something that Pfizer made profit. That's above and beyond all their costs just in the last year alone from all their vaccinations. So why would I trust somebody who is making a massive profit and I'm not saying any benefit to mankind from it. I think it's all the latest shit every last bit of it and all he's doing is ripping off community. You don't give a shit about us. You're obviously dead and buried because you've got an agenda. You want world de-population and it's highly profitable on the way to get rid of us all and we're standing up. And all right. I'm going to read these out but I'm really just going to give it back over to the people. Thank you so much Bode McFace for 666 Wolf 0620 as great vids of Sith Star trails from Perth Ross Stop Lying and $5 Super Chat from Norman Dixon Ross More Nonsense. You know nothing about navigation. Just say you don't. Iron you can answer that on your ending if you want. We're just throwing that out there because I am thanking both of our interlocutors and I'm handing it back over to fight the flat earth so they could give their last statement and also say what they got or where they got going on. Hey guys I'm FTFE So today what's happened is Ross has gone over and over and over. Ross's entire argument is an argument for fragility. Oh that doesn't make sense to me. Oh that's absolutely ridiculous. Oh I can't believe that happens. Frankly I don't care about your incredulity. It doesn't matter. Science doesn't need you to agree with it to still be true. That's the wonderful thing about science is it's still going to be facts whether you're smart enough to realize it or not. I showed evidence of my claims. I showed clear evidence of the earth being curved. Clear evidence of the earth rotating. Clear evidence that we have been to space. Ross went nut up. I asked for evidence. He couldn't give any. I asked for evidence. He couldn't give any. So there's nothing you know there's no argument here. Ross didn't bring an argument. I will again say thank you to Ross for jumping in. I know it's last minute and I know it's probably quite early for you over there in Australia. And I do appreciate you jumping in because Howard was far too scared to debate me with the format that we agreed. So despite the fact that I very much appreciate you taking my sincere thanks for jumping on and having this debate and not wasting modern-day debates time. If you want to see more of me then please head over to my channel ftfeyoutube.com new debates every week new debate shorts every Sunday new episodes of flirts of idiots coming and the launch of FTFE 2.0 very soon where I'll be doing a bunch of science documentaries working alongside people like Professor Dave and Kyle Hill. So Amy, I do appreciate it. Absolutely. Thank you so very much Fight the Flat Earth and with that Iron, the floor is all yours. Tell us what you got going on and your final statement on the subject. Yeah, thanks Amy. I do find it quite incredulous really like this is my only argument from incredulity because everything I do is based on facts. Everything I've said is factual. There's no observation of motion. There's no observation of any other utter nonsense that the Helioists like Craig has to defend and defend vehemently and try and then put down their opponent personally in order to defend. And yet these people are actually making a living. They're making a profit him and Professor David whatever his name is all these people actually making a profit of debunking or refuting the truth. Whereas I've never made a cent, a single cent of Flat Earth and I never intend to. Everything I do I do for free. I've never monetised anything on my channel even though I might have tried to way back in the early days. Now I don't even have a thousand subscribers so you know if you can try and increase my content to a thousand subscribers would be great because that way I can at least do some live streams with my only means of doing a live stream with my mobile device until you've got a thousand subscribers you can't do that and my laptop is rooted the camera and the microphone are both pretty terrible. So there's no point trying to do a live stream from that. I'd rather be out in the field showing real live Flat Earth evidence as it exists while I'm talking about it otherwise all I can do is I can record videos and later upload them and I don't intend to make any money out of it unlike these trolls on the edge of society who are just they've got all their different little followers and there's a lot of them because none of them want to have their illusion shattered that's why they can have thousands and thousands of subscribers and make a living off it and they can use all through their videos and then try and accuse us if say a famous Flat Earther does have some ads and yet they're making a profit of trying to fight the truth and that's all we are, it's all we're concerned about well we don't care if the Earth is flat and round or late, you name it if you can provide evidence for it and convince me I will change my mind and I will go back to being a heliologist like I grew up being but as Craig said you know your mind is being a true scientist that's what we have done we've grown up with our indoctrination and we've escaped it and it's like they say if a snake unable to shed its skin will cease to be a snake, it will suffocate it and kill it, we've shed our skins we've moved forwards, not saying we're snakes it's just an analogy but we can move forward into the truth and that's all we're worried about if we can see evidence for curvature okay I might believe it but there's no evidence of how convergence works he showed no evidence of spin he showed evidence of a pendulum moving backwards and forwards, he showed almost fish eye lens it's a wide angle lens showing evidence for curvature there's no curvature, as I said he's going to pay me £500 when I send him evidence of Eric DeBay's most recent video of the high altitude run and level and so basically I'm going to make a profit for once and a profiteering anti-flat earther he's got nothing better to do with his life so yeah, you can find me on my channel Iron Horse, I really don't care I'm not in it for the money I'm not in it for the following, I'm not in it for the fans I'm just in it for the truth and that's all I care about and that's why I'll come to these debates even as the last minute thing even though it's against Craig who's shown himself to be the most atrocious person to ever have to debate against on the whole entire internet maybe Professor Dave comes closer I don't know but otherwise, thanks for having me and I'll gladly come back from the channel and defend my position any all time Woohoo! Thank you both and with that I do want to thank you all for joining us out here on Modern Day Debate we are a neutral platform welcoming everybody from all walks of life if you're looking for more fantastic debates in the future please don't forget to like and subscribe including tonight's debate on Flat Earth Glober vs Flat Earther with our interlocutors Fight the Flat Earth and Iron Horse plus if you'd like what either of our guests said tonight all of our links are in the description below if you're looking for more fun after the show there will be an after party on the MDD Discord and with that I am Amy Newman with Modern Day Debate and we hope you continue having great conversations, discussions and debates Good night everyone Mwah! Thanks Amy