 to have you here for another Flat Earth debate, and we're starting right now. Dr. Randall Rouser and Samuel Nassan should be a really fun one on whether or not there's sufficient reason to believe in God. So with that though, one as you know, we're a neutral platform. In other words, we only have the debaters on in terms of we don't ourselves make any statements as a channel. We don't have any sort of follow up videos saying who won or lost. We'll completely leave it up to you folks to decide who is more persuasive and also only leave it up to the debaters in terms of making their case. So we are very excited to have you here no matter what walk of life you come from. And now let's talk about the format for tonight's debate. It's going to be Witsit gets it opening it up first and that'll be kind of a flexible five to ten minute opening statement. And then Richard depending on whether or not he would like, whether or not Beacon Gaines would like to do his opening. He may just want to jump right into open conversation in which case we'll go right into open conversation and then have Q&A at the end. So if you happen to have any questions, feel free to fire that question into the live chat. And if you tag me with at modern debate, I can be sure that every single question from the modern day debate live chat will be added to the Q&A list. Super Chat is also an option in which case you can also make a comment during the question and answer. And of course the speakers will get a chance to respond to it as well as it will push your question or comment to the top of the list for the Q&A. With that, very excited to have these guys here. I want to give a huge thanks. It's good to have you guys. It's a true pleasure. And so thank you very much both Beacon Gaines and Witsit gets it. We appreciate you guys hanging out here. Hope you guys are doing well. Thanks for being here with us. I'm glad to be here, man. Absolutely. So with that, I will hand it over to Witsit gets it, but do want to mention one last thing before we do get started. In particular, both of these gentlemen are linked in the description. So that way if you're listening, you're like, hmm, I like that. I want to hear more. You can hear more. That's why I put these guys' links in the description just for you. So with that, Witsit gets it. The floor is all yours. Thanks so much for being here. Yeah, of course. All right. So I guess I'll just lay this out in hopes to save some time. Typically what globe erthers do is they want to press you with some model so that they can try to figure out what's wrong with it. The issue with that is we make a general, you know, surface claim being a descriptor of the surface being flat. We don't claim a definitive model or I certainly do not. We don't have access to all the information required to formulate a definitive model. But of course, as it is known in intellectual form, when you make a positive claim, you have the burden of proof in my only positive claim is a general descriptor of the surface of the earth being flat. The globe earth is a positive claim of specificity. It claims axial rotation, right? 1040 miles per hour east spinning at the equator, you know, a circumference, a radius. It claims a orbital trajectory, heliocentrism, a plethora of very specific claims that come with the globe earth. Thus they have the burden of proof. So simply all globe erthers typically do is they shift the burden of proof, which is a fallacy, and then they attack a strawman model, which is a fallacy, right? So really the falsification of the positive claim of the globular heliocentric earth is independent of me giving you a definitive model. And I think that will save us some time. Hopefully it usually doesn't even with that preface. But that is not really like a debatable things to just intellectual forum. You make a positive claim of specificity, you have the burden of proof of specificity. So we're looking for proof that the earth globe that's spinning. And, you know, this magic cartoon medium that defies natural law. And we get to find I've been looking for five years, it doesn't exist. Now, people don't normally think like this. They assume everyone knows the earth's a globe. So, you know, I just have to prove it's not flat or something. But when you make a positive claim, you have a very simple. I've been looking for five years. There is no empirical verifiable evidence that the earth is a globe, literally, literally. And yeah, we have dozens and dozens of observations that demonstrate the curvature rate being falsified. So that's, that's really the preface. You have to get into any intricacies beyond that. But just to kind of like preemptively point that out, you know, like beyond the lookout for the typical fallacious reasoning that comes from clubs. And that is reification fallacy, strongman fallacies, shifting the burn of food fallacies, begging the question fallacies. And this is what we'll hear a lot. But it's typically not even intentional. But hopefully that will be a beneficial preface. And yeah, that's pretty much it, man. Okay, good. Okay, so that actually makes things a bit simpler. Now, you said that you're just making a simple claim that the earth is flat. You're not trying to create any kind of specific model that I can try and pick apart. Well, look, I think you do have a model for what is most likely, you know, the shape of the earth, how the countries are laid out. Like, you wouldn't believe that, like, let's say there's two sides of the flatter and some countries are one side and some countries are on the other side, right? Well, sure. Yeah, you just made up some random crazy far fish model. Of course, I don't know if you're to that. Okay, so, okay, right. So there's only basically one real side of the flat earth where, you know, earth's inhabitants are on like all the major countries. Yeah, sure. Okay, and do you also believe that at any one time half of the earth is eliminated by the sun? Yeah. Okay. So then you do have, like, a basic model. Well, I know that not the entire earth is lit up by the sun at the same time. Sure. News in the sky over top of us and we have seasons in a day and night cycle. I don't claim a proportionate land mass layout. I don't claim a definitive model. Okay, well, fair enough, but I mean, don't you think that immediately creates an issue where if half of the earth's surface is eliminated, but the sun is constantly in a position where it could eliminate the entire planet? What is the first of all, you just presuppose the planet. And secondly, why are you assuming that? Why would you assume it would light up the whole earth? Well, because it's over top, right? So, well, let's, I think I know where you're getting with this, where light can't travel infinitely. It's called attenuation. Okay. Well, the problem here is if half of the earth's surface is illuminated, then it doesn't make any sense to say that light has a finite distance that can travel because at one time, at one, at the middle point of the flat earth, light will just suddenly abruptly stop. But at the end point, it'll also just suddenly abruptly stop when it's, when, is there a way to like actually screen share just so I can. Yes. So how do I screen share just so it's easier for me to get a visual. You bet. On the bottom of your zoom window, there's usually a green button and it'll have a share screen. Okay, cool. Um, all right, I'll share screen here. So let me just try to get this right so this is basically are you guys seeing this. Yeah. Okay, so this is basically the model essentially that you're supposing right like it doesn't doesn't necessarily look exactly like this. In space, not one flatter. There actually things that Okay, so we're not a disc. What's the shape. We're not a disc in space that's just like, you know, the next to some spherical planets and just a disc in space or accelerating this anything like that. We're basically the basement, like everything revolves over top of us. No one thinks for some disk out in some universe. Okay, so that's the first issue. In fact, I already answered this question. It's called attenuation. Okay, well, okay, well, regardless, let's say it's it's not a disk. You are saying the earth is flat, and you are saying the sun is over top of the earth, correct. That's correct. And it's over top of the earth constantly, like it never dips below. Okay, so right, then you have an issue here because look if we're going to have a cutoff point right here, like half the earth is illuminated at any one time. Well, the distance between here to here is shorter than the distance between the edge to the sun. So you're just making an arbitrary cutoff point like you're saying light can only travel a finite distance. Well, if it can only travel a finite distance, then you wouldn't have half of the earth illuminated at any one time. So that's attenuation is We'll explain it to me attenuation is an extinction limit of light atmospheric extinction. It's called attenuation. This is scientifically known. So yeah, light has an attenuation rate. So it has an extinction limit due to, you know, atmospheric extinction, i.e. attenuation. Very soon. So yeah, of course, there's the sun's light only goes so far is called attenuation. How do I turn off screen shape? Okay, it gave me like a totally different window and it's like white. It's weird. Sure. If you could do that, I appreciate it. Thanks. Okay, um, okay, I didn't hear a, I didn't hear an explanation that satisfied me. Like again, if you're going to claim that half the earth is illuminated at any one time. Then you're going to have to explain how half of the earth would be illuminated, but you're going to say that light has a finite distance in which it just stops. Are you disputing attenuation? Because this is scientifically known and accepted atmospheric extinction. Okay, so, okay, wait, so, so you're saying that the atmosphere is what makes light just suddenly stop. It doesn't suddenly stop. Stop its gradual dissipation. It has an attenuation rate. Okay, and you're saying that attenuation rate is different in the middle of the earth, rather than towards the sides or edges. No, why would that, well, why would you say that? Well, it would have to. Like again, half of the earth is illuminated at any one time and the distance between, look, the distance between the edge of the earth and the sun is going to be different than the sun in the middle of the earth. Yeah, yeah, how do you know where the edge of the earth is? Okay, well, I mean, you can take a, you can take a drone up and I guess we could, we could just see where the edge of the earth is, right? That's illegal. It's illegal to take a drone up and go towards past the sixth parallel. Yes. Okay, well, it's illegal. Okay, I don't even understand why it matters where the edge of the earth is. It's just because you just keep on saying half the earth. Remember, you have no idea what the entirety of the earth is. And I said that in the preface. In addition, note the earth, the sun revolves over top of us in, you know, circuit specific to the time of year. And it has an attenuation limits. It isn't even complicated. Light doesn't go forever in an atmosphere. It has atmospheric extinction limit called attenuation, you know, so. Okay, sure. But I mean, we can determine where, like I mean, again, even if you're going to play this game where you just say, oh, I don't know where the edge of the earth is. I don't know where like certain things are. I'm not making any kind of accurate model for you to pick apart. Like, I mean, we can know for sure that Australia is in a different time zone than US and Canada. I mean, we can do that for all of the, like, every country. So, I mean, again, we still have the same issue where we still have the same issue where half of the populated earth. Because you're saying like, I don't know, Earth could like theoretically go on infinitely. Half of the, half of the populated earth is illuminated at any one time. But the distance between the middle of the populated earth to the sun is shorter than the distance of the edge of the populated earth. So you have the same issue. I said edge of the populated earth. So, okay, well, the sun, how do we know the limitation of the circuit of the sun? Well, how do I know the sun may go further than we're allowed to go? We're not allowed to go past the 60th parallel. I didn't make that rule. That's just a real thing. It's called the NR to treat. You can't go past the 60th parallel without being subject to monitoring and on proof guided tour. You can't bring external fuel supply or water supply or mechanic equipment. And every country major world power in the world agreed to it after Operation High Jump, a military operation by the U.S. government to explore and they signed the NR treaty and pounding NASA in a handful of years, maybe a decade. That's real. I'll just read it. I know you can't go. Well, that's fine. Well, look, that's fine. It doesn't even matter. Like, again, you still have the same issue where even if you're going to make this claim that, you know, what is it, solar attenuation or something or atmospheric attenuation where light can't travel infinitely in an atmosphere. Still, if we're talking about the populated portions of earth where I mean you can have a Skype call with someone in Australia or Japan like the opposite side of the earth. At this time it's like nine it would be morning for them. Like, look, you can deter you can use the sort of thing to just easily determine where the sun like where the sun is hitting on the earth but like again, the center point of, you know, the the middle of the populated portion of earth. It's closer to the sun than the endpoint or the edge of the populated earth. So if you're going to use this, you know, atmospheric attenuation thing, well then the atmosphere stops light at different portions and it just seems completely arbitrary. It just doesn't make any sense. This is just an excuse that doesn't pan out. You haven't even researched flat earth. Why would you come from flat earth debate? Well, look, I've actually done a fair bit of research on flat earth and I'm well aware of this argument and it just doesn't make any sense if you're going to use this atmospheric attenuation argument. Well then like there's arbitrary points in which light can still travel and light can't travel and it just sounds like complete nonsense. Well, no, what's what's nonsense is that you're just saying fake sentiments and you're not even, you know, offering substantive specificity as to what exactly your argument is. But regardless, the sun moves a certain way over top of us. Our day and night cycle and season cycles are relative to that. We don't know the entirety of it and there's something called attenuation. Are you suggesting that light goes forever in the atmosphere because it's scientifically known that isn't the case. So it has extinction limits relative to its position over top of the earth. It is it's literally that simple. And again, though, again, what's so funny? Can we prove the globe Earth please? Because there should be thousands of proofs at the Earth's the globe is 2020. So can we just. Okay, sure. Take a flight in a U2 or an SR 71 Blackbird at around 70,000 feet. It's not even the max altitude of those aircrafts and you can very easily see a curvature of the earth. Okay. You don't even need to go into a spaceship or go on the space station or anything. Just go into a high altitude plane. It's pat me false. So yeah, you choose go about 70,000 feet or so. Do you know who Neil deGrasse Tyson is? Yeah. He says, okay, Felix Bum Garner, you know the red bull jump, he jumped from 128,000 feet. And he shows a huge curvature and he said that he saw the curvature. So then we sent private weather balloons up high altitude weather balloons of 120,000 feet. And we saw flat horizon that rose to eye level. So showing that that footage wasn't real. Well, then Neil deGrasse Tyson came out. He said, no, you would never see curvature from where Felix Bum Garner jumped at 128,000 feet. From there, you would be two millimeters off this beach ball and that stuff would be freaking flat. So even this top proponent of the global legend says that you would never see curvature from 120,000 feet. So 70,000 feet is 50,000 less than that. We've sent high altitude footage up there. You don't see curvature. So it's just a common misconception. People presuppose these things, but they don't look into it. If I can't see curvature from 128,000 feet, according to one of the top leading actual physicists of your model, then how could I see it at almost half that distance? Okay, wait. You said you sent up a weather balloon. Hi, hi altitude weather balloons that go about 120,000 feet. Okay, so did you actually verify the altitude? Yeah, it has a meter that knows the altitude. This has been done by a lot of people. So are you saying, can you show me the footage? I didn't do it. Okay, well, can you like, can you link me a video where they did where they used footage of 120,000 feet in the air and they looked at to see whether or not the earth had a curvature? Yeah, sure. Can someone link one of the dozens of videos this guy didn't research in the chat for me please. No, look, I've seen the I've seen this sort of thing. I've seen plenty ignored my whole point. A top astrophysicist proponent of your model said you can't see footed or curvature from 128,000 feet to meal. You'll digress. Okay, where's the quote of him saying that. Okay, I guess I'll find that video too. And when you think I'm making this up on a live paper, it's a video of him saying it on stage. Okay. The thing is, I mean, there's video footage of people going up into SR 71s you to they go around 70,000 feet and they claim they can see a curvature. They're, I mean, there's also video where you can see the curvature. There's also other weather balloon experiments where you can see the curvature the use of weather balloons. You know, certain lenses can impose a curvature on the horizon. Okay, well, not that like not to that extent, like I know what barrel distortion like, dude, I know a barrel distortion is I've done photography for a long time you can't just get away with using like a fisheye lens and not having anyone notice. You're going to have a certain amount of barrel distortion with any kind of lens unless it's a really highly telescope a telescopic lens, but I mean a wide angle zoom of like even 14 millimeters on a full frame. It's not going to distort the image to the extent where you could see a huge curvature when something should be just flat. And again that sort of distortion would be visible throughout the entire image it wouldn't just be only the earth but not the people and all of the other things in the foreground. And on top of that as the camera moves you would see the distortion change so you would reach a point where the earth would be flat, or it would have like a weird kind of dip in it. So, no, this doesn't make any sense. If you're going to make this like barrel distortion claim, well okay if they're using a lens that would distort the image, then if they tilted downward so the horizon line is below the center point of the frame, then you'd see the curvature go this way. And if you tilt up, you'd see it curve this way you don't see that in any of the footage. Actually, I've seen tons of footage that go where this present that's exactly happened because of the lack of stability of the weather balloon T horizon goes convex and concave over and over. Well, I don't, I just don't think you look, dude, there are there are dozens one second footage where we see a flat horizon and wait one second I do want to I want to just quick ask forgive me with it. I'm so sorry for interrupting but but if you happen to have headphones I just realized there is a little bit of feedback. If you don't it's not a big deal we can keep going and people can still understand you but there's a little bit of feedback just in case you have headphones handy. And also want to remind you folks both with it gets it and vegan gains I put their links in the description for you folks so that way if you're listening and you're like I like that you can hear plenty more where that came from so appreciate that and thanks so much for your questions and yes someone asked as well regarding the light so basically the reason that my studio sometimes lights up is we tried a new app called Lumia basically green is like a new subscriber and we say welcome thanks so much for being here with us and then red is when a super chat happens the studio flashes red and with that pardon my interruption with it gets it so sorry about that but just want to we've got some audio divas out there you know say hey we're getting we're getting viewed back so anyway thanks for that. Yeah I think you should work. Okay, can you can you hear me. Thanks so much it's clear. Okay. Okay, you mentioned that there's some videos where you know you take you take a camera up in a weather balloon and you can see the distortion of the lens and it makes the earth curve this way curve downwards. I think there's a few explanations for that so one is it's it's the shutter speed of the camera. So if the shutter speed of the camera isn't particularly fast and it's at a low shutter like 30 and the gyration of the camera is really rapid. You're going to you're going to get those sorts of artifacts where it'll it'll work. It'll work the. It'll just work the image. I think a lot of people who are in the film industry are like a really are really well aware of this if you're ever shooting any kind of moving action. So if you consider shutter speed of the camera because if you do a quick pan, it'll actually make it so that everything goes tilted, or it'll actually have a curve to it. There's a fly in front of me. So, like, look, again, if you like if you look at images from the International Space Station photos and videos captured from high altitude aircraft like you to SR 71 blackbirds. There's accounts of people who have been up at that altitude. Again, there's just a myriad of photos and videos proving this. Even without using any of that like let's just say it's all staged it's fake it's. Well, no you can't use it because the top of your model says you can't see curvature at 120,000 feet. Look, look, I literally don't care what Neil deGrasse Tyson said I don't care. Like if Neil deGrasse Tyson said, look, if Neil deGrasse Tyson agreed with you that the Earth is flat. No, it's just the leading proponents of your model is your own. Okay, well cool. If Neil deGrasse Tyson said the Earth is flat, would that prove the Earth is flat? No, we already did that. Okay, so then what he says, okay, so then what he says doesn't matter. You can see a curvature to the Earth at 70,000 feet in the SR 71 footage. You're saying you know more about the curvature of the Earth than one of the leading astrophysicists of your model. Sure. Look, I've never seen this video clip. Look, he could be wrong. He could have misspoken. This might have been an issue that he didn't really research or look at. Look, I don't care what he says. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson could come out tomorrow and say the Earth is flat. That doesn't prove the Earth is flat. What he says doesn't prove any kind of fact. Like, look, there's video and photo evidence of people in U2s, SR 71 Blackbirds. Those planes have max altitudes of like around 80, 85,000 feet. You can see the curvature of the Earth. People who find those planes also just anecdotally report seeing a curvature. And again, there's footage from the International Space Station where you can see the curvature. You can even see frigging live streams from the International Space Station. Can we stop monologuing broke? Can you make one of your false claims so I can obliterate it one at a time? Because you're just monologuing. Okay, no. You asked me to respond and I responded. But I need to be fair, each one of your claims require a sponsor specialist. Okay, we'll get to the eyes as he wants you, but you're saying that there are pictures of curvature at 78,000 feet. Okay, have you been in one of these planes? No, you're evoking someone else's anecdotal experience in addition. The research, the manufacturing of the windows. Are they triple plane? Do they impose a curvature? Those are real. I have the patents. You're laughing, but I've read that it's so funny. Glover, there's never been any of this research and they know more about it. So you can look at the patents of certain planes. They impose a curvature. This is openly known. In addition, I've been in commercial planes, at least you didn't, but that some Glover can do. I didn't see a curvature. Yeah, they're at 35,000 feet. You're talking about half the altitude. Yeah, yeah. I agree. That's why I said it's just a commercial flight. But I'm saying we've sent footage up to 120,000 feet, bro, and it shows a flat horizon. Okay, and I've seen footage where it shows a very clear curvature. But if you dissect the video, it will make the horizon fluctuate because of an imposition of curvature. I'm not going to say this. Anyone that actually researched it and I'm biased knows I'm speaking the truth. Glover, there's that argue for your side that our mainstream top proponents agree with what I'm saying. So, you know, you gotta do better than this. Your proof that there's a globe is some anecdotal, un-fairifiable, singular account of someone in a YouTube. You're just saying said soft curvature. Okay, cool. Okay, so look, you just said there's video footage of, I'm going to share the screen. You said there's video footage. Oh, I see it's on my window. So you said there's video footage of weather balloons and you'll see it's flat. Okay, well, here's a weather balloon curving, curvature, 100,000 feet above sea level. Oh yeah? Don't see it. What kind of balloons did they use? Okay, look, if, okay, look, if there was... Oh, look, it just went up. You just refuted yourself. Look, look, again. Okay, debate. Okay. Okay, look, wait, wait, wait, wait. Look at it. It's curving up. Curving up. Yeah, it's curving up. That's like, look, this can just very easily be explained. Look, this can just very easily be explained by shutter. Are you really going to double down? What? It's shutter movement. You're doubling down. Dude, that's just distortion caused by shutter. So look, you can see it moving. You can see it moving throughout the entire, throughout the entire thing here. It's only when there's quick, it's only when there's quick movements. Do you see that sort of distortion? Yeah, I know. It's when it changed directions and went up above the horizon, the horizon curved upwards. No, no, that's related to speed. It's not related to angle. Well, you're on record on a live stream just a few minutes ago, saying that if it was imposing curvature, that it would do just that very thing that your postulation just did five time. So again, the top opponent of your globular view though, since your model religion says that you can't see curvature 128,000 feet. Do you have any type of evidence to verify the specificity of the positive claim of the glomerates? You still have the burden of fruit. You can go to actual rotation. You can go to the size of the earth. Do you know what the size of the earth is? Do you know if there's circumferences? No, I didn't look that up. I didn't bother. It doesn't even matter. Well, I just think it's weird that we're the dumb ones and we know more about more model than you. There's a conference of 24,901 miles at the equator. It's a radius of 3,959 miles, right? And then applying geometry, we can deduce a geometric horizon or a rate of curvature accurate up to around 1,200 miles, okay? But a geometric horizon would take 1.225 pounds of square root of the observer's feet in height. And you can deduce where the geometric horizon should be. We go out and we test that necessitation of a globular earth, okay? And it's repeatedly falsifying. With the falsification of that radius, the entire model implodes. The current connotation of gravity requires that number. Orbital trajectories, day and night cycles, distances of a mile. Everything in the heliocentric model requires that 3,959 radius number to be exactly right. And we falsified it. And you still have the burden of proof to actually substantiate it. And you didn't even know what it was. None of the globular earthers do. I don't, it's okay. I understand that people probably think this is stupid. When they first hear it, I thought it was incredibly stupid. But it isn't. The earth really is flat. All you have to do is actually go research intelligently, independently without bias, and then co-test them for yourself with empirical verifiable means. So we can get into that. Okay, wait, wait. You have to substantiate this point. Okay, wait. So you're saying there's proof that the earth is flat? We, yes. If everywhere we go, there's no curvature. If there's no curvature. Well, you can't actually see a curvature. Even with your bare naked eye on flat ground. Oh, that's convenient. So we never see the curvature of earth. No, you can. No, you can actually prove it. Look, you've probably heard of this before. And I know there's a debunk. You're probably going to bring up a fraction of light or some crap. Um, sailboats when they go further and further out, you see that the actual boat portion disappears, but their sales stay visible. And I know the debunk of this, you can explain it if you want, but again, there's experiments that you can even watch on YouTube where they actually verify this is true. Cool. Cool. So when a boat disappears to my naked eye and then I pull out a P 900 and I zoom in and it comes back. I know. Wait, wait, why did it disappear the first time? What do you mean? Why did it disappear to the naked eye? Right. Well, no, it is. No, it does. It disappears because there's a curvature of the earth and it's going below the horizon because. Oh, and then the P 900 zooms X-ray vision through the curvature. No. Okay. So here's another, here's another thing that I can actually point you towards a video on YouTube. I'll share it. Um, people on my stream can't, um, see the video. So I'll just be courteous and open up a tab. So everybody on my stream can see this. But, um, so, so you can actually design an experiment. So these people, they, they got a boat and they also set up this, um, this tarp basically. So there's a red line, white line, black line. And as you go further and further out, the, uh, line, the bottom line ends up disappearing. And this is with that, uh, you know, special amazing magic camera that you're talking about. So the further out you go, it disappears. I think they got out to around two miles and, uh, yeah, the red line ended up disappearing at around two miles. So you have to go far out. I know the videos you're talking about where, I know the videos you're talking about where, you know, it looks like the boats disappeared, but they zoom in further. Well, that's just misleading. They're not actually out that far. Again, this is kind of like a photography trick thing. If you're using a lens that has a wide angle, it's actually, everything looks smaller in the frame than it does in real life. And it just looks further out than it really is. Um, with the naked eye, you could probably still see the entire boat. It's just the way they, they filmed it. It looks like the boats disappeared. But at around two miles, look, sorry. At around two miles, that's when you can actually start to see things disappear. You probably need to look out further than that. Um, to like have the entire bottom of the boat disappeared. Because you're talking about a really large object as opposed to just like a stripe that's maybe a foot, a foot in length. Um, and again, I mean, like even 17th century sailors knew about this sort of thing. Uh, why is there a crow's nest? You can see further if you're higher up in the air. And again, that's because of the fricking curvature. We'll overshot it. Stuff that we know more about. So the, I asked you a simple question. If the, the boats disappears to the naked eye, and I pull a P 900 up and it reappears. Then why, why was it like, I already explained this. You went on a big log. I already explained this because it reached a limit of perspective. No, no, I already explained this. No, I already explained this. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. Angular resolution. So what are you what are you talking about just like you're talking about a boat like okay yeah with the naked eye it's and you zoom in sure but you're talking about a huge gigantic object it takes a long time for that to completely disappear over the horizon if you use what they used there like a tarp with the different bars across you can actually measure when they start to disappear and at about two miles you know roughly a foot of the the cardboard tarp or whatever they use disappeared okay so again when a boat disappears to the naked eye you can bring binoculars telescope and zoom in and it comes back in a few eventually it will disappear again because it also reaches a limit of perspective on that optical equipment based on angular resolution and of course that makes no sense well it's just factual so it doesn't you know objectivity doesn't actually get into the confinement of what you understand it is just objective that things disappear when they reach a limit of perspective this is what you just said measurements are experiments right like measurements aren't science okay that's a math-described science explains just to clarify that but yes we go out and just make observations and dump the monster demonstrations through measurements that falsify the claim of radius so I don't okay listen what you just said what you just said it makes absolutely no goddamn sense if you're gonna make this claim that oh it's just too far out for the camera to to see why is only the bottom disappearing it doesn't always okay look look see how my hand disappears there is it because of me is it because of like some sort of camera trick where it's just going out too far or is actually disappearing behind something yeah good one dude um so anyway they don't always disappear from the bottom up right and you can replicate this with observations you can take a coin on a flat table it disappears from the bottom up tons of gifts we all have them you just haven't actually researched it so you haven't looked in the other side of me these arguments you're basically just researching butter the first time at a time and that's cool but I wouldn't I don't really see where the air gets would come in right so we can replicate that things disappear from the bottom up right on a flat surface using a coin okay if you stand at the end of a long hallway in the the ceiling and the floor will appear to converge okay this is just a known aspect of perspective okay so again atmosphere condition observer high arty and a variance of factors within the atmosphere conditions of course humidity etc temperatures then you will know exactly what your angular then impact will be on your perception okay look again you're using a camera that can zoom in extremely far none of this makes any sense why would it disappear from the bottom up then you should be able to give me examples where it disappears from the top up disappears from the top up sorry the top down I misspoke okay yeah they don't always disappear from bottom up sometimes they just change in like size and entirety as they disappear and again we can replicate this with simple simple demonstrations like a coin on a flat table but this is so crazy because why can't we just get proof the earth of all you know like there should be thousands of proofs can you substantiate curvature axial rotation you know an atmospheric pressurized condition adjacent to a near-perfect vacuum of 10 negative 17 torque and you just substantiate any of the positive claims of the globe earth we're constantly like if you're we have literally blown the entire oh the boats disappear over the horizon thing out of the water and the people that debate for your side every day they know this because of it's you know observations like the black swan which I can present if you were like right so simply the black swan someone took an observation from one foot off the ground and that means that the geometric horizon can't be further than 1.2 miles we saw horizon past nine and a half miles dude okay so you're claiming a physical obstruction of a geometric horizon we're both secured to the naked eye we're not gonna break on back but then at the same time you you're acting like that that is irrelevant right okay so okay so look I've never heard of this one before so you caught me off-guard but this is what he's this is what you're talking about right I've never seen this one so what do you mean a coin on a flat table disappears this is what you're talking about right what part of that coin disappeared first yeah the bottom and that's because the dude put the camera below the friggin table no I've seen one where he zooms all the way in and you can still see the quarter on the other side of the table which means it had to be at least above the table so he can see it no no dude if you put the coin below sorry if you put the camera below the table well the coin is above the table so the further it goes out the more the coin will disappear but you can still see it above the table hey dude so this is just like this is just like sorry but retarded bullshit I think that's the only word to describe it yeah dude but anyway so you wait wait wait wait wait I'll show you you can't you cannot do this okay pressurize system is adjacent to a near-perfect vacuum what are you talking about you claim in your model that a pressurized system is adjacent to a near-perfect vacuum what your globe religion claims there is an atmosphere with pressure and it's in a space vacuum okay sure the atmosphere of the earth has a higher pressure than space well they say spaces and near yeah sure I system adjacent to it yeah okay the necessary antecedent to gas pressure is physical containment so how do we have gas pressure on earth if it's adjacent to a gravity what gravity what what's gravity well the gravity the earth's the earth creates due to its mass oh so proportionate mass what do you mean proportionate mass well that's what it is there's new Tony and gravity proportionate mass you know mass relative and proportionate to the amount of mass right are you telling me gravity doesn't exist well I think it's funny you just made a positive claim math it's easy well no are you are you claiming gravity doesn't exist all right you do understand again that positive claims require the bird well no like I'm just asking you simple question do you or do you know it's a connotation has never been proven that is correct okay okay so if I jumped off a building it's not gravity that killed me yeah that's called notes that's called local downward acceleration you're laughing okay here we go I hope you keep up here so okay Tony gravity that's proportionate okay look if gravity doesn't exist how about you just let me talk sure so Tony and Greg you don't even know I teach you so we can talk about it sure so Tony and Newtonian gravity right is proportionate mass mutual mass acceleration this was actually superseded the current scientific rhetoric is the theory of relativity that was postulated in 1915 by Einstein also in addition Newtonian Newton didn't even postulate an explanation for gravity himself he actually wanted to be distanced from it in fact he said that do you think that this would operate on root matter and the vastness of a vacuum is to me so great an absurdity that no man was competent faculty of thinking and philosophical matters could ever fall into it he thought it was retarded anyway 1915 Einstein superseded it with the theory of relativity okay then their relativity made three claims he said that there was an attributable constant speed of light it said energy and mass are interchangeable and it said that gravity is the effect of more space time that's why I asked you to specify your postulation what gravity is it that you are invoking to explain going against a natural law the second law thermodynamics you said mass proportionate mass is what you're talking about right mutual mass acceleration it's important to understand little g big g will g is local downward acceleration something falling a we have attributed in general description of that being 9.8 meters per second squared that's a measurement a metrical description and representation of an effect of something falling to the ground your claiming causality my god so you are literally postulating causality and then conflating it with the metrical representation of the effect of local downward acceleration so it's preposterous like if I jump off something is that are you serious that's called okay you understand what a joke is see if you respond to any of that with specimens sorry you're calling me stupid because you can't pick up on an obvious joke I didn't know I didn't point you stupid I said see if you respond to any of that with specificity okay well dude like I'm asking you a simple question do you believe gravity exists or not local downward acceleration exists but no well no just it's just yes or no does gravity exist yes or no not in its current connotation okay so you don't think mass creates gravity that's right mass is not attract mass this has never been substantiated the empirical means well actually this is okay so when we can actually measure the amount of light that actually bends in response to coming in close contacts with gravitational masses not evidence gravity exists when they do this sorry when did they do this what do you mean when did they do this this is just something you can observe we can observe light bending because of gravitational waves yeah no you can actually know like we know that gravity actually causes light to curve it no you actually don't know that what experiment did they do okay I don't know this is just a well-known scientific fact so black okay so black holes don't exist either have you ever seen a black hole yeah there's video footage one CGI image compiled okay CGI okay that's what we're going they admit you take a do you know what a black hole claims to be you couldn't take a literal picture of it in her so they admit that it's not a oh yeah why are you diverting that was pure obfuscation dude dude you claim gravity can you substantiate it what's this gravity speaker brought up some mystical deified experiment to cop you out and you don't even know any of like look if grant like if all of these principles are totally false then like how do you explain how like the International Space Station satellites work if if the whole concept of gravity doesn't work then how is all of this math that we base it on all of this technology we base it on how the fuck would it even work like it's just insane yeah you asked a whole lot of questions so do you know where the ISS claims to be yeah it's within Earth's orbit what do you mean do you know how high they say the ISS how high 252 miles do you know where they say space starts where 62 miles it's called the Carmen line do you know how fast that the ISS travels pretty fast okay what does this have to do with anything you substantiate or independently verify any of those metrics okay yeah there's like yeah I mean look you're you're creating a conspiracy theory where literally millions of people are involved with these projects and somehow all of them can be tight-lipped and never say oh yeah it's just all CGI you can even see live streams from the International Space Station and I don't pass low-earth orbit you know that millions of people have to lie how many people are claimed to go past low-earth orbit do you know dude internationally yeah millions of people over generations that have worked in these institutions that have worked on this technology you're talking about millions of people who are all involved in these projects yeah okay but if someone sits in front of a screen they get sent data and they're told to dissect it and send it to the next guy that doesn't mean that they're lying they believe the lie how many people okay you know I'm actually interested I'm actually interested I'm actually interested to know why you think there's this worldwide conspiracy that the Earth is flat oh so now you want to divert no no no I just want you to to explain because like you're coming up with this like excuse that oh it's all a lie well you don't have any evidence that this is a lie so this you have to have some kind of conspiracy I guess you're interested in this conspiracy comprehension here I've explained many reasons as a lie it's scientifically illiterate okay and it has the burden of proof it doesn't substantiate any of the burden of proof of specificity we falsified that claim that is independent of speculation of motive although if there's more land maybe they want to hide it maybe there's more resources you give NASA 54 million dollars a day maybe they want you to think you're a tiny spec about 54 million a day nihilism so you'll be able to have a valuable state of mind and be easier to control simply knowledge is power it's much more powerful when you're the only one with it only a handful of people actually have to know that the lies going on so now that we've got the speculation oxidation of the way you know can we come full circle to why is their gas pressure on earth it is supposedly adjacent to a near-period second okay wait a second you're saying that this is this flatter of conspiracy is made up to hide resources no no no I just now said and practice this is speculation here's some potential reasons now you know you do understand that if you were to verify that's that they lie that's independent of their motive sure I'm just I'm just wondering why like why you think they do this I just gave you like five reasons no okay well maybe I wasn't paying attention but give me give me a few if there was more land they could hide that bus they could have resources we give 50 million dollars a day to NASA actually just got bumped up okay so monetary okay well look the yearly NASA budget is only 22 billion the US military they just increased the budget massively what is it like over 600 billion now well I'm saying you said why would they lie I'm giving some potential here okay well wait like this okay so this doesn't make any fucking sense you're saying NASA is like some like weird money hog and it's all conspiracy to get more money from the 22 billion a year likely reason they only get 22 billion a year the fucking military budget is like so much higher you want to argue over like speculative 22 billion versus over 600 billion why are you why would you just want to you know verify whether or not the earth is actually look and then go from there okay sure but I mean like you're clearly crazy is the point I'm making like dude you're just clearly insane is the point I'm making yeah but I'm think all the line is so well wait wait wait I like we can go back to the main topic in a bit I'm just really curious so we've covered the NASA money scam which okay that's nonsense what what's another reason to resource hogging I don't know if there's more land but there could be well look there's countries like they're strong and he at least let me say something first okay sure explain the resource hogging just speculative reasons I'll throw out there and the empirical conversation sure I can I can agree it with that okay so I gave you some speculative to play your game for a second and you want to hone in on each one of the random speculations that doesn't make any sense that's called obfuscation we're talking about is the earth a magic spinning cartoon ball brought to you by Jesuit priests okay that's who brought us the religion known as glow Helios at Jerusalem was the Vatican church we want to find out if that's true that's much we went out and tested Jesuit priests also partially big I don't really matter who did it but that's where it came from we want to test it for ourselves dude and we went out and tested you haven't and so I find it odd that you're so positive you know okay well wait okay you know what I'm kind of interested in this you're saying there's more evidence that there's a flatter as opposed to a spherical earth we've consistently falsified the claim of curvature the falsification of the globe earth is independent of a need for definitive model we don't have all the information accessible well that's fine look that's fine but what evidence do you have that the earth is flat I'd like to just know okay yeah I told you earlier we made an observation from one foot observer height on the coast of California the necessitation of the geometric physical horizon a physical obstruction of your model would be 1.2 miles at one foot observer height and we saw horizon yawn nine and a half miles a literal impossibility of the globe earth we have observations over 273 miles we have laser test over 25 miles that should have never hits their targets simply using line of sight what they did over and over we have observations way too far with a mile curvature and y'all will go as far as to do mental gymnastics instinctually and say well no it had to refract up over a mile and show us exactly what should be there as opposed to we see what's there and it's showing this exactly what it is y'all will tell us it looks exactly like what's there but it refracted up over a mile of missing curvature we have completed obliterated the globe earth claim of curvature in the radius of 3959 and you can't even answer one simple question show me okay dude why don't you show me one of these experiments so we're on the topic of earth curvature and you know whether or not we can see past the horizon on on water show me one of these experiments that you know debunks this you know horizon issue you can see this okay sure okay yeah so actually this is this is not the one it doesn't really matter so the observer height is 8 feet here okay so the maximum distance the geometric horizon is 3.46 miles you get that by taking 1.225 times the and so that means that the physical horizon that should be blocking your view you know physical obstruction of view due to a geometric physical horizon can be no further than three and a half miles look at the horizon in the picture it's beyond the furthest already that's okay whoa whoa your math is way fucking off so the earth would have to be tiny for the horizon to only go out to 3.46 miles no no no it's from eight feet off the ground you understand that's relative to then the horizon then the horizon line would be even further the higher you go up like what do you mean yeah but it's only eight feet that's why it's at 3.46 let me see if I can find you up dude your math is way off the earth would be what's the tiny what's the current I don't know what the like look I didn't bother looking any of this up because it's just not worth my fucking time but 3.46 miles that's tiny the earth would be like holy shit the earth would have to be smaller than like all of North America for that to be the case if the horizon line is 3.46 miles at eight feet in height the earth would be tiny okay this is your model's math I'm sorry you don't understand no it's not dude there's no goddamn way okay dude you should research this stuff bro don't you think I got a question would you want to know that sure would you actually want to know that yeah I would would you be able to help me admit that you were wrong about the earth being absolutely like if I found out that the earth was flat I'd publicly admit it oh yeah you have the integrity to swallow your pride and admit that it was I've admitted I was wrong about a number of things I look I run a channel about nutrition and some things were recently disproved with new research like TMAO and its effect on heart disease there's some new research showing it doesn't do anything before I thought it was a risk factor for heart disease like I've admitted that I was wrong about a few things but look that thing you just showed me where the horizon line should only go out to 3.46 miles at 8 feet in height that's insane like your your math is just way off I think you missed a few decimal points in your calculation there yeah you just you're way off the mark it doesn't even look look like you're talking about me like kind of deflecting and going off into a different topic you're all you have to do look all you have to do this is even besides the argument about how large the earth is it doesn't even matter how big the earth is the rate of the curvature all you have to do is show me that no matter how far you go out boats or whatever will not disappear on the horizon you can just infinitely see it that's all you have to do this math right here okay let's see the earth is a sphere with a radius of three three thousand nine hundred and fifty nine miles radius wait let me see radius of earth let me look this up okay so radius is it says six thousand three hundred and seventy eight point one kilometers I'm just looking this up on Wikipedia it's values range from six thousand three hundred and seventy eight kilometers at the equator to six thousand three hundred and fifty seven kilometers at the pole so the earth isn't perfectly spherical it's why are you teaching me how to know about your religion yeah yeah sure so down to the size of a cue ball smoother than a pole ball is what then every horizon distance measurement must be no more than one point two to five times square root of observers height and feed horizon distance greater than nine point four one miles therefore not he yeah okay what in that like wouldn't that depend on observer height yes it would you are correct so okay this is pertaining to you and it would also it would also be affected by the height of the object that you're tracking like again they coin on the table thing we're not tracking an object what do you mean we're not tracking the object we're looking for the horizon okay well well look the point is you're saying an object will not disappear behind the horizon so if you're going to track an object that's like a mile high obviously you're still going to be be able to see that object at an incredibly great distance because it's still going to be over the line of the horizon especially if you have like a very short observer height sure okay over the what the line of the horizon where's the line of the horizon in this image bro I fair like it where you see it this guy appears to meet the ground yeah yeah it's behind the furthest oil rig that's nine point four one miles yeah globe earth obliterated flat earth is not some crazy speculative belief system that's why it's being censored just so you know so simply the map that just showed you comes from your top proponent's own calculations of curvature we don't wait let me actually look this up like you're you're saying at an observer height of five feet you'd you'd only be able to look out 2.73 miles well that's where the physical obstruction that's where you have a metric um yeah I think it would be something like 60 feet so you could still technically see above it but there would be a physical obstruction of geometric horizon it's not there okay so there's actually a calculator you can use online yeah and it okay so let me okay I might as well screen share I guess okay this will stop you from sharing your screen I think that calculation is roughly correct again I'm gonna have to share this with my audience but okay so I'm just looking at this observer height two miles target difference 12,000 meters target size 10 meters zoom 3000 meters like I'm not sure if this does this line up yeah dude we got this from your earth calculate just so you know we don't believe in the globe earth it's a fairy tale pseudo-science religion but we got the numbers from your websites your proponents that make earth curve calculators so we could go test the claim of the globular earth the radius 3959 does an assesitation of a physical horizon that we have clearly refuted and with the falsification of the radius comes the falsification of the entirety of the model so wait wait wait wait wait okay so what you're disputing now is how large the earth is and how great the curvature is this doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the earth is even spherical so this is just besides the point well actually the whole model is wrong so everything that they told us is wrong if the radius is wrong now if you want to argue okay well wait no that's not true okay if the radius is wrong that doesn't mean that the earth is flat that just means okay the radius is wrong let's just say that the curvature of the earth is greater right right so do you know how big the radius of the earth would have to be for that black swan image to be on a ball 240,000 miles so they tell us the radius is just under 4,000 miles right it would have to be close to a quarter million miles for that observation to happen we know that isn't the case we can travel from location to location and the current connotation of gravity means that radius number day and night say we'll need that that radius number orbital trajectories everything about the globe or so that falsification implodes the whole model objective so you can't let go of the radius because the whole model is gone there but we falsified it and this is one of a plethora of observations so we went out and tested it for ourselves so that's why I always preface these are saying well look you you didn't look look you're you're kind of going off topic and you're talking about how if we can prove that the radius of the earth it's an improper calculation well that then proves the other side no it doesn't you haven't proven that the earth doesn't have a curvature the only thing you've really done is try to inspire the only thing you've really done is tried to get people to doubt like inject doubt by making people unsure whether or not the earth has a curvature like this doesn't even prove that the earth doesn't have a curvature the best it can possibly do is suggest that the earth's curvature isn't as isn't as great as somebody might have expected it to be and the earth is larger than we might have thought but it's not like dude some image that somebody took of like an like some oil drilling platform and then them saying like oh look how far out that is I don't see how that's really proof but I mean if you can't understand it that doesn't mean it okay dude objective okay there's a necessitation of a physical geometric horizon as a literal tangible physical obstruction of a curvature of earth based on we've proven that and I've already shown you a video proving that there is an actual obstruction by the curvature of the earth I've already shown you a video and then your excuse then your excuses oh it's too far for the camera to see even though it only blocks out the bottom and not any other part of damage hey man we have numerous observations also find your claim of radius so you're going back and forth are you standing behind the 3959 mile radius are you saying that earth just must be much bigger I'm not saying the earth is big is any bigger I think the calculation we have is pretty damn accurate especially since we have satellites now to verify this but we just disproved the well we didn't all you all you did was show me an image of like what an oil drilling site offshore yeah okay but the oil rigs are nothing more than a frame of reference of distance we're talking about the horizon the location appears to meet the grounds right it was gay on the furthest over your rig is a frame of reference of distance that's how we know it's nine and a half miles you can verify the distances on google or any map okay and this is a still shot from a video and it's been done numerous times do you really think I'm with fake stuff and fake numbers like what do I gain from being a flatter I get attacked for it I'm just not scared to speak the truth unequivocally we falsified the claim of the globe earth and I'm just saying you can't substantiate actual rotation can't substantiate you know sphericity a radius comfort you can't substantiate a pressurized system adjacent to a near-perfect vacuum violating natural law the second law of thermodynamics energy transfer right that's that's a natural law and you're claiming something anomalous to a natural law void of verifiability or empirical evidence that's a plethora of evidence are issues from an intellectual perspective and just get breezed over and people want to talk about what they think about a flat earth mile we falsified the globe earth I don't have to tell you why they lied to you I don't have to do you have to substantiate actual rotations sphericity and a size and you can't there should be thousands of proof they're zero I've been looking for five years the globe earth is dead it's 2020 that's why they had to censor it it's not a big deal we should actually all come together just accept it and demand that we're allowed to freely traverse the earth instead of fighting amongst each other so I didn't lie to you none of us did but they did why I don't know maybe we should try to figure out we falsified the claim of race we falsified so it's never been proven the earth spinning it's never been proven the earth's above all but we know it's a spinning ball even though all observations all of our senses show the exact opposite that and all of our observations when we go and test the rate of curvature show us the opposite that where we're missing a mile of curvature and observations seeing 273 miles we consistently see two part we consistently disprove the physical geometric horizon which is an cessation of the globe earth and it violates natural laws and it's current models just because it's a lot of points for vegan gains to cover and I'll give you plenty of time to respond being gains but I do want to note that we'll probably go just a few more minutes with the conversation and then we will jump into the question and answer as we are usually this is about when we would go into Q&A and so to be fair to vegan gains we'll give them a few minutes just to respond to that plethora of points from which it gets it and so you can have his own plethora of rebuttals so thanks so much gentlemen for letting me interrupt. Okay so look this isn't a topic that I'm particularly interested in so some of this information threw me a bit off I was just doing a bit of reading so there is such a thing as refraction and apparently it allows you to see a little bit above the horizon line so it essentially makes the horizon line appear further than it really technically is but again there is a horizon and it does cause an obstruction and I've already shown that in the one video footage that the YouTube clip that I showed you where they did an experiment and they actually went out about two miles and after about two miles they were actually able to see the horizon causing an obstruction so sorry was it the same the next day okay well it's going to be it's going to vary look it's going to vary based on atmosphere conditions but not to a terribly significant degree like again it think it might be a what like less than a mile at most I was just doing some quick reading on it but again um no you can't actually show that the horizon does cause an obstruction the image that you just showed there it's just the person who took it I was just reading up on it they didn't keep they didn't they didn't factor in the issue of refraction so you are right about the distance of the horizon line and everything but at that distance at a particular height you will start to see obstruction at around those distances for sure it's just that like you play this game where you'll you'll I I've seen flat earthers do this all the time where they don't use proper measuring equipment or proper measuring techniques and just because you see a boat that's far out in the distance that you haven't even recorded an actual distance of it's not like you lasered out the target it's not like you used a GPS to verify the distance you'll you'll just zoom in with a camera and see say oh see you can still see the boat so there's no such thing as a horizon obstruction when no if you actually properly conduct these experiments you calculate how far out the boat is you use some sort of frame of reference like the you know the cardboard cutout thing with the different lines you can actually prove that there is an obstruction and look and lastly I mean there's plenty of video footage I'm you can go on SR 71's you too so you can go on the International Space Station you can see footage from the International Space Station it all proves the earth is is curved there are people who've actually traveled all the way around the globe in one direction and they ended up you know getting back to the where they came from I mean there's so much evidence you know supporting that the earth is is curved and I mean if you're gonna claim that gravity doesn't exist well then that's gonna require some high-level math for you to like even disprove I well I think the trick is it's like we at some point we've got it if one of you is willing to defer to the other just because we give you that roughly two and a half minutes which it gets it and then I was trying to give vegan gains that roughly two and a half minutes to respond so let's jump into the Q&A so really do appreciate all of your questions folks I think at this point if you have submitted a super chat at it as of this point we can for sure get through with it and assuming that the Raiders got maybe another 25 minutes if you submit a super chat after and like it depends on how much time the speakers have I've got all night very sad but it's basically if the speakers have to go I we might not get to read super chats that are sent in from this point forward so do want a quick read through thanks for your super chat Anthony let me know if I mispronounce this Anthony secante appreciate it said had a feeling T jump couldn't handle witsit must have watched a debate of his and pooped bricks I don't know we gave a dumb jump is taking the night off don't worry it'll come back but uh Steven see thanks for your super chat said light is blue when James is thinking of T jump that's very funny yes that's why the studio is blue monkey cat Pat Pat thanks for your super chat who said why can't the north star be seen from Australia limit of perspective that's funny yeah it is Robert summers thanks for your super chat said how do tides work on a flat earth perspective and hi James thanks Robert hi as well how do they work on a glober oh title locking completely unsubstantiated requiring the reification grabbing mobile trajectory and scarcity and solidity of both optics the moon and the earth simply temperature and electromagnetic interaction with the water seems to play a factor gotcha and thanks so much for your super chat wait wait I actually have a question can I can I just ask you a question do you actually believe in the Coriolis effect like I don't believe in little weird fairy tales okay so you don't actually believe the Coriolis effect like you don't think the earth spins well yeah I don't believe in just okay so you're telling me the military gives information to snipers that would make them miss because snipers like two weeks ago and they say they never accounted for Coriolis in their life okay so have they actually tried to take out a carpet a target beyond a kilometer yeah yeah he said that at long distance you don't factor no I haven't I'm saying you don't factor in the Coriolis I've read the patents they say that if it's in the newest ones they say that it is accounted for it's just in the calculations already they never account for it I talked to one the other day okay well look I've known a few people who are in the Marines and they have told me they have had to take into account the Coriolis fact so maybe it's maybe it's just the experience he said next up thanks for your super chat from Roy Lindsay who said why do globe earth models give us right answers with it gets it because the globe earth was formulated over hundreds of years after the observations so taking the reoccurring observation and fitting into the confinements of a model that's working isn't a synonymous with predictability it's just a representation of reoccurring phenomena gotcha thanks for your super chat Dwayne Burke who said Nathan Thompson and fight the flat earth are now best friends forever congrats to you Nathan Thompson and fight Nathan Thompson himself thanks for your super chat said vegan gains first five minutes of researching flat earth ever I don't understand oh he's saying he's saying he's claiming vegan gains he's saying this is your first five minutes of researching it not exactly I've heard some of the major arguments but yeah some of the stuff about the the radius of the earth and stuff that threw me off just because it's not a topic that I care much like enough about to really get into any of the math but it's not the first time I've really researched it appreciate your authenticity and the phone guy thanks for your super chat says wits it gets it explain seasons such as day night in one model the sun revolves over top of us thanks for your super chat Maynard saves who says what scientific forces hold the flat earth together what what are you talking about why are you presupposing a necessitation of some mystical DFI force the current connotation of gravity was postulated to explain directionality on a ball okay wait do you think that all other celestial bodies are flat or like is earth the only one I don't know we just see orbs of lights in the sky that look like circles okay well yeah I mean you can even see like a planet like Mars with the naked eye and if you have a good telescope you can actually see it fairly clearly it's not just a light yeah but can you substantiate sphericity or salinity yes you can like we've landed a rover on Mars okay well there you go the pill to the authority of NASA okay so the government ever lie does the government ever lie NASA isn't the government must move 024 thanks for your super chat question for the wits it gets it please explain how an equatorial mount works on flat earth better than on a Clover's gotcha thanks for your super dwayne Burke who says big shout out to G cat thanks for that let's see we'll tell G man's cat you say hi general ball sack thanks for your super chat says let's go to Antarctica wits it gets it and prove the flat earth once and for all what's it have you ever lied in your life have ever lied yeah okay so we can't trust anything you say well no I would just saying like if we can't shift the government's provably liars can we blindly believe everything a government agency says okay well we we don't I'm just saying like if you're gonna say they've lied before does that make everything they say a line no of course not they give us a picture readings okay next up thanks for your super chat from Kangaroo forces question for wits it gets it the sun does not change angular size in the sky to an observer please explain sunsets yeah just look at uh sunsets recorded with a solar filter and you can actually bring them back they simply disappear relative to your perception observer height gosh everything Charlie Welch thanks for your super chat said sorry no cherry picking he says attenuation is accepted scientifically but is so but yeah but so is round earth so what's his issue standard flirth YouTube graduate oh snap wits it gets it are you gonna talk to you like that okay there's no empirical verifiable scientific evidence for the globe never substantiates causality or has a correlation with cause and effect with a replication of an independent variable that's manipulated in a pseudo science gotcha thanks for your super chat from dearest Kangaroo force says question for wits it gets it what is your explanation for the I know I'm gonna say this wrong Himawari eight Japanese weather satellite near real time imaging of the earth from space please don't just say it's fake if I don't know but I'm gonna assume that it's just like all the other spaces you see so openly admit composite images of compilation of high altitude footage projecting on a flat map surface wrapping around a ball and doing ours rendition composite imagery CGI NASA openly admits this I'm sure it's the same with that very specific thing he asked about thanks for your super chat Kangaroo four who says question for wits it gets it please explain a lunar eclipse try better than Nathan Thompson's weak answer oh Nathan they're coming after you that it's a light in the sky and it goes dark sometimes yeah yeah sometimes there's an obstruction to the celestial bodies but in fact look at the 7 million eclipse is called the impossible eclipse doesn't work on the globe Earth UVF century come out because the moon the Sun are both above the horizon at the same time and then horizon and the shadow comes in the wrong way and you're presupposing of course the physical obstruction begging to question sphericity and it being a shadow so yeah we just know there's an obstruction that's pretty reoccurring Anthony to contain things for your super chat said black swan train understand context that was the picture of the observer height that defeats and refused the global really are all things here super chat said reality show top flat earth top globe some scientist fund them for experiments and expeditions how can we make this happen that's a good idea Lily trolling for truth thanks for your super chat says roll his video again it's a black swan I don't understand black swan they mean like figurative or black swan is meaning that if you make the claim that all swans are white and then you find a black swan that falsifies the claim all swans are whites those images that falsify the geometric horizon or globe earth black swans they can't exist here's the globe with the size they say so it was coined the black swan gotcha okay we'll give a we'll give vegan gaze a chance to respond just in case he wants to because that sounds like that was originally for him and I let you answer the last one sorry about that I misunderstood oh so he's asking like how do I justify these black swans I think they're arguing that it's something to that effect okay well well again like these flat earthers they take videos and images and either their calculations are incorrect or the measuring equipment they use is inaccurate or they're just making a set like assumptions on things that they they just don't really have much of an understanding on like how light refraction can actually change the apparent horizon line things like that just because the super chat was originally for him I don't want to gang up on Decepticons forever thanks for your super chat said ask witsit how much he weighs on earth 170 pounds gotcha thanks for your super chat trolley for truth says witsit unleash the black swan gotcha sounds like you have a fan out there Craig Montgomery thanks for your super chat said hey Austin where is the barrier exactly I don't know we're not allowed to do that either it's illegal to try to privately explore that area but if you look at the class by military documents seems they consistently stopped at roughly about 70 miles to look up operation fish bowl etc. King 024 thanks for your super chat said question for witsit why did the oceans not rush to fill the lower pressure system of the sky above them if your answer is density then isn't the atmosphere more dense than the vacuum of space yeah water isn't the same as gas pressure gotcha next up Brian peck thanks for your super chat said the vegan gains has come a long way from what is the bearing days oh that was probably a like year or two ago yeah that I debated bearing oh gotcha okay and thanks for your super chat King 024 by the way I have to say vegan gains we are we would be honored to host you on the topic of veganism as I have to be honest the vegans that have come on here tough debaters veganism is not a it's not an easy position I think a lot of people underestimate it and so we would be thrilled to have you come back for that you know what you you said Matt de la Hunte was gonna be on soon try to get him to debate me he's a coward he said he doesn't do online debates but then I've showed him multiple instances where he has debated people online then he blocked me on Twitter for no reason so maybe asked Matt de la Hunte like why does he keep running away from the topic if he thinks it's so ridiculous I can I can see if he'd like to debate the topic and King 024 thanks for your super chat said fact for Austin or wits it gets it Jupiter is proof of gas next to the vacuum of space anybody can see Jupiter with a cheap telescope oh the telescope substantiated and it's a spherical planet made of gas in a vacuum of course and then you have to presuppose the very you know begging the questions gosh it's great Montgomery thanks for your super chat said what about all the other pictures from the same spot that aren't distorted with the bottom of the platforms obstructed yeah the horizon is an optical location so it's just an apparent location it's where the sky appears to meet the ground fluctuates consistently based on atmospheric conditions angular resolution and observer ice so fluctuates proving it is a solidity of some physical curvature just an optical illusion that constantly fluctuates gotcha and thanks for your super chat monkey cat pat pat says it to in a row first says wits it is an expert at word salad gotcha how do you like them apples with it and then they say why are the cranes distorted refraction in all caps yeah yeah but yeah refraction is always consistent when there's a compilation of atmosphere between doing whatever's being viewed but there is no specific type of refraction that can be invoked to explain the extension of a horizon certainly not that far we've obviously researched the robotals we wouldn't concentrate them in debates there is no invoking of refraction that's sufficient to explain the black swan it's the name gotcha thanks for your super jet Tim Pryor who said I love how flat earthers say there's no measurement of the curve but fight the flatter shows measurements of the curve to flat earthers all the time from a bunch of geo surveyors cool story bro tell them to send me the geodetic surveys I look at them look at a lot of them got never worked out next up let's see I'm trying to understand this one unicorn laser eyes does anybody recognize that name says who needs a radius vegan gains doesn't ha ha I don't understand is this supporting vegan gains or going against sure I'm but team pride Tim Pryor thanks for your super chat said except for Bob from globe busters proved the earth rotates thanks Bob and so that was the same person that was just opposing you it's it gets it yeah I know he didn't he was misrepresented taking out context so cool story bro gotcha thanks for your super chat from Raven zero says wits it me and my colleagues just run quick math over your numbers based on the information at hand and it's completely wrong try again it's literally from earth curve calculator so I just google that and you know read dried out Liam Murphy thanks for your super chat said so when I looked at Jupiter through my telescope and saw moons orbiting it is my telescope also part of NASA's conspiracy yeah you have to presuppose fear risk insolidity and whatever's happening in the sky does not correlate to terra firma general ball sack thanks for your super chat said what's better vegan gains you to the plane or you to the band the plane I'm not a fan of you to KO champ FTT thanks for your super chat said why can't we see the Appalachian Mountains from the Rockies or Ireland from Florida when the sun light is on all land masses at once you see what we deal with bro you this is the actual questions you obviously can't see forever I think you were just wrecked by a super chat resolution observer height atmospheric conditions got your things for your super chat from Cigafratos Arabia in the house says what's crazier flat earth or veganism or can we have both and we can have both bro are you a vegan which it gets it you what I'm not vegan but you're welcome to come to the flat earth team bro we don't have any prejudice over here gotcha okay next up thanks for your super chat from why I'm telling you guys vegans are tough to debate thanks for your super chat from oh wait Elijah Freeman thanks for yours said you my guy with it where's the sphere edge mr. vegan gains sphere edge I don't know what he really means by that but yeah the horizons what roughly 3.5 miles out depending like yeah I think it's that the true geometric horizon it's somewhere around 3.5 miles out gotcha and thanks for your super chat from dildo Baggins always good to see who says wits it needs a thesaurus for some dressing on that word salad yeah they always say that but I can't actually make you be able to use a decent vocabulary if you understand the words I'm using they're offering substantive specificity to my points next up Tim prior thanks for your super chat said and I have to call him out on lying NASA never says CGI they say photoshop learn the difference photoshop is not CGI yeah CGI stands for computer generated image where they do the photoshop that on a computer next up thanks for your super chat from KO champ FTC says wits it why do you they say quote why do you pick and choose science you believe in this portion of science but not the next nice vague comment boy of specificity there you got I only stick with empirical verifiable means of evidence by the way ironically thanks for your super chat KO champ FTC says earlier light less now there's light what gives wait sorry what was that they said earlier light less now there's light what gives where did the light come from the sun it's a tenuation of light man it just goes too far away what the sun just goes too far away for you to see it yeah yeah all right thanks doesn't dip below the horizon we've already established that thanks for yours to project Kika obichi says wits it what do you think about vegan flat earthers and different that's like I guess I'll give my opinion you don't have to be smart to be a vegan I don't even think you have to be a particularly good person to be a vegan so you'll find vegans with a whole bunch of crazy beliefs gotcha and doesn't believe sleep thanks for your super chat says for wits it why do you think spectrographic analysis only works on earth but not when pointed at Jupiter stars or the Sun it literally detects the emission and absorption bands of gas what okay the question is how does the gas pressure exist in the first place of the necessary antecedents to gas pressure is a physical container it's not a second to the question got you thanks so much oh dildo back and says he was kidding in his super chat I can't remember what it was I'm baffled but Nessa Tron thanks for your super chat says if the earth is flat why can't we see all the boats in the water no matter how far with a telescope good yeah the telescopes reach a limit of perspective guys come on it's really not thanks for your super shit wait wait I actually want to touch on that a little bit so if I had a drone I could actually see the boat see a boat at a further distance than somebody on the ground how do you explain that yeah altitude so you're able to see further the higher you get yeah because of the the horizon it obstructs so if you go above the horizon obstruction you can see yeah yeah yeah yeah I'm at the earth is curved no no it's not a physical obstruction my man it's an apparent location mmm next up KO champ FTT says light on all points should be able to see right attenuation next up Tim Pryor thanks for your super chat says I love how his response to everything I say is cool story bro and no Bob was not misrepresented cool story bro yeah they took out like a couple seconds of him speaking talking about how the gyroscope constantly fluctuated they had to mess with in a one-point shot 15 degrees so yeah that's misrepresenting you know what I actually I just thought of something how do you explain solar like how do you explain like solar eclipses when you say that light can only travel so far it's kind of weird but yeah there's still an extinction limit to light and then we have phenomena in the sky where there's an obstruction of bodies occasionally and you have to presuppose ferrisian solidity and obstruction mmm gotcha and thanks for your super chat from KO champ FTT says son on oh we know we unicorn laser eyes says thanks they said hello with it we are listening on 24 7 flat earth discord 2.0 oh yeah shout out 24 7 gotcha and KO champ FTT says son on both why can't you see them with a telescope perspective limit gotcha thanks for your super chat KO 24 says so to summarize all of which it gets it answers cool story bro CGI conspiracy presupposed stuff and the completeness understanding of light and how perspective work good job yeah actually no I just actually require you to substantiate your positive claim of specificity with empirical verifiability instead of pseudoscience and fairy tales brought to you by authoritative figures when you appeal to the authority of oppressors I lied to you I need some evidence empirical verifiable evidence thanks for your super chat KO champ FTT says perspective changes so we shouldn't see your son yeah limits of perspective gotcha and Paul Gaithke thanks for your super chat didn't see a question attached I don't know if it was just to support the channel or if you have a question fair into the live chat if you'd like me to read it for you you just put it in as a normal chat and I will read it want to say both of the speakers are linked in the description folks so if you are like mmm I want to hear more you can hear more by clicking below in the description box and the phone guy thanks for your super chat said wits it gets it explain the 15 degree rotation per hour with the ring laser gyroscope that was proven by a flat earth or multiple times yeah okay again it wasn't proven multiple times I've talked to him personally they had tons of issues with it the actual manufacturer of said gyroscope admits this and knew it they were trying to figure out what was wrong with it in addition that does not substantiate or correlate causality and effect you just take the observable phenomenon the effect and assume your presupposed causality of the deviation of movements it isn't how it works science substantiates a correlation between causality and effect as a plethora of variance of potential potential other explanations gotcha and so super teasy Tisman thanks for your super chat what about spacex live streams yeah the one that Elon Musk said looks so fake you know it's real thanks I don't appeal to authoritative figures thanks for your super chat from Tim Pryor who says does your phone have actual film in it no your phone computer generates the photo so every photo on your phone is fake cool story bro yeah that's nothing like the composition of four months of high altitude footage wrap projected on a flat projection and wrapped around the ball and then they bring an artist into do a rendition rendition I literally just quoted that verbatim off the nasa.gov website have fun with that what it was different gotcha and also let's see here thanks for your I think that we might be that might be the last question that we had yeah so macroscope thanks for subscribing just saw you subscribed and also I think there were a couple other subscribers that just joined it as I saw the green light flash so I want to say thanks so much for being here subscribing folks hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you're coming from whether be gay straight Christian atheist vegan non-vegan flatterther or glober we hope you feel welcome so want to say a huge thanks to our speakers as it's honestly just a true pleasure to have them the speakers are they are what make the channel fun so we really do want to say thanks so much they spent their time with us tonight it's been a true pleasure to have both of you vegan gains and with it gets it thanks for having me on absolutely so with that folks keep sifting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care and have a great rest